[Vision2020] date today

Fri May 6 12:54:16 PDT 2005

Donovan concludes by asking: "Anyone want to talk about the probablity of 
time travel?  It beats the levy."  Amen.  I often find myself wishing I was 
5 minutes younger.                                                           

                                                             Carl Westberg 
Jr.

>From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>To: Warren Hayman <whayman at adelphia.net>,        Dan Carscallen 
><predator75 at moscow.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com, "'Donovan Arnold'" 
><donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] date today
>Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
>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
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯