On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:40:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > OK, I'm back... > > Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with > respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were > simultaneous in p-time.... > > The only clocks in this example are the real actual ages of two twins.... > > > 1. Do you agree that each twin always has a real actual age defined as how > old he actually is (to himself)? > > Yes or no? > > 2. Do you agree that this real actual age corresponds by definition to the > moment of his actually being alive, to his actual current point in time? > (As a block universe believer you can just take this as perception or > perspective rather than actuality if you wish - it won't affect the > discussion). > > Yes or no? > > > Now assume a relativistic trip that separates the twins.... > > 3. Do you agree that IF, for every point of the trip, we can always > determine what ACTUAL age of one twin corresponds to the ACTUAL age of the > other twin, and always in a way that both twins AGREE upon (that is frame > independent), that those 1:1 correspondences in actual ages, whatever they > are, must occur at the same actual times? That this would give us a method > to determine what (possibly different) actual ages occur at the same actual > p-time moment in which the twins are > > actually alive with those (possibly different) actual ages? > > > Yes or no? > > > Edgar > >
> > > The thing is, if one twin ages by just a week because he's near the speed > of light, and the other twin ages 10 years. OK you can always accomplish an > exact 1:1 correlation between literally any two things just so long as you > are allowed to stretch or contract the dimension of measurement in one of > them. That's a given. I could 1:1 correlate each tick of age in either one > of those twins with the time it took the Titanic to sink having hit the ice > burg. > > Appreciated mine aren't sensible ideas, whereas yours does have a sense in > which it might be true. But the sensible point is that the 1:1 correlation > argument may not be meaningful if you are allowed to adjust the interval > experienced by one so as to match the other. You could argue no adjustment > takes place in p-time, but if the same argument could be reflected in the > titanic model - which it can - the problem stays the same. > What I'd recommend is that you choose a moment, and for a short period enter into a process of setting the objections to p-time into their strongest possible form. Reason being, firstly it's a great way to identify the knock down argument that objection needs to hear, and can't ignore even in its strongest form. Secondly, I'm still not really of a sense you've faced the big and small questions that p-time raises. Why does Nature bother going to all that trouble making relativistic overlays, why is the speed of light finite that we see only history in the skies. Why do universes need to begin from a tiny hole. Why would she do any of that if she had already had a pure integrated absolute space perfectly in synch to beats of one drum? I mean, if she had that absolute nature in place, then that was her, her nature. There's no computational need for any of that, not if there were no inherently problematic status in reality underlying, which all of that were necessary in combination to solve. sWhy not absolute vision one side of everything to the other, in p-time? By some other aurrangement than what we have here, much simpler and much more in keeping with the only conception that she, nature, knew. The absolute. Where would she even aquire, or see any point to, all theses fussy fangled relativistic wildly complex messcake of laws? Edgar, I just want to say I respect you, and that you feel sure in your own mind. These questions can always be cock-sure answered by a rehash of the already much stated, take that as a given that you could do that. But I know that even if I want to, my body and emotions and subconscious mind won't accept what someone offers that they didn't feel a need to pause for thought at the magnitude of what these questions are. This is bigger stuff than what we are. This is the hills around us. You've offered explanations for many components of observed nature, but you haven't explained why things are the way that they are. You haven't accounted for the very different world that we have around us, from the background reality that you commit the universe to. If backgrsound nature was sorted, logically symmetric and a perfect cpontainer all round. And if the contained within that, was an absolutely perfect absolute nature near infinite in scale one side to the other yet all ends and corners in earshot of the single same drum. Why would nature not extend that perfect holism onward into the inner interior? For that matter why would it even occur to nature in the first place that anything more was necessary or desirable or needed, given the perfection of the way of things that they already were. On a final note....you might also give a more thoughtful account why it's meaningful to overrule what the best theories we have are saying things are like, that don't need p-time, even if there is a sense in which there is a p-time there. It's not just about proving p-time is there in a sense. It ,needs to be there and fundamental, because it could be there in some cobbled together sense, but much of any utility nor called upon by the giants in the room that dominate the nature of reality as best that we can see. s I think you should consider taking these matters seriously, which ought to begin with some sort of appreciation these are major problems and questions that your theory does need answers for. The only references you maker to such mountains in your broader work, are statements like "reality is precisely the way that it is, because that is the only way that reality can be". That's possibly a useful devicce for beginning a process of discovering an answer but I think you're fair enough to recognize it isn't an adequate answer in and of itself -- 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.
