Hi Telmo, No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block times including Bruno's don't make sense.
I don't accept that QM indeterminacy is dependent on the existence of a human observer. That's simply nutty as the human observation 'causes' collapse interpretation always was. Decoherence conclusively falsifies it... As for Russell's theory that "everything exists" it depends on how it is understood. I would agree, and in my book on Reality I note this, that reality consists of everything that actually exists. In that sense everything that does exist does actually exist. But if it is meant in what I take to be Bruno's sense that everything, in say some human notion (Bruno's) of what arithmetic is, exists in some Platonic non actual, non observable sense, then there is no evidence for that. Also Russell seems to misunderstand the notion of nothing. It is most certainly not =everything. And I am very careful with the notion of causality. In my book I note that in a computational universe there is no actual causality in the usual sense because we can't really claim that 1+1 causes 2. I note that there is no actual term for causality in ANY equation of science. Causality is simply a metatheory that describes the fact of the time sequential order of computations. When we are able to deprecate causality that leads to a number of important other conclusions that I describe in my book... Edgar On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:24:05 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi Edgar, > > > Block time and Bruno's comp can only tell us how a set fixed static > sequence > > of events could be perceived by some observer as a fixed static sequence > of > > events. It simply CANNOT tell us how time moves ALONG that sequence. > > > > The fact that time flows, that things change, is a fundamental EMPIRICAL > > OBSERVATION. It is not some intuitive illusion. It is the basic > measurable > > observation of our existence and it never ceases from birth to death. > > Can you show me this to be the case with resorting to some memory? If > not, can you see why you cannot possibly be sure of what you just > said? > > > It > > simply cannot be disregarded as some sort of survival mechanism. In fact > if > > block time were actually real survival mechanisms would not be needed > > because the future is already written deterministically contrary to QM > and > > in violation of all sorts of physical laws. > > Here I claim that you still fail to understand Everett's and Bruno's > ideas. First person indeterminacy is precisely how you recover QM at > the 1p level from a static 3p multiverse. There is no proof that these > ideas are correct and your is wrong, but there is proof that you > cannot just dismiss like I do here. > > > If you think block time exists then where does that entire block come > from? > > Did it create itself? Sequentially or all at once? Did something outside > of > > it create it? What? How? > > Here I like Russells' "Theory of Nothing". You probably already know > about the book: > http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html > > But if I had to über-summarise the relevant part here: > > Nothing = everything, then add the anthropic principle. > > (I hope Russell isn't too annoyed by this) > > Again, nothing is certain, but it's an interesting possibility to > contemplate. > > > Was it created causally in time? Or did it just > > magically appear like some kind of miracle? The believers in block time > have > > an unfortunate habit of not thinking through the implications of their > crazy > > theory..... > > Careful with this "causality" concept. The believers in causality have > similar habits... > > > Again, the best way I can say it is that your mouth has to move plenty > to > > tell me it isn't moving! > > There are a lot of memories of my mouth moving, that's for sure :) > > Cheers > Telmo. > > > Best, > > Edgar > > > > > > 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> > 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. 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. > >> > 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-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.
