>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:40:44 -0700, Immortalist wrote: > >> What sort of things are they if they are things? >> >> One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional in >> the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to say >> that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can be >> occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an >> existence in their own right. >> >> It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and >> processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and substances >> are to be seen in certain spatial relations. >> >> Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the >> objects and events that they contain? >> >> Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space >> and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more >> complex than just sustained perceptual constants? >> >> Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlyn >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ > >There are two 'things' here. The first is change, the second is the >application of numbers to change or time. Einstein showed numbers. >Time being change by digits, the more direct question is what is change? > >I think future generations, if coping drug free, are going to put numbers >in a more realistic perspective. We have gone ga-ga over them since the >late 1800's and have assumed way too much with them. > >Anyway imo now, the property of change is potential, it's state is non- >duration. Space is an arbitrary assignment relative to specific objects, >objects big and small that are still being discovered with each new scope. >
Jayzus, where did all the morons come from lately?
Hint: You're posting this claptrap to FOUR 'sci' groups. These are not 'alt' groups.
-- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine