made that distinction clear but apparently it didn't register...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:55:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 07:16, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> I just explained how it is possible to tell if your parti
Liz,
That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> No, it's not that simple as I thought I had
Brent,
Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement. It's been on my 'to do list'
and posting here is helping to clarify the presentation of some of my ideas
towards that end.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:41:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2014 9:23 AM
id rebuttal to those who are arguing against your
> dismissal of block time. So it would be worth your while to answer it...
> two birds, one stone. I await your answer.
>
> Hoping for the best...
> Terren
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote
Liz, et al,
The so called 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is obvious in a
universe where reality math actually computes reality. That couldn't be any
simpler or clearer.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:06:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb >wrote:
g for me!!
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Terren,
>>>
>>> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories
>>> into stand
egers are NOT infinite.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:10:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 11:38, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> How do you define infinity differently than an unreachable process?
>>
>> Countable infinity c
er and consistency with actually observed phenomena.
Edgar
My theory on the other hand takes
On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:52:34 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 04:31, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> It's not 'ideal monism'. T
Liz,
How do you define infinity differently than an unreachable process?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:08:52 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 02:32, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> To answer your questions.
>>
>> Real
little in my theory to
include everything which could become possible.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:54:09 PM UTC-5, oughtred wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen >
> wrote:
>
> Terren,
>
> No, it's not a contradiction. Becaus
of people claiming to have a way for me to know
> "what is really going on". 99.99% of the time they
> are peddling snake oil.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> A couple of responses.
>
nuary 13, 2014 12:58:13 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
>> realities being computed.
99% of the time they
> are peddling snake oil.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> A couple of responses.
>
> Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own
> merits... Don'
observable and one can
measure it and confirm its existence.
Things must be observable to properly be considered real and actual...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:36:00 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:32 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
> it.
>
>
> Good point! I t
n dead
Edgar
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hi Edgar,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are ta
heir website is arxiv.org
>
> Jason
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:59 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Telmo,
>
> Thanks for the explanation, though it doesn't seem very applicable to
> actual reality...
>
> I would be very interested in where one can
actualized generalize
quantum vacuum with no measure because nothing was yet happening.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:57:13 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> To
ned by are sci fi, or
worse, delusion.
Truth is internal consistency of our simulation across maximum scope. If
there is some inconsistency then we don't have true knowledge of reality to
that extent.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:21:03 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
&g
would be helpful if you proposed some semi-formal
> definitions or pointed to similar discussion by other authors. It seems to
> me that your theory is yet another version of ideal monism and there are
> quite a few of those floating around.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:1
gt; > forms
> >> > in OE.
> >>
> >> This sounds like comp and UD.
> >>
> >> > All so called physical worlds are how organismic minds simulate their
> >> > interactions with this information world. Organismic, including
>
ts topological properties, its parameters,
> etc.?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space
>> that enables computations to take place since something has to move
gins?
>
> Jason
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:35 PM, LizR > wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 17:19, meekerdb <
> meek...@verizon.net
> > wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in c
riday, January 10, 2014 5:05:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 04:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it actually
> applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational re
wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 04:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> Your error here is assuming the computations take place in a single "wide"
> physical dimensional space. They don't. They take place in a purely
> computational space prior to the
archal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
> doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done.
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> If you even assum
to
use in my book on Reality
Edgar
On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:38:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:53, LizR wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I&#
STANDARD sense it's
used in computer science, as the output of running computer programs. I
find it strange you would disagree with that
Edgar
On Friday, January 10, 2014 3:14:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 09 Jan 2014, at 20:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Terre
r theory.
>
> Your objection about human math and reality math, I believe, is an attempt
> to refute step 8 of the UDA - that is usually the most problematic step for
> people who don't agree with the UDA. It would be very interesting if you
> could identify a flaw in the UDA, su
17:19, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space
>> that enables computations to take place since something has to move for
>> computations
. All the
> many
> > ways this happens is described in detail in my book...
>
> Ok, again this seems compatible with the concepts of 1p/3p, which are
> frequently mentioned in this mailing list. (not everyone likes them,
> for sure... I do)
>
> Cheers
> Tel
Liz,
The computational theory I propose has nothing to do with cellular
automata. Cellular automata is little more than a simple childish game. I
played around with them myself back in the 1960's and found little of
interest. All the hype and theorizing around them is misguided.
What they are
hen.
>
> Now we've cleared that up, I can repeat my original point:
>
> On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
>> doesn't properly describe reality
ource allocation and
> one has a real mess! (Forget about the intractability issues...) There
> seems to be a lot of bad thinking when it comes to what exactly is a
> computation. Let me try a definition of "computation":
>
> Any transformation of information.
>
ary 9, 2014 9:56:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> No you spent them telling me what it *does*. I'd like to know what it
> *is.*
>
>
> On 10 January 2014 15:54, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Common Liz, I just spent the last number of posts telling you and Stephen
>
talking about here. May I respectfully
> suggest you call yours something else, to avoid confusion?
>
>
> On 10 January 2014 15:52, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does or
>> doesn&#
; On 1/9/2014 5:15 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Stephen,
> >
> > PPS: A computational universe, IF it computes clock times which it must,
> absolutely
> > requires something besides clock time to be moving to provide the
> processor cycles for
> > those co
e time that is prior to all the various times that occur in the
> computed reality. The question is, what is *that *time? (whatever it
> should be called)
>
>
> On 10 January 2014 15:48, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Obviously clock time is th
Liz,
Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does or
doesn't do...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:38:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, that's not the onl
ality exists is
conclusive proof.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
>> occasion
at 8:16 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>> There is no "single observer that can take in all events...". I never
>>> said that and don't believe it.
>>>
>>
14:01, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> There is no "single observer that can take in all events...". I never
>> said that and don't believe it.
>>
>> However there has to be a single universal processor cycling for a
>> com
y the very existence of reality.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:12:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz and Terren,
>>
>> I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on it.
>
) instantaneously replaced with an
exact copy with the exact neural circuitry and neural states then I suppose
'I' would still think I was me. I don't see why not.
So what's the point? I forgot what it was...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
&g
eech using an imprecise definition which isn't really germane here.
As you point out everybody's thoughts and states of mind are always
changing
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 10 January
ality comes from... the way you express it leaves little room for doubt,
> which is an odd stance considering that it's something we would need to
> take on faith, regardless of what your theory is. It comes across as
> dogmatic or religious... is that your intent?
>
> Terre
a life-threatening brain disorder by giving you a prosthetic brain
> that replicates your biological brain at some level.
>
> If so, Bruno's UDA proves that the physical world as we experience it is
> not computable.
>
> Terren
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:0
ysical worlds' are products of organismic minds and occur only
within those minds as simulations of the external information reality.
Actual fundamental external reality is computationally evolving information
in OE only.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:06:49 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes
Dear Edgar,
>
> Check out this article by S. Wolfram:
>
>
> http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/undecidability-intractability-theoretical-physics.pdf
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>&
uot;realm".
>
> That aside, I gather that if you built a robot that had the proper mental
> simulation of its world, based on its own sensory apparatus, with the
> complex feedback systems necessary, that robot would EXperience as well?
>
> Terren
>
>
> On Thu
matical system of reality.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:04:39 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> I define 'Reality' in my book on the su
hat isn't?
>
> Terren
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
>> whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything that
exists. One must be careful to distinguish between actual external reality,
of which there is only one, and individual 'realities' which vary widely
across individuals and species, and which are all individual
ne and
> this is a natural source of disbelief.
> Your "In my book" is no argument. We wrote books as well. .
>
> *I "know" for sure that we don't know anything for sure.* I will not hunt
> after such items and when I post disbelief that is something I usu
uot;know" for sure that we don't know anything for sure.* I will not hunt
> after such items and when I post disbelief that is something I usually can
> support from my past experience.
>
> Have a good 2014 and beyond
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Ja
of
> reality, as a function somehow of "ontological energy".
>
> Terren
> On Jan 8, 2014 1:49 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
>> Telmo,
>>
>> Thanks for the link but see my new topic "A theory of consciousness" of a
>>
Telmo,
Thanks for the link but see my new topic "A theory of consciousness" of a
few days ago which no one has even commented on and which is much more
reasonable and explanatory.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> In case you haven't seen it...
All,
As I explain in my book on Reality, entropy states are not fundamental, as
often assumed, because they depend on the spatial mix of prevailing forces.
For example the maximum entropy state will be completely different in a
positive gravitation universe than it would be in a negative
gravi
Jason,
What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning
to sound just like another name for Present time.
What's the difference?
Edgar
On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, "Edgar L.
proved by their differing
clocks.
When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind
of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.
Edgar
On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Brent
end we use the definitions which Einstein
> works out (starting on page 2 of his paper):
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>
> It would avoid a lot of confusion I think, because so far we seem to be
> talking past each other over what basic words
Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the
>> present moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present
>> moment when do they meet up
2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times.
>> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor
>> explained by relativity It's a basic but tota
:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times.
>> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor
>> ex
Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically
>> verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on
>> that measur
that
Edgar
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:08:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/5/2014 4:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the
> same "present place" when their clocks don
my
questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true.
Best,
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> PPS: More questions about your th
s required for a
computational universe to work. Otherwise nothing would even happen
Edgar
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:16:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:06, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"
Bruno,
You say of the present moment "Yes, it's not a clock time." I agree, then
what is the present moment if it isn't a clock time?
Edgar
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:07:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
rote:
>
> On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in
> the same present moment is "an event&
f block time is true, and there is no free will, are you any more
than a robot zombie?
Awaiting your answers with interest...
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Ja
rom your perspective?
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your
> theor
Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your
> theory of this present moment we all exp
oment and their clock times are
not simultaneous.
This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your
answer...
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
Pierz,
It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present moment and
Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they are basic aspects
of reality.
Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what is
mathematically describable.
Not all of reality is m
Liz,
I'm not going to give Yes/No questions to ill formulated questions.
Have you stopped beating your dog?
:-)
See my answers to these questions (in my own words) in my response to Gabe
who asked them
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 5:18:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Our first topic is
3. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order of
> events at the same point in space: True or False?
>
> -Gabe
>
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Gabriel,
>>
>> See my long most re
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I
> like that!
>
>
> Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-)
>
>
> I'm combining my response
clock time dilation is an absolute
permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no
relative motion.
That should clarify everything but I fear it won't
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan
Gabriel,
See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this works
and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
> (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
>
> The "P-time
Jason,
Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
it is.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edga
-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Lliz, Brent and Jason,
>>
>> Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
>> physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. It is true the
effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have
suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equival
Liz,
This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many
female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to
mind.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>> Edga
Liz,
The common present moment is not something I "need". It's the way nature
works...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now,
> because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...
>
> Why
uestion is answered...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a pr
t; If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no
> what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 20
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
>> con
However everything is logical, and
I've given the logical reasoning...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> We'll let Jason judg
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:21:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2014 10:17, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
>>
>
> No we won't. I followed his argument, and I want an answer t
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> I answered Jason directly. See that post.
>>
>
> By no
Brent,
No, they aren't hidden variables. Not at all. Read my new topic post
"Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events" for the
detailed explanation.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:16:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L.
Liz,
I answered Jason directly. See that post.
There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present
moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are
confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for
one more approach that mig
rsday, January 2, 2014 1:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Taking your points in order.
>>
>> No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock
theory I stated is NOT a hidden variable theory. There are
no hidden variables at all in my explanation. Please, respectfully, reread
it and see there are none...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:55:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar
ary 2, 2014 12:32:19 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I
>> can make it any clearer. Please, I re
worlds' since they continually
merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.)
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>&g
ared present moment
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer i
t;
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> > Jason,
>>> >
>>> > That's a totally off the wall answer.
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic "Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events." Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames
o
601 - 700 of 823 matches
Mail list logo
