```X-Message-Number: 21000
From:  var s1 = "Azt28"; var s2 = "aol.com"; var s3 = s1 + "@" + s2; document.write("<a href='mailto:" + s3 + "'>" + s3 + "</a>");
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:08:12 EST
Subject: Re: CryoNet #20984 binding space & time

--part1_69.33ff2dd5.2b692c3c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From R. Ettinger:

> A physical system could hardly exist at a geometrical point in space, if
> there is any such thing, so it must have spatial extent.

That seems pretty common sense, but don't bet on it: Tensors (ordinary,
mono-level) are all about stacking many points, up to a numerable infinity in
a zero dimensional domain. This is done in relativistic thermodynamics. So, a
physical system can't reduce to a geometrical point in monolinear Euclidean
space. Don't forget "mono-linear"...

> Likewise, a system could hardly live at an instant of time, if there is such
>
> a thing.

It seems plain truth, but what about a system working as a movie film? It
could use a finite or infinite number of discrete instant frozen in time,
each with zero duration. The sum would have too a zero duration. If each
still "picture" is displayed a short time after the preceding, there will be
a feeling of continuity. think for example about one million picture per
second. On the other side if there is one frozen time frame per century, this
is more as ghost habit. To be sure, even a single instant has some time
spread because of quantum time uncertainty.

There is some interesting elements more or less linked to that: Assume there
is a fundamental law against backward time travel. It would say: it is
imposible to send in the past a time duration. It say nothing about, and
can't say nothing about something with no time duration. So an instantaneous
time frame could go in the past. Because in physics, anything allowed is
mandatory, that no back in time law predict the possibility to send in the
past a no duration time frame or a set of time frames with zero total
duration. A movie film so to speak.

>
> Of course, nothing is yet proven. Among other questions, we are still
> mostly
> in the dark regarding the basics of both space and time--objective time and
>
> subjective time. Still, the view above seems pretty plausible to me.
>
More or less, that assume that time is a dimension. This is the common
interpretation in special relativity and it works in this frame. I think it
would be sloppy to take it as a physical reality. I have said before that
time must be a simple computing parameter and that the second law of
thermodynamics is more fundamental: If a claused system has not the maximum
information content in it (it is not completly disordered) then there must be
another copy of it with full disorder. Time is the continuity parameter
introduced to make a link between them and going from the first to the second
copy. Note that here, the time arrow is defined by thermodynamics only. It
can be reversed in any open system, so there would be no law against time
travel.That is sad because we would have no proof of the working of the movie
film scheme.

Yvan Bozzonetti.

--part1_69.33ff2dd5.2b692c3c_boundary

Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21000

```