(Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0311020310.59a8090a@posting.google.com>...
j.schoenfeld@programmer.net (John Schoenfeld):
Time itself is strictly a non-recursive progression.
What exactly does that statement mean, and where in accepted Physics
is that precise statement from?
Most folks in or around academia maintain a facade of unnecesary
complexity [...]
... actually, you probably meant: a facade of excessive pedantry
and sometimes feigned literalism bordering on aphasia.
Furthermore, the concept of a non-recursive progression is a fallacy
as a progression is recursive by definition.
Case in point.
"Non-recursive" in the context above means the dependency of
events on prior events is not cyclic; i.e., no causal loops in
time, and no time travel.
No. To say that "time is a non-recursive progression" is to say
1. Time is discontinuous.
2. A progression is a sequence such that elements do not depend of
predecessor elements.
You are surprising me.
JS
.
