Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Two-dimensional time and the friends of Whorfians (was:Re:Chinese dimensionality

From:tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...>
Date:Friday, July 8, 2005, 20:45
Hello again, Andreas.  I have thought on this matter further.

--- In, Andreas Johansson <andjo@F...> wrote:
> Quoting tomhchappell <tomhchappell@Y...>: > [snip] > > In my opinion, any person who has a spouse > > or a child of sufficient > > age, will come to the view that time must have more than one > > dimension; this is the only reasonable explanation > > for the fact that > > two people can meet, repeatedly, in a single location, > > and have had > > alternate histories during the meantime.
Moreover, they may have alternate histories of their last (or some other recent) meeting! /That/ is the /real/ clue that time must be at least two-dimensional. I have considered it further, and have decided that even a person without a family might realize that time is, in fact, best measured as a complex number, rather than as a real number. Any person who works for certain organizations -- whether for-profit organizations, certain single-owner or closely-held proprietorships, certain large corporations, some non-profit organizations, certain government departments, especially the military or politically sensitive ones -- must have realized, from comparing the project- scheduling and progress-reporting to actual progress, that time has both a real part and an imaginary part. ;-) That should further elucidate the two-dimensional nature of time. Once your children are old enough to ride their bikes out of the neighborhood on their own, you are forced to believe (by breakfast- table and dinner-table conversations) in alternate histories; and if you take a job that involves Gantt charts, PERT charts, and/or CPM charts, you realize time has an imaginary component, so it must be a complex number.
> > Is your Whorfian friend, or are his or her Chinese friends, family > > people, by any chance? That may be the real explanation.
> No idea, tho it does seem likely that > he's got neither family nor friends.
/Surely/ he has at least one acquaintance (if not friend) who is a native L1-speaker of some Chinese dialect, or he would not have made that very "creative" generalizing conjecture about the "dimensionality" of Chinese mentation -- would he? By the way --- is your conjecture that he likely has no family nor friends, a deduction based on his Whorfianness? Or is it based instead on information you have not published on-list here? ----- Tom H.C. in MI


Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>