On 25 Jul 2011, at 03:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/24/2011 4:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Jul 2011, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote:
I found an alternative to this that does not assume P = NP and
that an infinite computation can occur in 0 steps which I can
show, at least in Leib
On 7/24/2011 4:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Jul 2011, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote:
I found an alternative to this that does not assume P = NP and that
an infinite computation can occur in 0 steps which I can show, at
least in Leibniz' case, is required.
I might be simple of mind, b
On 24 Jul 2011, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote:
I found an alternative to this that does not assume P = NP and that
an infinite computation can occur in 0 steps which I can show, at
least in Leibniz' case, is required.
I might be simple of mind, but I have no clue how an infinite
comput
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/24/2011 12:05 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime, then
>> jus
On 7/24/2011 3:13 AM, scerir wrote:
Jesse: I think that would be the alternative to spacetime
substantivalism known as "relationalism" (discussed in some of the
papers I linked to), it's certainly possible as well, I think if we
had a complete theory of quantum gravity it might naturally favo
On Jul 24, 12:33 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> I think that would be the alternative to spacetime substantivalism known as
> "relationalism" (discussed in some of the papers I linked to), it's
> certainly possible as well, I think if we had a complete theory of quantum
> gravity it might naturally fav
On 7/24/2011 12:05 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime,
then just consider block time a collection o
On 7/24/2011 12:05 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime,
then just consider block time a collection o
Jesse: I think that would be the alternative to spacetime substantivalism known
as "relationalism" (discussed in some of the papers I linked to), it's
certainly possible as well, I think if we had a complete theory of quantum
gravity it might naturally favor one or the other (the way the relati
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Jul 24, 12:05 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> > Substantivalism doesn't treat spacetime as a "substance" in the sense of
> > necessarily being made up of discrete grainy bits (which is all that the
> > gamma ray prediction was meant to test,
On Jul 24, 12:05 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Substantivalism doesn't treat spacetime as a "substance" in the sense of
> necessarily being made up of discrete grainy bits (which is all that the
> gamma ray prediction was meant to test,
> seehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.h
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime, then just
> consider block time a collection of events separated by certain distances
> and directions from eachother. You may
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jesse,
>
> We seem to be talking past each other. I am thinking about the notion
> of time as a dimension and its origin and implications. You seem to just
> assume its existence. I ask "why?".
>
>
That's not how I interpreted
On 7/23/2011 11:25 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Hi Jesse,
On 7/22/2011 8:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
>
> On 7/22/2011 8:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> None of those papers address the concern of narratability that I am
>> considering. In
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime, then
just consider block time a collection of events separated by certain
distances and directions from eachother. You may be right that
ultimately this is all related to a theory of observ
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/23/2011 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7
On 7/23/2011 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/22/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/22/201
Hi Jesse,
On 7/22/2011 8:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Hi Jason,
None of those papers address the concern of narratability that
I am considering. In fact they all assume narratability. I a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P. King
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> None of those papers address the concern of narratability that I am
> considering. In fact they all assume narratability. I am pointing out that
> thinking of time as a dimension has a big problem! It only works if all
On 7/22/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/22/20
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P. King
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2011 1:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> All the relevant parts of relativity which imply block time have been
>>>
On 7/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/22/2011 1:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
All the relevant parts of relativity which imply block time
have been confirmed. The above is like
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 1:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>> All the relevant parts of relativity which imply block time have been
>> confirmed. The above is like arguing against gravity because Newton's
>> theory wasn't compatible with the observati
On 7/22/2011 1:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
All the relevant parts of relativity which imply block time have been
confirmed. The above is like arguing against gravity because Newton's
theory wasn't compatible with the observations of Mercury's orbit.
Hi Jason,
Could you be more specific?
26 matches
Mail list logo
