Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Unless an object has symmetry, a 3-D inversion will change it to a different object. For example, invert all 3 dimensions of a screw, and you have a screw with the opposite thread direction - you can't get back to the original object by simply rotating it. Invert a 1-D line-like object in 3-D space, though, you still have the same object - just rotate it back around. However, if you "live" in a 1-D space and you invert a 1-D object, it is a new object, because you can't get the same object back without rotating it through a 2nd dimension (which doesn't "exist" in a 1-D space). Basically, a body inverted along N dimensions in an N-dimensional space is not invariant unless there is a symmetry along at least one dimension, but a body inverted along N-1 or less dimensions in an N-dimensional space is invariant.
r9etb, I thought the question you referred to as "dim" was the most insightful one on this subject here (made me think pretty hard about this).
Inverison is a logical construct. It's a function of intelligence. W/o some underlying physical reality to provide the mechanics of that intellegence function, the logical construct doesn't exist. IOWs if there's no one arround to ponder, nothing will be pondered.
The physical universe is the set of all physical reality. Physical reality requires the dimenisonal attributes of location and persistence. Time is a measure of persistence. The peceptible universe is 4D. If one ponders a lower dimensional universe persistence is fixed at some sufficiently long lifetime.
An inversion operation is not an event. Your argument is circular. An event implies it occured at some point in time. Once again, where is time as a variable in the identity I posted? You still haven't answered the question.
http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/accident.html
I think the burden on those who believe quantum events are not truely random.
The problem you're both having is that you're trying to think intuitively in a formal system for which your intuition really doesn't work. The way you're thinking about inverting something is to turn it. There's another way, by the way, that that doesn't work in a space of odd dimension. Example: inverting a right hand gives a left hand. But you can't rotate a right hand onto a left hand.
Randomness is a property of event occurance in the system. It does not refer to causation. You said uncaused events happen. There are no uncaused events.
So then I have NOT decended into total Moonbatery.. Thats a relief.. Nothing worse that being a loney Moonbat in a real cave alone.. All squeeks then, are your own echos.. Thanks..
BUMP! [as if this type of thread needed it]
The social criterion of truth is one of the hardest to resist. It seems to be a kind of might-makes-right argument and presses its way into the popular conscience through polling practices. It shows to the poverty of the human psyche. At least we need not by cycloptic and accept it as the criterion.
In the opening of the Republic, Socrates' friends compel him to join them, and he asks for a good reason. They reply, "because we are more than you."
You ever play pool with Hume?
The statement could send Prof. Erwin Cory away humiliated..
But somehow it makes me "feel" better about myself.. Thanks..
You are a piece of work, Cornelis...
did one person really do all that shit, or is that kind of a "greatest hits" compendium?
I hate these threads. There are hardly ever any pictures of Ann Coulter.
Best post of the day!!!!!
Well, now you've effectively cut it down from "many" to "some." When you get to "a few wingnuts" then perhaps we can talk about their "wickedness".
If an event is truely random, explain the cause.
They're on every post, actually -- but taken from the side.
I am going to put a different spin on time. I think, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that time will be found to be particulate.
It makes for interesting contemplations.
Random simply refers to a distribution of outcomes for events. The cause is what drives the events in the first place. Note these are both general concepts. Pointing to a particular cause requires a particular system to examine. Do you have an example where you want a cause IDed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.