Time's Up, Einstein

It's SQUIRREL TIME!!!

 

Hope the squirrel did not get a D in spelling like the LAST TIME

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/wensday.html

 

HE CONVINCED THE TEACHER IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE!

NO WORD YET ON THE CONDITION OF THE TEACHER!

 

SPEAKING DOWNLOADING BRAINS, WEREN'T WE? HERE'A NEW TOY THE KIDS WILL WANT FOR CHRISTMAS!

 

NO BOOK, HERE HAVE THIS!

 

This way before Einstein

 

This one Too!

 

The 3D/4D Controversy:


It is uncontroversial that physical objects are typically extended in both space and time. But there is some controversy in the philosophy of time over whether extension in time is analogous to extension in space. Spatial extension is normally thought of as necessarily involving different spatial parts at different locations in space. (Although it should be noted that those who believe in extended mereological simples (i.e., objects without proper parts) would deny this.) A bicycle, for example, can be extended across a doorway in virtue of having some spatial parts inside the doorway and other spatial parts outside the doorway. Is temporal extension necessarily like this? That is, when a bicycle is extended from time t1 to time t2, does it have its temporal extension in virtue of having different temporal parts at the different times? Or does a bicycle manage to be extended in time from t1 to t2 in virtue of being “wholly present” (as opposed to merely partly present) at each of those times?

According to The 4D View, temporally extended objects have temporal parts, temporal extension is perfectly analogous to spatial extension, and time is one of four dimensions that are on a par, at least with respect to the manner in which objects are spread out in space-time. On The 3D View, however, temporally extended objects do not have temporal parts, temporal extension is very different from spatial extension, and time is unique among the four dimensions of the world, at least with respect to the manner in which objects are spread out in space-time.

On The 4D View, objects are to be thought of as four-dimensional “space-time worms,” each of which is made up of many different temporal parts, like the different spatial segments of an earthworm. An object at a time -- Descartes in 1625, for example -- is not the whole object but, rather, a mere part (a temporal part) of that object; and the relation between Descartes in 1625 and Descartes in 1635 is like the relation between the two wheels of a bicycle: they are different parts of a bigger whole. By contrast, on The 3D View, objects are to be thought of as three-dimensional things that are not made up of different temporal parts. On this view, an object at a time -- Descartes in 1625, for example -- is the same thing as the whole object -- Descartes. Thus, according to The 3D View, the relation between Descartes in 1625 and Descartes in 1635 is the relation of identity: each one is just the same thing as Descartes.

As in the case of the disputes between A Theorists and B Theorists, on the one hand, and Presentists and Non-presentists, on the other hand, the 3D/4D controversy is part of a general disagreement among philosophers of time concerning the degree to which time is dissimilar from the dimensions of space. That general disagreement has been an important theme in the philosophy of time during the last one hundred years, and will most likely continue to be so for some time to come.

 

Time Travel



We are all familiar with time travel stories, and there are few among us who have not imagined traveling back in time to experience some particular period or meet some notable person from the past. But is time travel even possible?

One question that is relevant here is whether time travel is permitted by the prevailing laws of nature. This is presumably a matter of empirical science (or perhaps the correct philosophical interpretation of our best theories from the empirical sciences). But a further question, and one that falls squarely under the heading of philosophy, is whether time travel is permitted by the laws of logic and metaphysics. For it has been argued that various absurdities follow from the supposition that time travel is (logically and metaphysically) possible. Here is an example of such an argument.

(1) If you could travel back in time, then you could kill your grandfather before your father was ever conceived. (For what's to stop you from bringing a gun with you and simply shooting him?)
(2) It's not the case that you could kill your grandfather before your father was ever conceived. (Because if you did, then you would ensure that you never existed, and that is not something that you could ensure.)
-------------------
(3) You cannot travel back in time.

Another argument that might be raised against the possibility of time travel depends on the claim that Presentism is true. For if Presentism is true, then neither past nor future objects exist. And in that case, it is hard to see how anyone could travel to the past or the future.

Despite the existence of these and other arguments against the possibility of time travel, there may also be problems associated with the claim that time travel is not possible. For one thing, many scientists and philosophers believe that the actual laws of physics are in fact compatible with time travel. And for another thing, as I mentioned at the beginning of this section, we often think about time travel stories; but it is very plausible to think that a story cannot depict things that are downright impossible. For example, it is natural to think that there could not be a story in which two plus two are five, or in which there is a sphere that both is and is not red all over. (This seems especially true if the story is told pictorially, as in the case of a movie.) Hence, if time travel is impossible, then we should not even be able to consider any story in which time travel occurs. And yet we do so all the time! One task facing the philosopher who claims that time travel is impossible, then, is to explain the existence of a huge number of well-known stories that appear to be specifically about time travel.

 

HEY! CB, YOU ARE REALLY TAKING TO THAT FLAT EARTH THINGIE HUH?

WHAT ABOUT THE MULTIPLE DIMENSION THEORY? .......THERE ARE LEVELS OF EXISTENCE WE CAN'T SEE, BUT EXIST MORE OR LESS SIDE BY SIDE OF US...SOME SAY AT A DIFFERENT VIBRATIONAL LEVEL....THEORETICALLY WE COULD STEP 'INTO' ANOTHER TIME, UNIVERSE, LAYER OF LIFE, DIMENSION......

WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.......I CALL IT LIKE LIVING IN A 12 LAYER CAKE, ...........OK! WHO WANTS THE FROSTING SIDE??

 

LOL!! SHhhhhh!! I'm reading........

 

READ FASTER!!! IT WILL BE YESTERDAY BY PAGE 120! RONJOR HAS SPOKEN!!

 

Maybe cochise can help CB break out of the two dimension world if he can get his horse to go

 

ROFL!! THAT'S THE KIND OF HORSE I GET OR THE ONE THAT JUST GOT BROKE......LOL!

GO PAINT! OHO, BAD CHOICE OF WORDING THERE!

 

YOUR GONNA MAKE ME SIGN IN AREN'T YA! LOL!

CAN'T POST RIGHT NOW, RUNNING SOME WEIRD SCIENTIFIC PUTER TEST....CALLED HOW HOT IS IT HERE AND HOW HOT IS MY PUTER?

 

Watch out Marja they can get pretty hot

http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/computer/parts/server_on_fire/server_on_fire_hr.jpg

 

OF COURSE NOT! HE'S DEAD AND WE'RE BLOWING ALL HIS THEORIES UP!

 

PIGS OR COMPUTERS? LOL! LOLOLOL! BIGC??