I don't know how much is truein that huge post that Fnord was replying to, (and I like to think myself fairly well grounded in that area) but it's certainly interesting writing.
I have found one flaw in the theory, in that time cannot be measured with respect to time. Ina metaphysical respect, time must act instantaneously, because if there were "empty" time between two points in time, there would be no way to find out, and since it is empty, it could have no effect on anything. There may be time with no events occurring in them, but the actual time is continuous. Similarly, though one can imagine a space with nothing in it, if there were somehow a piece of space where the actual spacial dimension had an extra gap between two points, there would be no way the "missing" space gould have an effect, and therefore does not actually exist.
edit - this is what comes from taking a history of philosophy class, a logic class, a space propulsion class, and reading a book by Heisenburg about the link between physics and philosophy. You can't actually explain physics without metaphysics, and metaphysics that doesn't describe physical reality is useless.
(
Or is it?, Fri 14 Apr 2006, 6:06,
archived)
I've always been immensely interested in physicsbut never been good enough at maths to be allowed to study it
however, it being 6:20 am and me not having had any sleep due to raging insomnia, I can't think of an adequate response to your post at the moment :(
(
Mushroom, Fri 14 Apr 2006, 6:21,
archived)
how about "woo physics"that usually works
and incidentally, I'm off to bed as soon as a program for some coursework I'm doing has completed its 20 runs. So goodnight, and good luck getting some rest
(
Or is it?, Fri 14 Apr 2006, 6:36,
archived)
