On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi Edgar, > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Liz, > > > > Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving! > > > > The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of reality. > The > > problem is that you are denying the flow of time. > > Why is this a problem? How can you know for sure that there is a flow > of time? Block universe hypothesis can explain how time would appear > to flow for each observer.
Does it though, or does it just use emergence as a crutch? Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be no 'observation' at all? Block universes need not have any consciousness. What would be the point? > This doesn't prove that block universe > hypothesis are correct, but they cannot be dismissed that easily > either. > > Now you could argue that this is counter-intuitive, but I would remind > you that nature doesn't care. Our intuition is just a bunch of > heuristics evolved to deal with a very narrow set of survival > scenarios. > > > For equations to compute (not just describe) reality, there must be > active > > processor cycles. There is simply NO way around that... > > I wonder. > > Telmo. > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> > >> Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can emerge from > >> something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation > describing > >> something changing. Change is by definition things being different at > >> different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, > you > >> will naturally get a "static" universe, just as putting together all > the > >> moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only from a > "God's > >> eye perspective". This is the perspective science gives us, the > perspective > >> given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; it > isn't > >> the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those equations > and > >> so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as to be > >> isomorphic to reality). > >> > >> Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a non-problem, > >> and has been since Newton published his Principia. > >> > >> There are problems with comp, of course, like the "white rabbit" > problem. > >> Does anyone have any new views on the real problems, rather than > worrying > >> about straw men? > >> > > -- > > 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 <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to > > everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > 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.
