[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:Psychic Phenomena
Notice:Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:JARETH::PAINTER
Created:Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2143
Total number of notes:41773

149.0. "Time......?????!!!" by WFOVX3::ESCARCIDA () Tue Jun 10 1986 21:11

    Of the many of life's phenomena that exit, one of the most fascinating to me
    is this thing called TIME.
    I won't ask what it is....that would be too macroscopic a question
    to lay on anyone but I will ask what is it that our yesterday and
    nows have in common with tomorrow...that depending on who you are
    and how psychic you are you can "predict" a course of events on what
    will be that has yet to be.  Is there a commonality between past
    present and future? 
    Is time the same for every one?  Is my "now" the same as yours?  Can
    I go back to yesterday?  And is the idea of a space-time continum
    a reality?  And Just what does it mean? 
    Time.  Not enough of .....sometimes.  Too much....other times.
    
    Certainly something to ponder on given the time to do it.  
    
    What are your feelings regarding this thing called time?  
                                                
    Right now I just ran out of......... time. 
    
    Addie
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
149.1Too much or too little - it's all relativeSHOGUN::BLUEJAYDo not attempt to adjust your set...Wed Jun 11 1986 11:4214
    A couple of random thoughts:
    
    	When remembering "elapsed time", the more events that occured
    in that time, the longer it seems to have been.
    
    	When actually doing the time, the more events that occur the
    shorter the time seems to be. 
    
    I think this has something to so with how memory works.
    
    						- Bluejay Adametz, CFII
    
    "Time is nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen all
    at once."
149.2physics of precog (what there is of it)PROSE::WAJENBERGWed Jun 11 1986 12:2918
    In physics, there is no qualitative difference between past, present,
    and future.  The present is just the time I happen to be at when
    I pass out the labels "now" and "then."  Similarly, there is no
    qualitative difference in space between "here" and "there," except
    that "here" is where I happen to be.  So I would say that there
    is a great deal in common between yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
    The differences are, in fact, very slight.
    
    Modern physical theory offers at least a couple of ways for objects
    and information to move backward in time.  These mechanisms are
    far removed from daily experience, involving things like the Heisenberg
    Uncertainty Principle or large-scale warps in spacetime.  Nonetheless,
    the mechanisms are there, in physics as presently understood, so
    clairvoyance across time doesn't look a great deal odder than
    clairvoyance across space.  (Neither, of course, has a good explanation
    in current physical theory.)
    
    Earl Wajenberg
149.3Not Directly ObservableYOGI::BERNSTEINA feeling for the organism.Wed Jun 11 1986 16:576
    	Time can never be observed like an object is observed, because
    it consists of no substance, yet without time, nothing could be
    observed, because all observation is accomplished through time.
    Therefore, any observation is an indirect recognition of time.
    
    	Ed
149.4Controlled Perception?TOPDOC::FLEMINGThu Jun 12 1986 17:3817
    While we're on the subject of time... We are finding out lots of
    new things about how our mind and body interact.  We now accept
    as fact that we can consciously control or regulate bodily functions
    that until recently were thought to be uncontrollable.  We can also
    control the ways we perceive reality.  To take it one step further,
    does this also mean that we can control the way we perceive time?
    If we could, time would no longer 'fly when we're having fun' because
    we would consciously make it slow down.  Also, doing things that
    are unpleasant would no longer be so bad because we would simply
    speed up our perception of the passing of time until it's over
    with.
    
    Any thoughts or ideas about this?  Is such a thing possible?  Or
    even desirable?  If it is possible, how would you go about training
    yourself to do it?
    
    John...
149.5how soon is now?MOSAIC::HARDYThu Jun 12 1986 21:470
149.6Time reversal invariancePBSVAX::COOPERTopher CooperFri Jun 13 1986 22:24138
On the next page is a posting I recently made to another note file concerning
one aspect of time in modern physics.  Jorge' posted a copy of an AP news
story about the  recently hypothesized Fifth force.  In response I posted
some notes which had come across the net.physics newsgroup on the subject.
A brief mention was made of "violations of time-reversal invariance".
Someone wished to know what this meant.  After waiting a while for someone
more qualified to answer I posted the following.

		    Topher

               <<< PYRITE::DRA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]GEOLOGY.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< Earthly Discussions >-
================================================================================
Note 27.6                      THE FIFTH FORCE!                           6 of 6
PBSVAX::COOPER "Topher Cooper"                      120 lines   9-MAY-1986 17:33
                         -< Time-reversal invariance. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since nobody more qualified answered this I'll take a crack at it.

Imagine that you had some films taken of a frictionless billiard table.
The only problem is that you don't know which way each piece of film
is supposed to be run through the projector.

The first piece of film shows a ball bouncing off a cushion.  When viewed
one way it comes in from the lower left, bounces off the cushion at the
top center and leaves the frame at the lower right.  When viewed
the other way it comes in from the lower right, bounces off the cushion
at the top center and leaves the frame at the lower left.  There is no
way to tell which way the film is to be run (= tell the direction of time).

This is the principle of time-reversal invariance, also known as the
time symmetry principle or simply "T symmetry".

	If the laws of physics allow a sequence of events to take place
	they allow the reverse sequence of events to take place.

The second piece of film shows, when viewed in one direction, a ball coming
in from the left and striking another ball, slightly off-center, at the
center of the frame.  The first ball is deflected and continues more slowly,
leaving at the upper right.  The second ball moves off and leaves the frame
at the lower right.  Viewed the other way two balls come from the upper
and lower right corners of the frame and meet in the center.  The lower ball
stops dead, while the upper ball is deflected and accelerated leaving the
frame at the center left.

Which one is the correct direction?  Obviously the first.

But can we be certain?  No.

If the two balls in the second choice of directions had *precisely* the
velocities (speeds & directions) shown then they would act as we saw.  We
prefer the first view because it is extremely unlikely that the two balls
would just "happen" to have just the right velocities, but T symmetry still
applies, i.e., the laws of physics do not rule it out.

What we have observed is entropy in action.  In the first view entropy
increased, in the second view entropy decreased.  Generally, entropy
doesn't decrease spontaneously, although *it can*.

Thus, it is entropy which gives time a preferred direction (and, let me
tell you, *that* has inspired much philosophizing).

The third piece of film shows what appears to be a "break".  When viewed
backward we see 16 balls converging from all directions at a variety of
speeds and all colliding.  When they collide, all the velocities cancel
out, so that fifteen of the balls stop dead forming a perfect triangular
arrangement while the sixteenth ball is ejected at high speed.

It certainly is clear which direction the film is to be run in.  Once
again, however, if we trace out all the velocities, the second direction
is allowed by the laws of physics.  But the chances of all the balls
having just the "right" velocities to behave that way is ludicrously
small.

The more complex (and I won't try to define complex) a physical system,
the less likely it that its entropy will decrease, but it is *still*
allowed.  T symmetry still holds.

The last piece of film shows an ordinary billiard ball rolling along an
ordinary (not frictionless) billiard table.  It comes in from the left
moving rapidly and slows as it moves until it comes to a stop near the
right end of the frame.  Clearly *this* isn't reversible.

If we look much more closely at what's going on, however, we see that it
is.  The ball as it rolls collides with individual felt hairs.  These
are pushed down.  They in turn push down hairs near them, and so on.
Each time a hair is pushed down, some of the energy is converted to heat
in various ways, causing the molecules in the tabletop and ball to vibrate
more.  If we exactly reversed all these motions, we would find the hairs
pushing the ball along, causing it to move faster and faster.

The odds against this just "happening" are, of course, literally more
than astronomical, but the laws of physics allow it.

This "symmetry" was expected to continue to be found on the submicroscopic
level.  Generally it is. But ...

In a single reaction involving the "weak" force the T symmetry is violated.
The reaction occurs in one direction, but there is no symmetric law which
allows the opposite reaction to occur.  The reaction involves the decay
of particles called kaons, and this is the "violation of time-reversal
invariance" referred to in the article.

There are two symmetries which are closely related to the T symmetry: the
so-called C and P symmetries.

The C symmetry (the C stands for charge, but it now refers to a bit more
than this) says that if you take an event involving particles (and all
events do, in one way or another) and substitute for each particle its
anti-particle (which, among other things, has the opposite electric charge)
then the event will be allowed by the laws of physics (specifically, it
will look the same).

The P symmetry (the P stands, I think, for parity) says that if you look
at any event in a mirror you will still be seeing an event allowed by
the laws of physics.

Both the C and the P symmetries were thought to be valid until the weak
interaction started to be studied.  Both symmetries were frequently
violated when particles interacted via the weak force.

It was quickly noticed, however, that they both seemed to be violated in
exactly the same circumstances.  A new symmetry was invented: the CP
symmetry.  The CP symmetry says that if you substitute each particle's
anti-particle for it and at the same time, look at the event in a mirror,
then you will always get an "allowed" event.

The CP symmetry works -- except for one reaction.  You guessed it: the
same reaction which violates the T symmetry.  It's been hypothesized, but
not proven (the effect is rare and subtle) that if you 1) swap each
particle with its anti-particle, 2) look at the interaction in a mirror
3) and run it backwards, you'll always get another "allowed" event.
This is called CPT symmetry.

Hope I got all that right.

		Topher
149.7Time in modern physics.PBSVAX::COOPERTopher CooperFri Jun 13 1986 23:3743
A few more thoughts on time in modern physics:

According to relativity it doesn't really mean anything to say "now".
The closest you can do is say "here and now" or "there and now from here".

Time and space are inseparable -- just as what looks like mass to one
observer may look like energy to another, what looks like time to one
observer may look like space to another.  This is why it is called the
space/time continuum.

You can never say that two events which didn't occur at the same place
definitely occurred at the same time.

You can sometimes say that one event definitely occurred before another,
but frequently you can't.  You can't because such pairs of events may
seem simultaneous to one observer, may seem to occur in one sequence to
another and may seem to occur in the opposite sequence to still another.
Since there are no "preferred" observers, none of these views can be
considered "right".

This is *not* just because it takes a finite amount of time for the
observer to "see" the event.  The same thing happens even if the observers
compensate for the amount of time it took them to find out about the
event.  It is because time is not the same everywhere.

Also according to relativity -- if a signal can travel faster than light
than that signal can be thought of as traveling back in time.  The reverse
is also true, of course.

Modern classical physics (i.e., physics not involving relativity or quantum
mechanics) -- (extracted from all the verbiage of my previous posting)
Movement into the future is distinguishable from movement into the past
only statistically.  Some physicists believe that there is a concept of
the direction of time which is distinct from this, but if so, it is
unobservable.  Even the violation of time invariance discussed in my
previous note is statistical rather than absolute -- it concerns how
often a particular reaction occurs relative to its opposite.

Re: .2 -- There is no non-controversial way in modern physics to send a
signal back in time.  There has frequently been discussions about such
possibilities but all require current theory to be extended in one or
another ways.
				Topher
149.8WHAAAAT????SOFCON::MCDONOUGHWed Jun 25 1986 19:109
    I'm new to this conference...and getting VERRRY confused FAST!!!
    Re .5 When IS "now"?  Isn't it a 'relative' or "moving target" term??
    
     And as for "Relativity"...Isn't it still a _theory_, which by it's
    very nature is still unproven and impractical at the present level
    of technological expertise??
    
      Hmmmm.............
    JMCD
149.9test of timePROSE::WAJENBERGWed Jun 25 1986 20:1115
    Time has been a confusing topic at least since St. Augustine, so
    don't feel upset about the confusion.
    
    As to relativity, no, it IS NOT "unproven and impractical."  It's
    called "theory of relativity," but in science lingo "theory" is not
    the opposite of "fact."  A theory is a coherent, extensive, and detailed
    model or description which can be tested.  Relativity has been tested
    with great rigor for eighty years and has come through with flying
    colors.  As to being practical, relativity theory is employed in
    all fundamental engineering of nuclear energy.
    
    The strange time distortions of relativity have been just as carefully
    tested as the famous E=mc^2 that regulates atomic power.  They exist.
    
    Earl Wajenberg
149.10Is nature more than accumulated probabilities?NEXUS::DEVINS256K WOMTue Oct 07 1986 21:5615
    
      I think you are confusing "empirical" proof with "positive" proof.
    There is an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence that the
    Einsteinian theory of relativity is valid.  This makes the likelihood
    that it is invalid increasingly smaller.  Nonetheless, an abstract
    theory is rarely (never) subject to concrete proof.
    
      The paragraph above is the cant of pure scepticism. The average
    numbers-oriented "scientist" (including me!) will abandon it somewhere
    along the way as the odds-for continue piling up.  That is, everytime
    we fire a rocket away and it passes a distant celestial body at
    the predicted distance and time, we say to ourselves "Well, the
    old boy was right again!"  But will he always be? 
    
                                                :>)> 
149.11Time perception as a substitute for SpaceSURPLS::GOLDBERGEd GoldbergMon Dec 15 1986 14:1227
    An old (and now distant) friend related one author's interpretation
    of the perception of time; sorry, I don't recall the author's name:
    
    Dogs see the world in roughly two dimensions plus time.  When they
    walk around the block, they note the smells and sights occurring
    in sequence, but don't put things together in a map.  Without random
    exploring, they would not be able to find the straight line shortest
    path between two points.   This may be restated as saying that dogs
    can not make a 3D map of geography in their minds; just 2D plus
    time.  So, when a dog knows its way around the neighborhood, it
    does so by remembering the sequence of smells and sights as a guide.
    [I do this often when driving to a distant place I've only visited
    once or twice.  Only I don't use the smells, just the sights.]
    
    The theory continues that as creatures go up in intelligence, they
    perceive more spatial dimensionality: we view our world in 3D, with
    maps and globes (and an understanding of the third dimension above
    same).  We can and do think of the intergalactic spaces, not yet
    traveled by physical means.  We have graduated to the third dimension.
    Lower animals perceive two dimensions, still lower (I can imagine)
    some animals perceive only motion in one dimension and time.  Still
    lower, (if you happen to think of these animals having perceptions
    and possibly, thought) some may perceive only time passing, with
    no knowledge of space.
    
    Perhaps a higher intellectual being would see 4 dimensions and time
    to make up for the rest of the changes.
149.12Not ReallyINK::KALLISSupport Hallowe'enMon Dec 15 1986 14:3925
    Re .11:
    
    >Dogs see the world in roughly two dimensions plus time. ...
    
    Perhaps.  However, there are several "lower" animals, notably cats
    and owls, that have been determined to have full stereoscopic (three-
    dimensional) vision.  Both cats and owls are solitary hunting
    predators, and the ability to perceive well in three-dimensional
    space is highly important to their survival.  Dogs, by contrast,
    are more hearing/small oriented and in the wilds hunt in packs,
    so full stereopsis isn't essential.
    
    The problems with generalizations such as the one cited is that
    if they start from questionable premeses, the conclusions reached
    are also questionable.
    
    In order to perceive two dimensions, the seeing organ must have
    two dimensions.  Three dimensions are _perceived_ by using two eyes
    with an offset (three eyes at offsets to each other wouldn't give
    us four dimensions, however).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    
    
149.13Map in the headHUDSON::STANLEYBlack Throated WindMon Dec 15 1986 16:029
    Re .12:
    
    I didn't get the impression from reading .12 that dogs don't see in
    three dimensions but that they don't have a map in their heads.  When
    they travel they just know what sight/smell comes next.  We, on the
    other hand, know all of the sights up to our destination (map in our
    heads), that is, if we've been along that route before.
    
    		Dave
149.14Paw thoughtsINK::KALLISSupport Hallowe'enMon Dec 15 1986 17:4814
    re .13:
    
    On that basis, cats seem to "map."  I've seen mine apparently working
    out different ways to het from wherever they are to wherever they
    want to go, sometimes not by the same route.  Obviously, they, like
    us, tend to use the line of least resistance, however, if it's in
    their interest to take an off-path route, they will.
    
    Cats, of course, are more three-dimensional-mobile than dogs are
    (they climb trees, etc.), and that may have something to do with
    it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
149.15Three different things.ERLTC::COOPERTopher CooperMon Dec 15 1986 18:1585
RE: .11,.12,.13,.14

Whoa...  Seems like a number of quite different things are being confused.

BINOCULAR VISION: Virtually all animals with eyes that form images must have
some way to judge how distant an object is.  We build up our sense of how
far away something we see from a lot of different types of visual cues.
One of the most accurate for close up is binocular or stereoscopic vision.
Even under conditions in which all the cues work together, the accuracy
of determination of depth is much less than for the other two dimensions.
I therefore, prefer to think of our vision as 2-1/2D rather than 3D.

For binocular vision to work, the view of the two eyes must overlap heavily.
The eyes therefore have to be in the "front" of the face for animals which
have binocular vision.  This comes at a cost, however.  Because the fields
of view overlap, the total field of view is less.  For animals without
binocular vision, therefore, there is strong selective pressure for the
eyes to be separated as far as possible (i.e., to be located at the sides
of the head) so as to see as *much* as possible.

Predators who hunt in relatively open areas (e.g., dogs, cats, eagles, owls)
find an advantage to accurate depth perception, and so generally have their
eyes in the front and have binocular vision (there are other reasons, e.g.,
living in trees, why an animal may need binocular vision).
Prey animals who feed in open areas (e.g., rabbits, squirrels, robins,
pigeons) need as wide a field of view as possible to spot possible danger
(never mind precisely how many inches away it is), and so generally have
their eyes on the sides of their heads and have *no* depth perception.

The rule of thumb is , therefore, if you can see both eyes at once from
anywhere but a very narrow field directly in front of the animal, then it
probably has binocular vision.  I would be very surprised if dogs did not
have binocular vision (although I would not be surprised if a few breeds
had not had the trait bred out of them).

MENTAL MAPS: Their is a fair amount of research that has been done in this
area in the last decade.  What is a mental map?

Show a hungry animal food, then lead it west for some distance then south
for the same distance, reaching a spot where it can't see any landmarks
from the food-site.  Release the animal and see where it heads.  If it
heads northeast then it has a "mental map", a mental representation of
"position".  If it heads north, than it doesn't.  Mental maps are pretty
standard in higher animals and I would be very surprised if dogs did not
use them.

Chickens are bred for stupidity and, I'm pretty sure, don't use mental maps.
I've heard that if you put a chicken on one side of a fence and food on
the other side, making sure that the edges of the fence are just out of
sight for the chicken, that the chicken will starve trying to go through
the fence rather than looking for some way around it.

A lot of evidence has recently been presented which seems to demonstrate that
even bees, pretty low down on the scale of neurological sophistication, have
mental maps.  Of course, mental maps are especially useful to bees.

EVENT MEMORY: I, and presumably other human beings, can "call up" and
"replay," in detail events, or sequences of events which have occurred to
me in the past.  I can think about them; consciously question the causes
of things; ask myself what would have happened "if"; and otherwise reason
about what occurred.  I call this ability "event memory".

In a very real sense, event memory is to temporal reasoning what mental
maps are to spatial reasoning, except that event memory is more sophisticated
than the concept of a "temporal map" might imply.

Do animals, such as dogs, have event memory?  I don't know.  I can explain
virtually everything I have ever seen a dog or cat do in terms of
sophisticated (more sophisticated than the behaviorists generally allow)
"associational" and "chained associational memory".  Does a dog perform
a sequence of actions because it, in some sense, remembers the sequence
"as a whole", or because each action reminds it of the next?  Does a cat
jump down from eating the roast when you come into the room, because it
remembers the sequence of events last time it was caught or because it
remembers a complex association of ("Eating food on table" + "Person in room"
= "bad things").

I don't know any way to answer this in the absence of speech.  I think it
is an important question because it seems to me that what I think of as
"consciousness" is closely tied up with "event memory".  To answer the
question "Is animal X conscious?", therefore, with all its moral and ethical
implications, it would be very useful to first answer the question "Does
animal X have event memory?".

				Topher
149.16INK::KALLISSupport Hallowe'enMon Dec 15 1986 19:4531
    Re .15:
    
    As with many notes, this has digressed somewhat, but that's okay.
    
    With regards to binocular vision, that's the _best_ way to judge
    depth, but it'sd not the only way: you can wiggle your head from
    side to side to get the relative motion of a 2D image and build
    a 3D picture out of it.  I suspect it's the way some snakes who
    aren't pit vipers get their prey.  (This whole alternate method
    of depth perception was "discovered" in an operational sense when
    fighter pilots in World War II who were iinjured in flight were
    able to land their aircraft with one eye temporarily or permanently
    out of commission, even though traditional theories of depth perception
    indicated that would be impossible.)
    
    With regards to mental maps: there is ample evidence that higher
    mammals, certainly cats and dogs, have mental maps using the criterion
    Topher's offered.
    
    With regards to conscious behavior:  any cat or dog who has taught
    him or herself to perform a complex act, particularly if he or she
    figures it out without being trained or encouraged, shows at least
    rudimentary conscious behavior.  
    
    Getting the subject back to the Conference specialty, any cat or
    dog who senses the presence of Something that might be invisible
    to most other folk deserves to be taken seriously.  It ain't all
    stimulus/response.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
149.17Intelligence vs ConsciousnesERLTC::COOPERTopher CooperMon Dec 15 1986 20:5615
RE: .16
    
    > ... any cat or dog who has taught him or herself to perform a
    > complex act, particularly if he or she figures it out without
    > being trained or encouraged, shows at least rudimentary conscious
    > behavior.
    
    I would'nt say so.  I would say that they showed rudimentary
    *intelligent* behavior, but I'm not sure about rudimentary *conscious*
    behavior.  Does rudimentary intelligence imply rudimentary
    consciousness?  I don't know.  Does roughly human level intelligence
    imply roughly human level consciousness.  I doubt it, though I suspect
    that "human-like" intelligence implies "human-like" consciousness.
    
    				Topher
149.18INK::KALLISSupport Hallowe'enTue Dec 16 1986 11:1812
    Re .17:
    
    "O conscious, where is thy sting?" :-)
    "Thus conscious doth make cowards of us all." ;-)
    
    I think we're going down a rathole here.  My final observation on
    this point is that all the cats _I've_ been associated with are
    too egotistical not to be conscious of themselves as entities. 
    What else counts?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
149.19A Gotcha from a Sceptic...NEXUS::DEVINS256K WOMTue Dec 23 1986 16:2320
re .12:

>       ...Three dimensions are _perceived_ by using two eyes
>    with an offset (three eyes at offsets to each other wouldn't give
>    us four dimensions, however).
    
    
     Aw, c'mon, Steve!  How do you KNOW three offset eyes wouldn't
   give four dimensional perception?  I read a book once by a guy
   who claimed to have one*, and he thought he had all sorts of extra    
   perceptions.  Guess it depends on which dimension you consider as
   the fourth...    

     Merry Christmas!           
                            8-)>



* THE THIRD EYE, by Lobsang Something-or-other, too many years ago to 
                                                    remember.
149.20Stars and Black Holes...ILO::JBROWNEThu Sep 24 1987 13:0415
     
    
    I have a question :
       If you look out into the sky at night ,surely you are looking
       " Back " in time as the stars visible there are only observable
       by their emitted light ,which may have taken millions of years
       to reach the earth.
    
       Is this "Time Travel"?
    
     Another question: Does a black hole's gravitational field distort
     time as it distorts objects that approach it? 
         
    
    
149.21ProbablyGRECO::MISTOVICHThu Sep 24 1987 16:406
149.22this is what Relativity is all aboutERASER::KALLISRaise Hallowe'en awareness.Thu Sep 24 1987 17:1910
    re .20, .21:
    
    Err, we can get into some fairly high-powered physics here.  In the
    simplest possible terms -- to an outside observer, an object
    approaching a black hole would have its time retarded (not "distorted";
    it's apparantly a natural condition) increasingly the closer it
    comes to the center; to the object (or a dimensionless "person"
    aboard it), time flows as usual. 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
149.23For further instructions...DICKNS::KLAESAngels in the Architecture.Thu Sep 24 1987 17:265
    	For a more detailed analysis of this subject, you might want
    to check out the LDP::ASTRONOMY, LDP::SPACE, and NAC::SF Conferences.
    
    	Larry
    
149.24An aside ....WITNES::DONAHUEThu Sep 24 1987 20:532
    Is there something wrong with LDP::ASTRONOMY?  I haven't been able
    to access that file since August 17.
149.25AKOV11::FRETTSShine your Spirit!Thu Sep 24 1987 20:548
    
    
    August 17?
    
    Uh oh....
    
    :-) Carole
    
149.26Oh O!WITNES::DONAHUEThu Sep 24 1987 21:016
    Funny!  I never made that correllation.  Why Astronomy and not Dejavu?
    No Idea!
             
    
    
    8^) Susan
149.27whose side is time on, anywayPUZZLE::GUEST_TMPHOME, in spite of my ego!Thu Sep 24 1987 21:325
    ...there is also some stuff concerning "time" in the PHILOSOPHY
    conference.
      
    Frederick
    
149.28No TimeGLORY::PAGELSat Nov 14 1987 21:307
    Just had to get my 2 cents in ..... Time is merely an illusion ...
    There is only NOW.
    
    
    
    Cindy