[Vision2020] date today

[Donovan Arnold]

Mr. Haymen,

I was not calling you out. I was pointing out the fact
that all time once gone is always gone. Time has
nothing to do with what you pointed out.

(Pointing out the obvious) Dates cannot repeat. If
they did, it would be a horrible way of keeping track
of time because we would confuse it with other dates. 

I had taken all the ground work for a BS in philosophy
but dropped it my Junior year when I could not find
anyone with a job that had a BS or BA in Philosophy
unless they had a PhD along with it. So I love this
stuff read all I can on it, watch Discovery Science,
and have spend lots of time with theologians and
doctors of philosophy discussing, time, space, ethics,
photon tunneling,particle entanglement etc.

What you found, 5/05/05 at 5:55:55 (should be 05/05/05
at 05:05:05, there can be no 55/55/55 at 55:55:55,
which would be all 5s) has nothing to do with time. It
has to do with math. You simple pointed out that every
13 months and one day we hit a date that has similar
numbers. This is true for every numerical system that
uses only 10 digits, 0-9 on a rotating system of 12.
Just like if you only have ten digits you have
repeating digits every 11. 0, 11, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66,
etc.  

It is not fascinating to me because it has to occur.
The probability is 100% providing there are no other
external factors. What would be fascinating is if it
DID NOT occur again. If 06/06/06 never happened, that
is what would frighten and mystify me. 

You write:
"the concept of temporal duration and sequentiality
within the currently accepted calendrical system of
this country (including the modification of Daylight
Savings Time) as derived and extrapolated from higher
energy electrons within a Cesium atom expressed in a
digital mode, there exists a high degree of
probability according to longevity projections
provided by life science research that said persons
will never 
experientially encounter such a digital sequence
again."

Here is where your logic and physics clash with
reality. Your watch, calender, and numbers have
nothing to do with time. They are simply a crude, and
inaccurate, measuring tool of time and space. If you
doubt this, set your watch back and see if you go back
in time. If you do, I will admit I was wrong. :P But
guess what, you can "experientially encounter such a
digital sequence again.", provided of course you set
your watch back far enough. But you cannot go back to
5:55:55 because it never really existed in the first
place. 

Numbers do not even really exist (human made). What
they represent might exist. But not the numbers.
Numbers are simply a way of representing matter and
concepts. For example, the year 1986 does not exist.
It never did exist. Occurrences during a time period
we define as 1986 did happen. But 1986 never did. We
simply assigned that time period 1986 so that we know
how long ago it was. We can also reference it to other
time periods in proper sequence. 

There is only one form of existence for time, and that
is now. All past events and future do not exist, the
dates are based on assignment of numbers to help
humans reference sequence of events. We could, if we
want, just assign letters for years. Or do like people
in the past and call 1986 the 5th year of the Reagan
Dynasty. 

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold

Anyone want to talk about the probability of time
travel? It beats the levy.





--- Warren Hayman <whayman at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Thanks Dan and JFord, but Mr. Arnold has a point. I
> should have 
> qualified the statement a bit; I think I was guilty
> of what the 
> rhetoricians call "writer-based" and not
> "reader-based" awareness. He 
> was correct to call me out, but hey, what can you
> expect from a BA in 
> Philosophy from the UI?
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> For those of sufficient age and educational level
> (chronological and/or 
> otherwise) exhibiting the ability to interpret (not
> necessarily 
> understand, for that may prove another question
> altogether, one 
> including but not limited to epistemological or even
> cosmogonical 
> dimensions not within the intention of this post)
> the concept of 
> temporal duration and sequentiality within the
> currently accepted 
> calendrical system of this country (including the
> modification of 
> Daylight Savings Time) as derived and extrapolated
> from higher energy 
> electrons within a Cesium atom expressed in a
> digital mode, there 
> exists a high degree of probability according to
> longevity projections 
> provided by life science research that said persons
> will never 
> experientially encounter such a digital sequence
> again.
> 
> I am confident this disclaimer is woefully
> inadequate; further research 
> funding may be required. In the meantime, I just
> thought all the fives 
> were kinda neat.
> 
> But Mr. Arnold is right-- each moment is
> irreplaceably unique. Rather 
> like people. Some are just a helluva lot more unique
> than others.
> 
> Warren Hayman
> 
> PS-- If them sixes ever pop up, I know a local
> pastor with my vote for 
> President.
> 
> On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 07:18  PM, Dan
> Carscallen wrote:
> 
> > Donovan "nothing amazes me" Arnold says:
> > "You can say that about any time."
> >
> > Well, I thought it was cool.  Haven't seen
> anything quite like it since
> > 4:44:44 on 04/04/04.  If I see 6:66:66 on
> 06/06/06, I'll be real
> > impressed.  Or real scared!
> >
> >
> > But I guess ol' Donny J isn't awed by anything
> >
> > DC
> >
> >
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html