On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:17 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
Jason,
You agree "No one is denying the reality of the present, just that
it is the "only" reality."
OK, that's immense progress we are making!
So, the present moment does exist, and we agree on that. So now the
only issue is that you presumably believe in block time, that all
other moments of time actually exist. If you do then please explain
to me why the present moment seems so real and privileged and all
other moments don't?
It is kind of like how "here" seems privledged to me compared to other
"theres". I realize other "theres" exist too, and are no less real
than the one "here" I happen to be in. It is only my experience in
this location that makes the location feel more real than others.
I start from this and extend all the same reasoning to this time vs.
other times which I do not happen to be in.
And if all other moments in time actually exist do you understand
how many laws of physics that violates?
None do far as I am aware. Einstein came to believe in eternalism in
years following his discovery of relativity.
For one thing the actual mass and energy of all those moments must
also exist which means there is an enormous violation of the
conservation of mass-energy.
Energy and mass remain constant from one moment to the next. No energy
is created or destroyed in the block view.
If you believe in block time you have a lot of explaining away to do!
If you have any more questions you think are difficult for blick time
to answer I would be happy to see them.
Allow me ask you a question about presentism: What evidence is there
that past points in time cease to exist?
Jason
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:18:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net>
wrote:
Pierz,
The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply
by observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time.
It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the
same present moment even if their clock time t values are not
simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some have maintained,
its the standard mode of existence of everyone throughout their
lives to share the same present moment with others.
Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P-
time, they measure clock time.....
:-)
P-time doesn't fail. It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or
anything to escape the present moment. That's the basic fact of our
existence for goodness sakes! The present moment is the locus, and
only locus of reality. Without a present moment there could be no
reality. The presence of reality manifests as the present moment....
No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is the
"only" reality.
Jason
Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK
time, not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time.
P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back
to the point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional
universe in the present moment which is the locus of reality and all
that exists. As the P-time radial dimension extends happening occurs
within the present moment and the current state of the universe in
continually computed. This is experienced as 'proper time' which is
always the same no matter at what rate clock time is running.
The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega,
the curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius
= P-time dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be?
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against
your position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You
ask whether two observers 'share the same common present moment'.
However you don't define what that means exactly. If I imagine your
scenario of two observers who aren't me then of course they seem to
share the same moment, regardless of how far apart they are. To say
they "don't share the same moment" would be like saying that one
exists and the other doesn't at some point in time, right? But this
is really begging the question about what a "point in time" is. You
seem to be relying on an intuitive sense of time that is not bound
to anything measurable (the hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U-
time'). How need to define what you mean by "sharing the same
moment" and you need to show how it is to be measured. I submit that
the only method of making such a determination is by means of
something that measures clock time. For example, a clock! And you
already agree that clocks will show that the observers don't
precisely agree about the simultaneity of events.
In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not to
use observers or people as the objects said to share the same common
present because observers persist in time and this makes things less
clear. Instead, you should ask the same question about a momentary
event like a pulse of light from a diode. Do the diodes themselves
share the "same present moment"? Yes, whatever that means! Do the
flashes occur simultaneously? Well you know the answer depends on
the inertial frame of reference. Substituting a mental event (the
thought "I am here now") for the light flash, we can see that two
thinkers cannot have that thought at an objectively identical
moment. All events can be timed using clocks, which after all cold
be anything that has a regular cycle. There is nothing in space-
time, including mental events, that is not an event that can be
timed in this manner. What is confusing you is merely the
persistence of the observer and the impossibility of imagining that
both observers don't exist at any point in time you can imagine. But
*what* observer? The observer is constantly changing, and the only
way to see if they share the same moment is to time the changes in
each using clock time. P-time is an ad hoc postulate to save your
intuition of an all-embracing moment. It fails when you try to
operationalize it.
Please, rather than reiterate your intuition, refute this point.
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:57:18 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen
wrote:
All,
I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal
present moment across so here's another approach with a thought
experiment....
To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they
share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any
disagreement?
Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San
Francisco. Do they share the same common present moment? In other
words is the one in San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what)
at the exact same time the one in New is doing something? Yes, of
course they do share the same present moment. Any disagreement?
Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away
galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same
relativistic frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion
and the gravities of their planets are exactly the same so that
clock time is passing at the exact same rate on both their clocks.
Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as
well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic
circumstances of the previous two examples so there can be no
relativistic considerations. Do these two observers also share the
exact same present moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only
do they share the exact same present moment but they also share the
exact same clock time t value. Any disagreement?
OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards
accepting my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now
must agree that there is at least a common universal present moment
across the universe for all observers in the same relativistic frame.
Agreed?
Edgar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
