> > Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the >> history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of >> a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 >> of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? >> >> Look, I know this is potentially and very likely stepping outside what >> physics tells us. But what I would argue, is that by trying on edgar's >> ideas in the first place, if we're doing so in a reasonably well-motivated >> sort of way, we are already doing that. So why not let's do it right. Start >> by looking for how it could true most generally, which means most >> universally. And apply a sensible standard, which would to look for a sense >> first, that would be true independently of relativity, such that it too >> could be totally true. At least as a starting point. >> >> >> I did that. I suggested a way to define a universal "now". But it >> doesn't eliminate the relativity of simultaneity, it just makes a certain >> choice which is simplifying for some purposes but isn't fundamental. >> > I remember reading something like that, and was hoping I caught instances like that in saying that everything I was suggesting that amounted to doing things differently, wasn't really a bigger ask than what we have acceded to already. I emphasised that in terms of the implicit, but that should arguable always allow for a subset within it that was at some point switched over to explicit. But in context of an instant of that, like what you mention, the distinctiveness in what I'm saying would be what, if anything, might be better if we generalize what we have implicitly agreed to, such that what that is, itself, is made generally explicit. You did already apply it in that sense you give, but you didn't first set up a kind of container for doing something like that, by stating that we should make explicit what we already are doing implicitly anyway. What might be different and better...more suited to purpose...if we set up that container first, and then use that as the starting point, for deliberating on how we can best proceed? That's the distinctive point, relative to the fact you already tried to assume a universal now. Really, since the goal is a universal now, the only way that things can be different is in terms of setup. Imagining there is a range of ways to set things up such that a universal now is the result, I would argue that because we are already agreeing to try on his ideas, the way we should choose between set ups, is that we start by differentiating between possible set ups strictly according to some principle of best effort to make edgar's idea work, constrained by some minimum but realistic standard, that keeps whatever we do tied back to our best knowledge, such that whatever we do there is a way to trace our way back to that best knowledge. One candidate method for that would be that we seek to tie in one dimension of best knowledge that is already effectively treated as if it were independent to a great extent. Like a singular sense of the age of the universe, or a singular sense of energy, or whatever works. >From that perspective the fragility of your set up of a universal Now, is that from the start you are building it as something that has to be true in some hard fundamental sense, the way a force gets built in. Which is shipwrecked almost immediately by the fact, in doing that you also fix this force of 'now' into the scheme of things such that it has to answer for itself at all scales and in all senses, including - decisively - the scales and senses it's basically pre-falsified either by running foul of something considered hard fact for real like the relativity of simultaneity, and endless other occam senses in which such a new force offers to explain something, that is already explained without it. So, while not purposeful, it's arguable at least, the details of how you set things up, run foul of the goal if that is to find the strongest form of his idea. For example, the way I was suggesting, although clearly problematic at every stage, is building by design if you like, the bias in favour of the universal now not being a force of nature at all, but a realistic approximate simplification of some state of evolution of other effects. And that the way we avoid simply backing the fragility off to those underlying effects as effectively assuming they are the new 'force' in reality, is by marrying those effects up with something that we do already assume, that we re-rejig our current reading of, by a simple procedure of iteratively seeking to de-couple that effect from other effects that are only fundamental in the first place because we currently already assume both sides of the coupling are fundamental as well as the coupling itself. That's a reasonable way to iteratively proceed. If our goal is finding the strongest sense his idea can be true, for the minimum but 'unit' of realism based on the sense we have no choice to regard our best knowledge as most true at any given time. Ergo, we look for a single principle within that that best knowledge, and keep that one principle constant and whole, while trying to decouple the workings through from all the other principles. Which in itself is legitimate, if that principle is regarded to be as strong as any other single principle. Relativity was caste in coals that included assuming energy was a real thing that couldn't be created or destroyed. Relativity discovered new ways to measure energy, and through that new ways to translate potential energy into kinetic or whatever. But relativity was not unique in that sense, save in the sense it broke dramatic new ground in terms of our knowledge of energy. The principles of energy were not changed that I know. So there should be a way that it can be legitimate and realistic to set things up keeping the goal of best efforts to make his idea that it can be true. Albeit the approach Ive been trying to illustrate is totally by the seat of my pants as I'm basically typing. So sorry for all the ways I could have said the same much shorter :o(
> >> Brent >> > -- 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.
