Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised:
A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is "being at the same point in spacetime". Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely "being in the (same) present moment". Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be "at the same point of spacetime" with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be "in the same present moment" with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is "at the same point in spacetime" as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. What we must conclude from this experiment is that it is only being at the same TIME that is relevant when the twins meet, and the fact that the meeting twins are at the same point in SPACE is NOT relevant. They can still share a present moment no matter where they are in the billion twin line, but they cannot share "a same point in spacetime". Therefore to be accurate we must recognize we are talking about a common present moment, not a common point in spacetime, and we must recognize that by BOTH our operation definitions, every twin in a billion twin line agrees they are in the same present moment and so we must also agree to that. OK, now imagine that the entirety of space in the universe is packed full of twins like sardines. Every twin in the universe agrees he is in the same present moment with all the twins adjacent to him in any direction. And again that relationship is transitive. Therefore every twin in the entire universe must be in the same present moment. Based on our agreed operation definition there is no other possible conclusion. Thus we have proved that there is a single universal present moment shared by all observers in the universe and thus by all things in the universe. The current state of the universe exists in a single universal present moment. And all the relativistic changes in clock times occur WITHIN (actually are computed within) that common universal present moment. And I accept EVERY ONE of those results of relativity without exception. The common present moment of p-time does not falsify a single conclusion of relativity. It merely provides the necessary common present moment context for them to be actually compared by an observer and only thus to have their meaning. Now one final point: You criticize me for relying on "conscious experience" presumably when it comes to the twins shaking hands and comparing watches. But of course your reflected light test also relies on conscious experience to the exact same extent, as EVERY possible scientific observation does. Without conscious experience there can be no scientific observation. Shaking hands and comparing watches is equally quantitative to reflected light to address that question of yours. Thus to conclude it is clear that the twins do meet in a shared present moment, and this shared present moment is universal. And it is clear this is NOT a matter of meeting at "a same point in spacetime" because it doesn't matter where in space any particular twin is, he still shares a common present moment with every other observer in the universe. By our agreed operation definitions, every observer in the universe is ALWAYS in his OWN present moment no matter how he may travel or his clock time relativistically vary. He can never leave his present moment. And, no matter how or in what circumstance, when any two twins meet up they ALWAYS find that those two individual present moments are the exact SAME present moment. Thus that present moment which every observer has is the exact same one that every other observer in the universe has. This is proven by the universe packed with twins experiment. And in addition to the packed twins who are not in relative motion with respect to each other it also holds for all observers who are in ANY kind of relative or accelerated motion or gravitational differences. Because again, every one of those observers is always continually in his own present moment and no matter how or when or in what circumstances they meet they always find that their own present moment is exactly the SAME present moment as that of whoever in the entire universe they meet with. This conclusion, that all observers in the universe share a common universal present moment, no matter what their clock times, is the only possible logical conclusion... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:59:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is >> ultimately a conscious experience. >> > > Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are > always of quantitative values that can be measured by some sort of > measuring-instrument. > > Anyway, it's fine with me if you want to argue in favor of p-time using > qualitative aspects of conscious experience, and in fact I did address the > argument from conscious experience in the last two paragraphs of the post > at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/jUPOnqbP6hwJ-- I > don't think you addressed that part. In any case, I'm trying to get a > sense of whether you think there are multiple *independent* arguments in > favor of p-time, or whether any argument you could make for p-time would > depend crucially on pointing to qualitative aspects of conscious > experience. The exact nature of the conscious experience of change seems > pretty slippery and hard to pin down, so I would prefer to just agree to > disagree about what is proved by conscious experience and discuss other > less subjective arguments, if you do have any independent ones. > > > >> The observation of a present moment we share when we are together in >> space is the most FUNDAMENTAL observation of all. >> >> It's much much more than "an intuition". It's a directly observable FACT. >> >> As for operational definition, I explained in detail how the theory works >> on numerous occasions. >> > > Giving an "operational" definition is not the same as a description of > "how the theory works". Operational means that any terms are defined in > terms of some test procedure that anyone could carry out, even one who does > not agree from the start about your metaphysical assumptions. For example, > my operational definition of "same point in spacetime" didn't require any > assumptions about the ontology of spacetime, it was just things like > sending out a light signal and seeing if there was a measurable delay in > getting back the reflected signal, or yelling "hey!" and seeing if the > other person starts to react quasi-instantaneously. > > > >> In fact you criticize me in your first paragraph for doing that too much! >> > > Once again you repeat the annoying strawman that I am telling you not to > discuss your theory, when in fact I was expressing irritation that YOU > scolded ME for answering a direct question you asked about my ideas with an > on-topic answer. I guess you're not going to apologize for that, you think > it was entirely fair to scold me for an on-topic response to your own > question? > > Jesse > > > >> >> Edgar >> >> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:28:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jesse, >>>> >>>> So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? >>>> >>> >>> No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically >>> about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you >>> suddenly change the subject and make scolding comments like "Once again, >>> for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity >>> with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of >>> p-time." And now when I explain that I was just responding to your >>> questions and give you quotes showing that you had been asking about my >>> model, instead of apologizing for losing track of what we'd been talking >>> about you get all pouty and pretend I'm saying we can only discuss my >>> ideas. I just don't like being scolded for giving an on-topic response to >>> some questions of yours, that's all. >>> >>> >>> >>>> I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is >>>> what I was/am doing... >>>> >>>> Yes, I'd like to understand your take on "whether relativity can give >>>> a coherent account of what phrases like "same point in spacetime" .... >>>> really mean physically." I think I understand that from your reflected >>>> light test. >>>> >>>> But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a >>>> local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in >>>> that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the >>>> fact with the reflected light test. >>>> >>> >>> Like I said, it can also predict that this will happen in advance, by >>> using an inertial coordinate system and the known equations of physics to >>> predict both the path and clock readings of the twins and to model the >>> light signals being sent out and reflected between them, and predicting >>> what their clocks read at the point where the reflection time goes to zero. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem >>>> to calculate or explain. >>>> >>>> What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain >>>> or calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) >>>> >>> >>> Can you give an operational definition of this "shared present moment", >>> one that goes beyond just the observation that the time between an action >>> directed at the other gets an almost immediate response (whether we're >>> talking about light signals or just about one twin saying "hey!" and >>> observing the other to immediately begin turning around)? Or is the >>> existence of this "shared present moment" only verifiable in terms of >>> conscious experience or metaphysical intuitions or something? >>> >>> Jesse >>> >>> -- >> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
