On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital
transformation of consciousness is perfectly consistent with the
matter in the desk I'm pounding my hand on right now as simply be
Yes, it's in response to that. It just struck me that although the original
couldn't get out on his own, the duplicates he created could still help him
escape.
On 3 February 2014 20:33, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:58 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>>
>> Once there were a thousand duplicate
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:58 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> Once there were a thousand duplicates at the top of the pit, couldn't they
> knot toegther their heavy coats and make a rope to pull out the "original"
> still stuck in the pit?
>
> Or am I being too literal minded here? :-)
>
What is this in respo
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion
representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to
bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:12:18 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February
One I've mentioned ad nauseum - "Memento".
There is also "The Prestige", which I would definitely recommend.
To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might
appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least
tangentially, and in a fictional manner).
I mig
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 2, 2014
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:09:10 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
>
> Thanks for quoting the Chalmers piece because I didn't have it to hand and
> was relying on memory. But on rereading it I still believe that my way of
> formulating the paradox has teeth. Although Chalmers admits in this pass
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, > wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, wrote:
>
On 2/2/2014 4:43 PM, David Nyman wrote:
As Brent has remarked, it is still possible to hold on to the hope that the physical
appearances, however much they appear to be exhaustive and causally closed, still
conceal some truly unexpected nomological necessitation that will suffice to account for
On 2/2/2014 3:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:03, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
existence
"all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
On 2/2/2014 3:17 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, wrote:
...
It's funny b
Once there were a thousand duplicates at the top of the pit, couldn't they
knot toegther their heavy coats and make a rope to pull out the "original"
still stuck in the pit?
Or am I being too literal minded here? :-)
On 3 February 2014 16:50, Jason Resch wrote:
> Telmo,
>
> Thanks for pointing
Telmo,
Thanks for pointing that out. I believe I have resolved the issues and it
appears to be working now:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/
Enjoy.
Jason
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> The wiki doesn't seem to be working :( I get a 404...
>
> Cheers
Ooh, tricky - could that be Brent Meeker or Bruno Marchal being quoted? (I
have my suspicions of course... :-)
BM: But mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that the
machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth.
--
You received this message because you
On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
Brent
Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
misunderstanding?
It was last time yesterday when I wrote the opposite.
Here's the exchange:
Thanks for quoting the Chalmers piece because I didn't have it to hand and
was relying on memory. But on rereading it I still believe that my way of
formulating the paradox has teeth. Although Chalmers admits in this passage
that consciousness looks explanatorily irrelevant to phenomenal judgement
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "laying claim to conscious phenomena"? In what way
>> does a brain or body lay claim to conscious phenomena?
>
>
> Let me restate it then. Bodies, ins
On 1 February 2014 09:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It would seem so. But POPJ can still bite panpsychism, I think, although
> this doesn't seem to be widely recognised. My post to Craig elaborates on
> this.
>
> I am afraid he is too much vague to be really bitten. but you can put him
> in the corn
On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> After all, Craig, if it were that simple wouldn't it be rather likely that
>> someone other than yourself might have noticed this?
>>
> This is where you reveal that you are really only interested in humbling
> me, and are willing to resort to the
On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You see little because you want to be right. There is more to see, but you
> will have to change your mind to see it.
I presume you aren't implying that I will have to change my mind so that I
want to be wrong?
--
You received this message becau
On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What do you mean by "laying claim to conscious phenomena"? In what way does
> a brain or body lay claim to conscious phenomena?
Let me restate it then. Bodies, insofar as they are the manifestations with
which we interact (own brains and bodies in
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation
>> of consciousness is perfectly co
On 3 February 2014 08:03, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
>
> Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
> existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
>
> I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly w
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, wrote:
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, wrote:
>>>
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental ge
Brent, lt me skip my frequently written argument about 'mishaps' that
happen in our 'correct' predictions (like falling off airplanes from the
sky, striking sicknesses with no known reason, failed economical
predictions etc. etc..)
Allow me to quote an old Hungarian proverb (they are smart in many
On 2 February 2014 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
> significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it
> as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of non-sequiturs couched i
Bruno wrote (among many others) on Feb 1 in replying to my post of Jan 31:
*...mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that the
machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth. *
*Then, yes, for the ontology, IF we assume comp, then the mathematical,
even th
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin
You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
Brent
Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
misunderstanding?
It was last time yesterday when I wrote the opposite. I do not joke about
being agnostic,
especially in cases what I 'assume', like 't
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
> significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it
> as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of non-sequiturs couched
Thanx, Brent, - I subscribed to the php - did not join Twitter (what they
wanted for subscription to 'PhilosopherMail').
John M
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> My new online news source. Forget "Fair and Balanced"; it's
> "Comtemplative and Significant".
>
> Brent
>
>
>
On 3 February 2014 08:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Your idea of my theory must be very different from mine.
>
> You appear to have Edgar-itis - "I have a theory which I can't explain
clearly, nor can I defend it against criticism except by insisting that
nobody understands it".
--
You received t
On 3 February 2014 08:05, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/2/2014 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Exactly. The only thing lagging is the AI.
>
>
> More or less, but "AI" is a bit relative. I agree with Hofstadter "AI"
> is when the program are not yet written, and once written we take them as
> conve
On 3 February 2014 02:37, David Nyman wrote:
> Chalmers knows he has put his finger on a stark contradiction - a paradox
> in fact - and he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge its force.
> He shows that it should lead us to the conclusion - per impossibile - that
> we ourselves are in
On 3 February 2014 00:04, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Hi Telmo,
> >
> > No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually
> > OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block
> times
> > including Br
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
> consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
> pounding my hand on rig
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
>>> of a world, and if the
My new online news source. Forget "Fair and Balanced"; it's "Comtemplative and
Significant".
Brent
Original Message
http://www.philosophersmail.com/WHAT.php
/The Philosopher's Mail is a new news organisation, based in bureaux in London, NYC and
Melbourne, run and staffed
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, > wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
of a
world, and if the speed of light is constant,
On 3 February 2014 03:29, David Nyman wrote:
> On 2 February 2014 05:40, LizR wrote:
>
> Phew. At least it isn't just me who has this reaction. Maybe Craig and
>> Edgar can get together and form a church whose motto is "I am right, and if
>> you don't realise that it's because your little brain
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, > wrote:
>
>>
>> Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
>> of a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots
>> around that world for exa
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the significance of the
paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it as insouciantly interpolating
armfuls of non-sequiturs couched in an impenetrable private jargon. You quote Chalme
Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a
State of Matter,
my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics-
the former yields only a max of 37 bits
and the latter even less.
Richard
On Sat, Feb
On 2/2/2014 4:13 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface of a world, and
if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots around that world for
exact intervals of the speed of light, in which case the light arrives at each p
On 2/2/2014 3:04 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>Hi Telmo,
>
>No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually
>OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block times
>including Bruno's don't make sense
On 2/2/2014 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
That can convince the inner god (the soul, S4Grz) of Brouwerism (modern Aristotelism
about that infinity qu
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:18:28 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >> wrote:
> >> >
On 2/2/2014 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
On 01 Feb 2014, at 23:29, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, allow me NOT to repeat the entire shabang with only 'interjecing' some
remarks.
My main problem is the "theorem" ("theory, hypothesis" or call it anyway you wish) of
which - in my o
On 2/2/2014 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. The only thing lagging is the AI.
More or less, but "AI" is a bit relative. I agree with Hofstadter "AI" is when the
program are not yet written, and once written we take them as conventional programming.
That is not strictly true, but there
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into existence "all
at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was. But I
haven't managed to find it, and I c
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 1, 2014
I will come back on this when I have time, but - to continue my suggestions
re SF stories - "Flux" by Michael Moorcock addresses the "momentary frog
question" rather nicely. Philosophically, at least, it is always possible
that we ARE just momentary frogs.
On 3 February 2014 03:19, David Nyman w
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the johnkclak
program,
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:04:35 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 2 February 2014 03:52, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>
> It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's
>> very common I've found. Not everyone is that way though. I have many
>> productive convers
I am about 1/3rd though it now. So far it is an interesting read, and I
have learned quite a bit about about cosmology. I have not gotten to any of
his ideas about multiple universes or mathematical reality yet.
Jason
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR wrote:
> A consensus?!? Here???
>
> Ex
On 01 Feb 2014, at 23:48, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal.
Just to be sure, I agree with that.
I asked "why?" because I was thinking at the meta-level.
The problem, is that if we can conc
On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
That can convince the inner god (the soul, S4Grz) of Brouwerism
(modern Aristotelism about that infinity question).
But the inner God is already co
On 01 Feb 2014, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
then feel free to "invoke some non-comp" or invoke more "comp" if
that floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to
find a consistent definition of your silly little word "co
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off
> from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip.
>
Then each would see the others clock as running slower than his own. You
might think this would
On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
A mathematical ordering is static and does NOT move.
Nor even "not not move". Those physical categories don't apply.
It is not a flowing time.
OK.
Doesn't matter if you claim there is some 1p perspective that is a
mathematical o
On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
On 01 Feb 2014, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2014 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can
potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be r
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, wrote:
>
> Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface of
> a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots
> around that world for exact intervals of the speed of light, in which case
> the light arrives at each
On 2 February 2014 03:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's
> very common I've found. Not everyone is that way though. I have many
> productive conversations with people also. That would be hard to explain if
> it was my fault.
It's
On 2 February 2014 05:40, LizR wrote:
Phew. At least it isn't just me who has this reaction. Maybe Craig and
> Edgar can get together and form a church whose motto is "I am right, and if
> you don't realise that it's because your little brain can't grasp my
> magnificent theory."
>
> They could c
On 2 February 2014 03:42, LizR wrote:
To answer the question about the frogs. We imagine we are an "extended
> frog" because of memory; without it we really would be stuck in the present
> moment, a series of individual isolated moments - and completely unable to
> function, of course. (If you ha
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:51:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense
>>> tha
Me too :) I may get a bit tetchy about your logic but I can still
appreciate the visuals!
David
On 2 February 2014 11:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> Like, wow
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it
as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of non-sequiturs couched in an
impenetrable private jargon. You quote Chalmers, but you consistently dodge
(or perhaps
Brent, and anyone else who wants to answer,
First, thanks for your patience and consideration in answering my
questions. I appreciate it, and hope you will also take the time to address
what I see is the crux of the journey to the center of the galaxy case
below.
To review: the case of A trave
Brent,
The "centrifuge" is totally unnecessary because B back on earth already IS
experiencing the exact same 1g gravitational acceleration that A is. B
doesn't need any centrifuge to experience 1g.
That's why those specs were part of my case, so acceleration could be
discounted...
Edgar
O
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:21:41 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Yes, that "being at the same point in spacetime" is CALLED the present
>> moment that I'm talking about.
>>
>
>
> But your present moment goes beyond
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense
>> than some posts around here!)
>>
>
> Hehe, thanks! I got accepted to do a poster presentation at t
Hi Liz,
Great avatar :)
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, LizR wrote:
> Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
> existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
>
> I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Edgar,
>
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
> No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually
> OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block times
> including Bruno's don't make sense.
Could you observe the clock moving if
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it
was. But I haven't managed to find it, and I can't spend all night trawling
the for
79 matches
Mail list logo
