Re: Have you ever wondered.....

From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:09:25 +0100

Excuse for the delay, visitors again.
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:NqmdnZNbJ_4-IFfcRVn-qg@conversent.net...
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:41ca7a07$0$145$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:AaCdnTgMy46FVVTcRVn-sw@conversent.net...
>> >
>> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> > news:41c9c145$0$149$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> [snip]
>> >> However, in order to explain to you how 'space' is just
>> >> as abstract as 'time', we have to get the concepts
>> >> 'state', 'process' and 'event' cleared up.
>> >>
>> >> So, let's try another approach.
>> >> Let's go back to our process of 5 seconds, let's say that we
>> >> morph an elephant into a mouse during this period.
>> >>
>> >> First let's define the concept 'state'.
>> >> The process has two defined states:
>> >> -Prior to the process the state of the object to morph
>> >> is 'elephant'.
>> >> -After the end of the process the state of the morphed
>> >> object is 'mouse'.
>> >> States are situations, not the process.
>> >> Agreed?
>> >
>> > Agree.
>> >
>> OK
>>
>> > And the beginning and the end of that process were events of zero
>> > duration.
>> >
>> Let's not mention events as yet. That'll come in due time.
>
> I didn't realize you got to make the rules for discourse. OK, I'll play.
> It's better
> this way anyway. Now you can't claim that I just lead you in circles.
>
>> >> Now let's define the concept 'process'.
>> >> The process is the ongoing thing which takes
>> >> an elephant and turns it into a mouse in 5 seconds.
>> >> Agreed?
>> >
>> > That's what I've been saying. You're finally getting it.
>> >
>> Great!
>>
>> >> Now let's divide the period of the process into two
>> >> equally long segments.
>> >> During each of these time segments, half of the
>> >> total morphing process takes place.
>> >
>> > Let's not take as a given that which is being debated. Each of these
>> > segments is half the
>> > period of the process.
>> >
>> Sorry, should have avoided the 't' word. Anyway,
>> you understood what I meant.
>>
>> >> The first segment morphs the elephant into an
>> >> moulephant, the second morphs the moulephant
>> >> into a mouse.
>> >> One state added: end state of first half process
>> >> and initial state of second half process:
>> >> object is moulephant.
>> >> Both these halves of the process can be regarded as
>> >> independent processes.
>> >> Agreed so far?
>> >
>> [small snip of emotional content]
>> >> , yes.
>> >
>> Great!
>>
>> Now, let's recursively go on dividing each of the segments
>> yielded by the previous step into two equal segments.
>> With each iteration of this operation we double the number
>> of subprocesses after n steps to 2^n, and the number
>> of states to 2^n + 1.
>> With each iteration the difference between the period of these
>> subprocesses and zero length halves, and will become ever
>> more insignificant. Also, no matter how insignificant, it
>> will always be possible to apply any number more of
>> iterations of the division operation.
>> So, any subprocess, no matter how small, consists of any
>> number of sub-subprocesses and any number plus one of
>> sub-substates.
>> Agreed?
>
> Sure. No matter how small you divide a number, it will always have value.
> Again, all
> you're doing is repeating what I've claimed. Therefore, you never get to
> the point where
> a duration has a value of zero. Therefore, if an event is defined as a
> point in
> spacetime, and it is, then you'll never be able to sub-divide any duration
> fine enough to
> be an event.
>
I don't intend to get to any point where a duration has a value of
zero.
As we could not reach agreement about what an event is, we have
discarded the concept from our discussions.
No need to make statements about events as comments to my
articles, because I'm no longer discussing events.

Now, let's look at how we observe a process.

When we observe the above process, the observations
we use are a succession of observations of states of the
object, i.e., our first observation is an elephant at the
starting moment, and our last observation is a mouse
at the final moment. Any observation between the two
is an observation of an object which is not an elephant
and not a mouse, but something in between.
All observations are of a physical object.
So, observing a process consists of observing physical
states. We infer the process form the succession of
observations we make of physical objects. So, a process is
a physical thing.
Agreed?

[snip, we discarded calculus form our discussion. If you want to
discuss it as yet, I suggest you do so in sci.math] 

-- 
Regards, Kees Roos