Comments on: Imagining the World without You http://www.process.org/discept/2009/10/11/imagining-the-world-without-you/ conversation and contention, for your attention Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:06:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Loki der Quaeler http://www.process.org/discept/2009/10/11/imagining-the-world-without-you/comment-page-1/#comment-690 Loki der Quaeler Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:06:48 +0000 http://www.process.org/discept/?p=516#comment-690 Well, the cone is really a subspace representation here - since we're talking about four-space/spacetime really, there's no way to get a good visual representation of something in that space and so a common trick is to drop a dimension. The cone in this case is really two spatial dimensions and one time dimension; imagine the finest smallest dot on your floor; now imagine in the next second, the dot floats to 1 cm above the floor, while growing constantly to become a disc 1 cm across; now imagine that over the next second, it continues to float 1 cm higher, the disc constantly growing to be now 2 cm across. If you can envision that entire process as a blur in front of you, like a photo with the shutter held open for 2 seconds, what you would see is a cone. (As a thought experiment, imagine the point becoming an orb, not a disc, which grows with time - how that would look in a photo with shutter length of, say, 5 seconds) Well, the cone is really a subspace representation here – since we’re talking about four-space/spacetime really, there’s no way to get a good visual representation of something in that space and so a common trick is to drop a dimension. The cone in this case is really two spatial dimensions and one time dimension; imagine the finest smallest dot on your floor; now imagine in the next second, the dot floats to 1 cm above the floor, while growing constantly to become a disc 1 cm across; now imagine that over the next second, it continues to float 1 cm higher, the disc constantly growing to be now 2 cm across. If you can envision that entire process as a blur in front of you, like a photo with the shutter held open for 2 seconds, what you would see is a cone.

(As a thought experiment, imagine the point becoming an orb, not a disc, which grows with time – how that would look in a photo with shutter length of, say, 5 seconds)

]]> By: soulboy http://www.process.org/discept/2009/10/11/imagining-the-world-without-you/comment-page-1/#comment-689 soulboy Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:14:24 +0000 http://www.process.org/discept/?p=516#comment-689 ok, so I've skimmed this twice, read it slowly in between both skims, and found the idea missing in a crucial point of 'how'? the analogy of a cone dynamic can be a quasi-mystical / scientific construct if used as a meta-phor what? Or rather, how? Why I comment is that this is the middle of a whole discourse which I haven't read yet. I am sure that there is a philosophical backdrop I'm missing here. Movement of information is a measurable effigy? I would hazard that quantum mechanics would also imply that the information would exhibit dynamics beyond a cone as information becomes a wave when many believe mythos and hearsay, and particles..well they are points from which any angle the light is seen. That could be a scientific discovery which =true now matter how many times you reproduce it, or the innate cliche that is many a pyschodrama. But given that you said we don't transmit/receive in light speed, then I prefer an osmotic/liquid view whereby currents (and waves) and this time particulate, are carried. And then there is sublimation. Please expand. Or at least give links. ok, so I’ve skimmed this twice, read it slowly in between both skims, and found the idea missing in a crucial point of ‘how’?
the analogy of a cone dynamic can be a quasi-mystical / scientific construct if used as a meta-phor what?

Or rather, how? Why I comment is that this is the middle of a whole discourse which I haven’t read yet. I am sure that there is a philosophical backdrop I’m missing here.

Movement of information is a measurable effigy? I would hazard that quantum mechanics would also imply that the information would exhibit dynamics beyond a cone as information becomes a wave when many believe mythos and hearsay, and particles..well they are points from which any angle the light is seen. That could be a scientific discovery which =true now matter how many times you reproduce it, or the innate cliche that is many a pyschodrama.
But given that you said we don’t transmit/receive in light speed, then I prefer an osmotic/liquid view whereby currents (and waves) and this time particulate, are carried.
And then there is sublimation.
Please expand. Or at least give links.

]]>