You have suggested that a valid observation on the concept of time is that it is a dimension. As such it is not limited, at least in the usual temporal definition of limits.
I'm not sure what "usual" means. It is unlimited in every sense that other dimensions are unlimited and I think widely accepted as such. There is an arbitrary forward and an arbitrary back depending on which point in the dimension you pick. Ask every person on the planet to simultaneously point up. Note that we don't have to observe the event to conclude what would happen. Everyone would point "up" and everyone would be pointing in a different direction from everyone else. Perhaps in a very few cases a person might be pointing up and that up is in the opposite direction of another person pointing up. There is also an infinite level of granularity in all dimensions. 1 inch, 1/2 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/8 inch ... to an infinite level of granualarity. The same thing can be done in terms of time. 1 sec, 1/2 sec..... Is it possible to observe the infinite granularity of time or an infinite distance. Our ability to "observe" has it's limits in technology, distance, time, and the speed of light. Does that suggest the possibility that there is an end beyond what we can observe?
At one point in time, some people concluded the world was flat. Look to the Bible for the "fact" that the world is flat. Some people also thought this flat world had boundaries, based on some analogous thought that flat objects need to end. Everything has a beginning, middle and end? Most people today have accepted that the world is not flat and one will not fall off an edge. Though the Flat Earth Society still exists.
The moisture/tree analogy serves me now.
Unnecessary and a distraction. There are things we don't observe and yet conclude they exist and events exist within the universe. The quite obvious example is fingerprinting. We can take a fingerprint in a particular place and match it to and individual and conclude that the individual was present at one point in time and touched the object in question. We can even conclude which finger[s] were there. We may not know precisely how that individual was transported there or what other events may have occurred but we do know with an accepted certainty that the event happened.
Do ideas have value as form and dimension? I see no reason why the same rules would not apply. So common recognition of concepts such as generousity as a 'good' value and 'corruption' as a bad value is not surprising and should be valid as proof unto itself. Proof that is confirmed by nearly universal acceptence among rational self-aware persons. The validity of self-evidence springs from this. Hat tip to Jefferson.
Good vs. bad is a matter of definition. Polygamy is considered "good" by some people and "bad" by other people. But in either event, we move to the area that is perceived as not having form or perhaps more importantly not associated with the physical universe.
We don't know whether the "tree" has thoughts, values, concepts of good vs. bad, etc. We just assume they do not. Is that "proof" that trees do not have thoughts?
Let's move from the "tree" to something of higher order than plant life. Let's take dogs. We know that retrievers like to ... retrieve. Some more than others. Is the desire to retrieve an observable event. Retrieving is observable, but the "desire" is not observable. Does desire have a place in the 4-dimensional universe? What we do know is that retrievers can be bred to "retrieve". Take a dog and a bitch each with a propensity to "retrieve" and the offspring will most likely have a strong propensity to retrieve. The same applies for border collies and their desire to herd.
We've been breeding dogs for a long time for specifically this purpose. What can we reasonably conclude? We know that observable characteristics such as size, fur color, head shape are determined by DNA. This is not under debate. Breed two border colllies and you'll end up with a border collie, not a retriever. The DNA determines these characteristics. It seems fairly obvious to me that there is some association between DNA and the desire to retrieve or herd. We can manage it by breeding. We know of no other way to transfer characteristics from one being to another other than through DNA [putting learning aside for the moment.] Though we don't know which gene, or genes, determine this characteristic. We don't understand the neural pathways that control this "desire" nor do we know how to observe "desire". But the evidence clearly indicates a relationship between DNA and desire.
jttmab |
