Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Spudboy, Good question. It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information about events flows computationally through networks of connected events. In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the knowledge of direct experience. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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.comjavascript:. 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:24:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/26/2013 4:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. In fact you don't even need any participants, not even instrumental ones: Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation, arXiv:quant-ph/040214v1 Brent P.S. Edgar, I notice that when you post a reply it includes your prior post, as though you're replying to yourself (see below). But it doesn't include anyone else's comments, which are actually what you're replying to. If you know how, it would be good to change that so we could see what exactly you're replying to. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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.comjavascript: . 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Very good, Edgar. Do you now consider Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, to not be involved as an observer, but instead, an unconscious participant? As merely a point of laser light striking an unaware photo-receptor? It is there to measure, but no cognition behind it. Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 12:33 pm Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, Good question. It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information about events flows computationally through networks of connected events. In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the knowledge of direct experience. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen lt;edga...@att.netgt; To: everything-list lt;everyth...@googlegroups.comgt; Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Mitch, Glad you seem to agree. I don't think about in those Wheelerian terms but that sounds pretty consonant with my thinking but there is a lot more to it as explained in Part III, Elementals of my book... Best, Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 2:13:29 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Very good, Edgar. Do you now consider Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, to not be involved as an observer, but instead, an unconscious participant? As merely a point of laser light striking an unaware photo-receptor? It is there to measure, but no cognition behind it. Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 12:33 pm Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, Good question. It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information about events flows computationally through networks of connected events. In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the knowledge of direct experience. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen lt;edga...@att.netgt; To: everything-list lt;everyth...@googlegroups.comgt; Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Hi Jason, The STc Principle conclusively falsifies block time, since the fact that everything continually travels through spacetime all the time requires everything to be at one particular position in spacetime all the time. Things can have a world tube that grows one light-year in length per year. You seem to be envisioning things as single points. This is confirmed by direct experience, that we are always at a single point in spacetime. Direct experience is a rather shaky foundation on which to build a theory. Remember how it worked out for the geocentrists. How could it be otherwise? Can direct experience rule out the theory that there are two moving presents that exist, one-day apart, such that you experience every moment of your life twice? The notion of block time is based on a misunderstanding of SR. Believers in block time need to offer an alternative explanation (than the one I give above) for the self-evident fact that we all experience our existence in a common present moment which they are unable to do. All observers believe the time they inhabit is the present, it is as true for the fighters in World War I who believe 1914 is the present, as it is for you and me who think 2013 is nearly over, as it is for our descendants who believe 2500 is the present. Think of it like this: If the past doesn't exist, then they are wholly unnecessary to explain your current experience of the present. In other words, the present moment is entirely sufficient, on its own, to explain your experience of now. But then, if the present moment alone is entirely sufficient to explain your experience of right now, then whether past moments in time exist or not should have no impact on your experience of right now in this present moment. Presentism thus rules out its own justification for presuming that past moment's must no longer exist in order to justify our experience of right now. Again in your subsequent discussion about Bob and Alice you are discussing well known effects of SR with regards to CLOCK time. It isn't just times on their clocks, it is what they can infer is happening at different points in time based on their assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. When Bob does the calculations assuming the speed of light = c, he finds event B had to happen before A, and when Alice does the calculations, she finds event A had to happen before B. How is this compatible with a single objective present? But the point I keep hammering home is that all these SR effects occur to every observer only in the present moment. You seem to assume there is the present moment, rather than their present moments, but this seems to be an unnecessary complication of the theory. And when any observers meet up they always share that same present moment, therefore it must be common and universal. What is your definition of present moment? What do you think about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument ? Of course Bob and Alice have different relativistic views of clock time, but everyone of these views occurs always in their present moment, and these present moments are always exactly the same whenever any observers meet up anywhere in the universe, therefore it is clear that present moment must be common to all observers. You are extrapolating from the idea that when two observers share a where they share a when, to get to the idea that whether or not observers share a where, they share a when. The first assumption doesn't even seem true, however, in the context of the Rietdijk-Putnam argument. Even two observers at the same place, if they are walking past each other, exist in when's that contain different content. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On 12/26/2013 4:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. In fact you don't even need any participants, not even instrumental ones: Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation, arXiv:quant-ph/040214v1 Brent P.S. Edgar, I notice that when you post a reply it includes your prior post, as though you're replying to yourself (see below). But it doesn't include anyone else's comments, which are actually what you're replying to. If you know how, it would be good to change that so we could see what exactly you're replying to. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On 12/26/2013 4:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Hi Jason, The STc Principle conclusively falsifies block time, since the fact that everything continually travels through spacetime all the time requires everything to be at one particular position in spacetime all the time. This is confirmed by direct experience, that we are always at a single point in spacetime. How could it be otherwise? The notion of block time is based on a misunderstanding of SR. Believers in block time need to offer an alternative explanation (than the one I give above) for the self-evident fact that we all experience our existence in a common present moment which they are unable to do. How do you know we experience our existence in a common present moment? LizR in New Zealand is some tens of milliseconds away from me in California. If we try to synchronize our clocks we will have to assume we're not moving relative to one another, i.e. that we are in the same inertial frame. If we were moving relative to one another the synchronization will be different. Again in your subsequent discussion about Bob and Alice you are discussing well known effects of SR with regards to CLOCK time. But the point I keep hammering home is that all these SR effects occur to every observer only in the present moment. And when any observers meet up they always share that same present moment, therefore it must be common and universal. And I keep pointing that what they share is an *event*: the event of being the same place at the same time. That doesn't imply anything about a global P-time. The event of me being at my home in California now and the event of Liz being in her New Zealand home now may be before or after one another depending the state of motion of the coordinates used to define before and after. Of course Bob and Alice have different relativistic views of clock time, but everyone of these views occurs always in their present moment, and these present moments are always exactly the same Exactly the same as what? The same as the moment they meet - sure? The same as the moment that others are meeting at other spacelike events - no. Brent whenever any observers meet up anywhere in the universe, therefore it is clear that present moment must be common to all observers. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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. -- 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
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On 27 December 2013 08:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/26/2013 4:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Hi Jason, The STc Principle conclusively falsifies block time, since the fact that everything continually travels through spacetime all the time requires everything to be at one particular position in spacetime all the time. This is confirmed by direct experience, that we are always at a single point in spacetime. How could it be otherwise? The notion of block time is based on a misunderstanding of SR. Believers in block time need to offer an alternative explanation (than the one I give above) for the self-evident fact that we all experience our existence in a common present moment which they are unable to do. How do you know we experience our existence in a common present moment? LizR in New Zealand is some tens of milliseconds away from me in California. If we try to synchronize our clocks we will have to assume we're not moving relative to one another, i.e. that we are in the same inertial frame. If we were moving relative to one another the synchronization will be different. We are in fact moving relative to each other, possibly by several 100 km/hr (my visualisation is a bit shaky, even though I have a handy globe...) If I pick someone at the antipodes, and say we're both on the equator, they are moving at the same speed as me in the opposite direction (relative to the Earth's centre) which in this case is about 1000 m.p.h. so our combined relative velocity is around 2000 m.p.h. Excuse me I have to lie down for a moment. -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On 12/26/2013 1:57 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 December 2013 08:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/26/2013 4:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Hi Jason, The STc Principle conclusively falsifies block time, since the fact that everything continually travels through spacetime all the time requires everything to be at one particular position in spacetime all the time. This is confirmed by direct experience, that we are always at a single point in spacetime. How could it be otherwise? The notion of block time is based on a misunderstanding of SR. Believers in block time need to offer an alternative explanation (than the one I give above) for the self-evident fact that we all experience our existence in a common present moment which they are unable to do. How do you know we experience our existence in a common present moment? LizR in New Zealand is some tens of milliseconds away from me in California. If we try to synchronize our clocks we will have to assume we're not moving relative to one another, i.e. that we are in the same inertial frame. If we were moving relative to one another the synchronization will be different. We are in fact moving relative to each other, possibly by several 100 km/hr (my visualisation is a bit shaky, even though I have a handy globe...) If I pick someone at the antipodes, and say we're both on the equator, they are moving at the same speed as me in the opposite direction (relative to the Earth's centre) which in this case is about 1000 m.p.h. so our combined relative velocity is around 2000 m.p.h. Right. That's why GPS defines coordinates in ECEf: Earth Centered Earth *Fixed*. Brent Excuse me I have to lie down for a moment. -- 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. -- 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.
The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Ok, so the Quantum needs an Observer. Who are the Observers, Boltzmann Brains. When intelligent Observers croak, Boltzmann Brains, Humans, The Intelligent Octopii, from the Sombrero Galaxy, should not the universe (one universe) collapse or devolve into chaos (particle probabilities)? Am I too insipid for addressing this? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 11:52 am Subject: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Amen on most points, Edgar. I also have misgivings about the existence of the multiverse for different reasons that this posting is not the place to vent. But, for we humans, the present moment exists for each of us. Your "common present moment" is an assumption that all x, y, and z of this 3-D realm experience simultaneity, even though every local set of coordinates, for instance, x1, y1, z1, if they have a self-aware structure (SAS), i.e. an observer, will have different experiences - albeit, even if only that the coordinates are different. You are trying to make your "common present moment" an axiom of reality that, for all x, y, and z, there is only one t. Though it makes common sense for a strictly Newtonian universe, when one adds relativistic considerations of the connectivity of space and time into a space-time continuum, your axiom of a common present may not hold. I am, BTW, a physicist by education. I don't post much. Howard Marks Certainly, your assumption can be made and explored. On 12/25/2013 10:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Hi Howard, Your comments pertain (correctly) to clock time but not to P-time, the time of the present moment. It is clear that the t's of clock time differ between clocks according to relativistic conditions. You need to understand that the present moment is independent of any particular clock time, it is the common present moment WITHIN which all clock times may have different t values. When the space traveling twins reunite with different clock time t values they ALWAYS reunite in the exact same present moment. That's the key insight I'm trying to get across. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
All this stuff about time is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, or at least hasn't been shown to exist. No one has yet shown what is wrong with the relativity of simultaneity and the block universe (or multiverse). -- 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On 12/25/2013 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Hi Howard, Your comments pertain (correctly) to clock time but not to P-time, the time of the present moment. It is clear that the t's of clock time differ between clocks according to relativistic conditions. You need to understand that the present moment is independent of any particular clock time, it is the common present moment WITHIN which all clock times may have different t values. When the space traveling twins reunite with different clock time t values they ALWAYS reunite in the exact same present moment. Seems like a mere definition. What's the operational meaning? All clocks measure propertime along their worldlines. What measure's P-time? Your examples only imply that two people *at the same place* can agree on now. But it doesn't follow that they can agree about now on Jupiter. 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.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Can you explain your justification for this assertion? Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. How can there be a single common present if relativity says one person can consistently believe that A happens before B, while, another person, every bit as consistent, could believe that B happens before A. If anything like a present exists, there must be at least two of them (one for each person in this example), and they must each be different in their content. Relativity of simultaneity absolutely rules out the notion of a single objective present. The only alternatives are: 1. a present for each inertial reference frame, 2. four dimensionalism (block time / eternalism). I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. If there are two observers in relative motion to each other, Alice and Bob, then Alice's present contains things that exist in both Bob's future, and Bob's past. How can something exist in Alice's present which supposedly stopped existing for Bob, and how can something exist in Alice's present which hasn't yet happened, from Bob's point of view? I think this is clear evidence that all points in time exist. They don't stop existing just because we can't see them--to me this seems a head-in-the-sand mentality, i.e. if I can't see it, it mustn't be there. If a theory explains why we can't see some particular thing, our inability to see that thing should not be considered evidence against that thing (within that theory). Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. What if multiple possibilities exist for the present moment, such as after a quantum erasure. Could there be more than one past moment consistent with the current present moment? Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. How does this work with QM? You expressed distaste for multiverse theories, but quantum mechanics is not 100% exact and predictable under single-universe interpretations. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. Say there are two very similar but different universes, one in which a photon took path A, and another where it took path B. However, mirrors are arranged such that regardless of which path is taken, the photon bounces to the same spot. After this happens the two universes are in identical states. Could either Edgar Owen (in either of the two universes) rule out the idea of multiple pasts consistent with their present? This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist If Julius Caesar still exists (in a point in space time some 2000 light years away), nothing changes in the laws of physics, and yet the future would seem just as as probabalistic and unpredictable from his point of view as it seems to us in ours. We can't use the presumed lack of existence as an explanation for the unpredictability of the future. Actually, we can entirely explain the unpredictability of the future from thermodynamics. Storing information requires energy, and energy can only be used to perform useful work in the direction of time through which entropy increases. Therefore no machine, brain, etc. can operate backwards in time and store information about future events, as it would represent a thermodynamically impossible system. Imagine a device using energy to store memories running backwards in time (from our point of view). It would be expending energy to store those bits, but from out perspective, expending energy in a useful way (backwards in time) from our perspective, appears as gather energy from the environment. It would be like seeing light bounce randomly off all the walls in the room to focus on the filament of a flashlight and recharge its batteries. It's physically possible but extremely unlikely. If no (likely) process can possess information stored about the future, then we have an explanation for our inability to know future outcomes. and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Can you explain your justification for this assertion? Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. How can there be a single common present if relativity says one person can consistently believe that A happens before B, while, another person, every bit as consistent, could believe that B happens before A. If anything like a present exists, there must be at least two of them (one for each person in this example), and they must each be different in their content. Relativity of simultaneity absolutely rules out the notion of a single objective present. The only alternatives are: 1. a present for each inertial reference frame, 2. four dimensionalism (block time / eternalism). I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. If there are two observers in relative motion to each other, Alice and Bob, then Alice's present contains things that exist in both Bob's future, and Bob's past. How can something exist in Alice's present which supposedly stopped existing for Bob, and how can something exist in Alice's present which hasn't yet happened, from Bob's point of view? I think this is clear evidence that all points in time exist. They don't stop existing just because we can't see them--to me this seems a head-in-the-sand mentality, i.e. if I can't see it, it mustn't be there. If a theory explains why we can't see some particular thing, our inability to see that thing should not be considered evidence against that thing (within that theory). Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. What if multiple possibilities exist for the present moment, such as after a quantum erasure. Could there be more than one past moment consistent with the current present moment? Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. How does this work with QM? You expressed distaste for multiverse theories, but quantum mechanics is not 100% exact and predictable under single-universe interpretations. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. Say there are two very similar but different universes, one in which a photon took path A, and another where it took path B. However, mirrors are arranged such that regardless of which path is taken, the photon bounces to the same spot. After this happens the two universes are in identical states. Could either Edgar Owen (in either of the two universes) rule out the idea of multiple pasts consistent with their present? This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist If Julius Caesar still exists (in a point in space time some 2000 light years away), nothing changes in the laws of physics, and yet the future would seem just as as probabalistic and unpredictable from his point of view as it seems to us in ours. We can't use the presumed lack of existence as an explanation for the unpredictability of the future. Actually, we can entirely explain the unpredictability of the future from thermodynamics. Storing information requires energy, and energy can only be used to perform useful work in the direction of time through which entropy increases. Therefore no machine, brain, etc. can operate backwards in time and store information about future events, as it would represent a thermodynamically impossible system. Imagine a device using energy to store memories running backwards in time (from our point of view). It would be expending energy to store those bits, but from out perspective, expending energy in a useful way (backwards in time) from our perspective, appears as gather energy from the environment. It would be like seeing light bounce randomly off all the walls in the room to focus on the filament of a flashlight and recharge its batteries. It's physically possible but extremely unlikely. If no (likely) process can possess information stored about the future, then we have an explanation for our inability to know future outcomes. and has never been computed. But the past - present
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On 26 December 2013 18:30, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Can you explain your justification for this assertion? Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. How can there be a single common present if relativity says one person can consistently believe that A happens before B, while, another person, every bit as consistent, could believe that B happens before A. This is the point at which Mr Owen's argument appears to fail. Until I hear a sensible answer to this objection, I can spare myself the necessity to waste my precious remaining worldline on the rest of his modest proposal about the nature of reality. -- 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.
