Okay, so what is the “direct” answer?
It’s like the indirect answer but not so easy to find out.
What do you say? According to RM:AO “nothing is possible until something is impossible”. What is your answer to the question wether there is any possibility that something will happen although it is totally logically impossible?
From another thread:
“We have been through this before” probably means “no one else than you and I have been through this before”.
And that is a bad sign, at least then, if it is not explained that it has not very much to do with mathematics. It has very much to do with confusing the people, so that it becomes easier to reconvert science to religion.
I thought it was on an open forum. Very few people see any of these conversations anyway.
Mathematics has become merely mysticism for the masses, much like early Hinduism rituals - “seemingly profound”, thus alluring to the masses.
But among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least corrupted scientists.
The same is true of the other religions. Those doing the real thinking deep within the church are the honest ones, not those reporting to the public.
Yes. Those who think deeply are the best, and those who report to the public are the worst.
B.t.w.: If the term “universe” includes the term “space and time”, then the term “universe and time” means that there is also a “time beyond the universe”. What do you think about that?
Emmm … no.
I take “Universe and time” as a title meaning “the universe including time”, not presuming them to be separate entities.
As it has turned out, time and physical universe are very directly related and inseparable. The physical universe is the changing and time is the measure of that changing.
The universe is a space including change, and the measure of this change is the time.
It is kind of an interesting question as to which “came first”, the space or the changing? Is the changing creating the space? Or is the space instigating the changing?
That’s really an interesting question, yeah.
What do you think?
Well, relativity tries to claim them to be the exact same thing, conflating ontology. From my perspective, there is no existence without affect and thus change. And there can be no affect without distinction and thus distance. But then distance is merely determined by the immediacy of affect.
So I guess that I have to stick with the idea that none can exist without the others and thus none “came first” or “caused” the others.
Did you mean four spatial dimensions? or the “space-time” dimensions?
Either way dimensions are merely mental reference constructs with no physical existence of their own.
It was your wording. So what did you mean by „four dimensional space“?
Oh, that.
No, there are not 4 spatial dimensions in physical reality. In mathematics, you can have any number arbitrarily.
And when I wrote about Riemann’s continuum I meant the spcae-and-time-continuum, thus [i]three dimensions /i and one dimension (time) in one continuum.
To which I responded. So now I don’t really know what you are asking, if anything…? RM:AO uses 3 spatial dimensions and time as either a single or a 3 dimensional concern. Relative time is treated just as any other relative/subjective measurement.