Re: Block Universes

Jesse, When I say 'everything happens in the same present moment'. 1. By everything I mean everything that actually happens, not everything you can imagine happening like Jesus not being crucified or Hitler winning WW2. I would think that would be obvious. 2. Everything in the history of the u

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames because their clocks read different t-values. You simply cannot invent any frame that makes the actual difference in their ages go away. All you are doing is trying to ignore the effect by assigning a new arbitrary

Re: Block Universes

Liz, No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it manifests in the computations it produces because only they have any measure because only they have dimensionality. Again whenever we try to measure p-timel we

Re: Block Universes

Liz, No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa. Edgar On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:15:42 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which > sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with > it

Re: Block Universes

Russell, Yes, that's correct. I'm just saying my theory predicts Omega MUST be >1 and the universe a positively curved hypersphere. 1. Because that's the only cosmological geometry consistent with p-time. 2. Because an Omega <1 results in a universe either infinite or with edges, neither of whi

Re: Block Universes

Ghibbsa, Brent, Russell, Jesse, What Ghibbsa and others are trying to do here is establish a notion of a universal CLOCK time, and there are several approaches to doing this. The best way we would do this is to take an observer in deep space with no gravitational field or acceleration and calcu

Re: Block Universes

On 07 Feb 2014, at 21:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jesse, I'm willing to accept the notion that time, like everything else is quantized at the finest scale, but even so I would maintain that everything is at one and only one point in time as the current state is continually recomputed into t

Re: Block Universes

I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with it - for example an astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the same time as his twin on Earth, but intersecting it at an angle that mean

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with >> it doesn't change in princi

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it > doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal > with the problems that kee

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:19:12 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > I'm not sure you can distinguish a "unit of energy". These can be changed > from one for to another. Suppose an atom with an "age" (since it emerged > from the big bang) of 12Gy absorbs a photon with an "age" of 10Gy (although > a C

Re: Block Universes

> > Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the >> history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of >> a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 >> of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? >> >>

Re: Block Universes

On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best efforts to see a sense, starting gen

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:26:00 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 2/7/2014 8:54 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell St

Re: Block Universes

On 2/7/2014 8:54 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owe

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:34:25 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 8 February 2014 17:16, > wrote: > >> >> Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big >> bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately >> nodding at dark energy) has its own unbr

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:26PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Russell, > > Some good questions! > > Yes, the theory predicts a very small positive curvature of space. The > universe is a closed finite hypersphere with no edges and not infinite. > > A lot of people claim that data suggests th

Re: Block Universes

I'm not sure you can distinguish a "unit of energy". These can be changed from one for to another. Suppose an atom with an "age" (since it emerged from the big bang) of 12Gy absorbs a photon with an "age" of 10Gy (although a CMBR photon would presumably have an age of 400,000 years since no time el

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> > Ghibbsa, >> > >> > Let me clari

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Re: Block Universes

On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Ghibbsa, > > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. > > P-time runs at the same intr

Re: Block Universes

On 8 February 2014 17:16, wrote: > > Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, > allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately > nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By > whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shou

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> > Ghibbsa, >> > >> > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. >> > >> >

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > > > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. > > > > P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though > it >

Re: Block Universes

> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > > > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. > > > > P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though > it > > doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to > > dimen

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > If as you say, the ""same point in time" in relativity just MEANS that > two events are assigned the same time coordinate" then the twins are NOT at > the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have > different

Re: Block Universes

Russell, Some good questions! Yes, the theory predicts a very small positive curvature of space. The universe is a closed finite hypersphere with no edges and not infinite. A lot of people claim that data suggests the universe is flat, but the data does not actually suggest that. What the data

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Re your question of "simultaneous past p-times" its a good question and I > did answer it but will give a more complete answer now. > > I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present > moment of p-time as

Re: Block Universes

Brent, Sure, I understand this and AGREE with it. It's just standard relativity theory. But it's a description of CLOCK time simultaneity, It does NOT say anything about being in a present moment of p-time. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:11:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/7/2014 10

Re: Block Universes

On 8 February 2014 01:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this > issue that I promised: > > > A few points: > > 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the > present moment that I used before. The twins m

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Ghibbsa, > > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. > > P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it > doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to > dimensionality. Howev

Re: Block Universes

Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hypers

Re: Block Universes

Ghibbsa, I'm not sure I understand the point of your question. Both twins are alway in their own present moments, and when they meet they always find that they were always in the SAME present moment because they are in the same present moment whenEVER they meet and no matter WHERE they meet. So

Re: Block Universes

Ghibbsa, It's a good approach to question a theory from within after assuming it's true... More people here should try that! The answer to your excellent question is that present moments in p-time don't have significant durations, and I agree if they did, then they might have to have different

Re: Block Universes

On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:55:02 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Ghibbsa, >> >> But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very >> present moment. That's a key insight to the theory. >> >> The f

Re: Block Universes

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very > present moment. That's a key insight to the theory. > > The fact that we can't determine exactly what the clock time is there of > that prese

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Re your question of "simultaneous past p-times" its a good question and I did answer it but will give a more complete answer now. I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present moment of p-time as p-time continually happens). But as I've explained, p-time is

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, If as you say, the ""same point in time" in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time coordinate" then the twins are NOT at the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have different time coordinates in their coordinate systems. That's the whole

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I'm willing to accept the notion that time, like everything else is quantized at the finest scale, but even so I would maintain that everything is at one and only one point in time as the current state is continually recomputed into the next state.. However it seems to me this not just

Re: Block Universes

On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:30, LizR wrote: On 7 February 2014 05:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:30, LizR wrote: On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and seems to me to still look like using ad hoc info

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your > reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than > when it was sent. > And how does that prove that time "flows" in a non-block-t

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Well you just avoid most of my points and logic. > Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding? > > But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is > EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed ope

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than when it was sent. This is true no matter what the distance is. So imagine doing this for every possible distance. The time of return will alwa

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Well you just avoid most of my points and logic. But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic of it does not supp

Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this > issue that I promised: > > > A few points: > > 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the > present moment that I used before. The t

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation de

Re: Block Universes

Russell, My theory is COMPLETELY compatible with relativity. You just don't understand my theory if you think that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:26:43 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:59:53PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 P

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Again I will post shortly a detailed analysis addressing this and other points you've made. Best, Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:59:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> What's wrong with "conscious experienc

Re: Block Universes

Liz, and Jesse, Yes, I second that! Jesse has very patiently explained his side of the argument in a lot of thoughtful detail which I very much appreciate. It's been an excellent opportunity for me to test and clarify the arguments in support of my position. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 20

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK, so we agree here. Your coordinate time just references the well known fact that one can use more or less any arbitrary coordinate system in relativity, and that none is intrinsically any 'better' than any other, though some may be more useful than others. I have no problem with that

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, It doesn't give a coordinate transformation, it gives an explanation. Shortly I'll post a longer analysis... Best, Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:01:11 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> OK, here's another qu

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:59:53PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Jesse, > > > > What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is > > ultimately a conscious experience. > > > > Yes, ultimately, but the observations

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is > ultimately a conscious experience. > Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are always of quantitative values that can be mea

Re: Block Universes

I must say, Jesse, I admire your patience and forebearance. -- 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 p

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your > post is you say "The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on > the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the > event

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > OK, here's another question to get to the crux. > > You claim the twins "meet in the same point of spacetime". > > OK, if that's a real point in spacetime it MUST have a t-coordinate. What > is the value of that t-coordinate? > In

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-07 Edgar L. Owen : > Quentin, > > It IS a problem for reality and for relativity, because it exposes a > hidden assumption of relativity without which relativity doesn't make sense > No, the only problem with relativity, is that you absolutely have no idea how it works, what you state is

Re: Block Universes

Quentin, It IS a problem for reality and for relativity, because it exposes a hidden assumption of relativity without which relativity doesn't make sense, that there must be a common present moment in which relativistic results occur for those results to make sense and be meaningful, for the co

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen : > Quentin, > > For starters, as I've said on numerous occasions, it solves the question > of how observers can have different relativistic clock times in the same > present moment. > It doesn't solve anything, because it's not a problem for relativity... I agree that s

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is ultimately a conscious experience. The observation of a present moment we share when we are together in space is the most FUNDAMENTAL observation of all. It's much much more than "an intuition". It's a directly ob

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen : > Jesse, > > Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time > simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same > present moment of p-time. > Once again, for the nth time, there is absolutely no need of p-time for that. It's

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your post is you say "The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the event". This clock, call it C, on the grid that was at the same poi

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? > No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly change the subject and make sco

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > You are misunderstanding most of my points here! > > By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct > answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me, > correct me if I'm wrong, that

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK, here's another question to get to the crux. You claim the twins "meet in the same point of spacetime". OK, if that's a real point in spacetime it MUST have a t-coordinate. What is the value of that t-coordinate? And what's the relation of that t-coordinate to the different clock tim

Re: Block Universes

Liz, Liz, Liz, Of course the time/age difference can be explained but NOT the fact that it occurs in the SAME present moment, a moment distinct and different from clock time. You still don't grasp the basic issue here Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:41:36 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is what I was/am doing... Yes, I'd like to understand your take on "whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like "same point in spacetime" really

Re: Block Universes

On 7 February 2014 11:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > But even if they do that, one twin still is REALLY younger than the other. > That real actual time disparity can NOT be reset. There is a real absolute > time and age difference that relativity can CALCULATE but relativity CANNOT > explain why th

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, You are misunderstanding most of my points here! By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that your coordinate time analysis just comes up with the exact sam

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time > simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same > present moment of p-time. > Because you were *asking* about whether relativity can

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:15:16 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Edgar L

Re: Block Universes

Quentin, For starters, as I've said on numerous occasions, it solves the question of how observers can have different relativistic clock times in the same present moment. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:33:02 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > I've read all of them, there is nothing

Re: Block Universes

On 7 February 2014 05:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:30, LizR wrote: > > On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and >> seems to me to still look like using ad hoc information to select one >> rea

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Quentin, > > Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... > > Edgar > I would guess that, like me, Quentin is asking how you would retroactively determine whether two events in the past happened at the same p-time (and because of

Re: Block Universes

I've read all of them, there is nothing about what it is supposed to solve... Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post. 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen : > Quentin, > > Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... > > Edgar > > > On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13

Re: Block Universes

Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? > > > 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen >: > >> Quentin, >> >> But it's NOT the case... >> >

Re: Block Universes

So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen : > Quentin, > > But it's NOT the case... > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer : >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 201

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > No, I've mentioned that on a number of occasions. And yes, Omega should > give us a p-time radius if we can actually figure out how to use it to > calculate the radius of a simply hypersphere (if it is actually the > curvature of

Re: Block Universes

On 06 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:20:36PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 6 February 2014 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: That is exactly why I say a BU can never describe consciousness. Is that specifically a BU, or any form of materialism? Material

Re: Block Universes

On 06 Feb 2014, at 00:17, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven. Certainly the equations themselves don't necessitate that... If you accept that you are faced with t

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how > it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time > differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present moment'. > Because y

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present moment'. Because you say we already have to previously define what the same presen

Re: Block Universes

On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:30, LizR wrote: On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and seems to me to still look like using ad hoc information to select one reality against others. I agree with Deutsch's idea that Cramer

Re: Block Universes

Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer >: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen >> > wrote: >> >>> But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so >>>

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, No, I've mentioned that on a number of occasions. And yes, Omega should give us a p-time radius if we can actually figure out how to use it to calculate the radius of a simply hypersphere (if it is actually the curvature of a standard hypersphere which I'm beginning to doubt) rather tha

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer : > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so >> "arbitrary precision" does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept >> correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present m

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so "arbitrary > precision" does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. > P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which > all measure

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time >> simultaneity in a cosmolog

Re: Block Universes

Brent, Here once again you are talking about clock time simultaneity. And here again I agree. But you still don't grasp that is NOT the common p-time present moment IN WHICH clock times are either simultaneous or not. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:45:24 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On

Re: Block Universes

Ghibbsa, But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very present moment. That's a key insight to the theory. The fact that we can't determine exactly what the clock time is there of that present moment, or the fact that they might be doing things faster or slower than we a

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, The Hubble age of the universe just means that most observers throughout the unvierse calculate nearly identical CLOCK times for that age. There will be local differences but these will mostly be small due to averaging effects over the life of the universe. This Hubble age is NOT its p-

Re: Block Universes

Brent, Yes, and of course the fact that the age of the universe will pretty certainly be calculated everywhere in the universe as the same 13.7 billion years strongly suggest there is a common present universal present moment or time. Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:38:03 PM UTC-5, B

Re: Block Universes

On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's n

Re: Block Universes

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:53:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > A couple of points in response: > > 1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d > universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows > just fine in SR and GR. No cl

Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time > simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D > spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the den

Re: Block Universes

On 6 February 2014 14:34, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:19:20PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > My position is that (since today has an R in it) I accept there is a > > problem with consciousness supervening on matter, and hence no > materialist > > (physicalist?) theory can explain

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:19:20PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 6 February 2014 14:16, Russell Standish wrote: > > > I don't know. I suspect Liz was being a little overeager in > > > attributing 1p phenomena to the explanatory reach of the block > > universe, but it could be she's a closet eliminative

Re: Block Universes

On 6 February 2014 14:16, Russell Standish wrote: > I don't know. I suspect Liz was being a little overeager in > attributing 1p phenomena to the explanatory reach of the block > universe, but it could be she's a closet eliminative materialist, in > which case, yes, we have a fundamental disagree

Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:23:26PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, and Russell, > > No I think you two have a basic disagreement. Russell claims 1p views of > the block universe actually move along their timelines (that's his mistake > in my view about BU theory and what I take to be Liz's vi

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:20:36PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 6 February 2014 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > That is exactly why I say a BU can never describe consciousness. > > > > Is that specifically a BU, or any form of materialism? > Materialism only really entails supervenience of

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >