On 7/23/2011 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

## Advertising

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net <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 <stephe...@charter.net <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 <stephe...@charter.net <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 arguing against gravity because Newton's theory wasn't compatible with the observations of Mercury's orbit. Hi Jason, Could you be more specific? Exactly which "relevantparts which imply block time have been confirmed" and how?Special relativity, time dilation due to speed, non simultaneity of events reported by observers in different reference frames, and so on. And to Brent's point, regarding the conflict between relativity and QM, that issue is with GR, SR is not in conflict with QM. This paper explains it well: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/ JasonHi Jason, I will check that paper, thanks! But here is the thing about the implications of relativity of simultaneity: Since it prohibits any form of absolute synchronization of events, this in turn restricts how the entire space-time manifold can be considered as parceled up into space-like and time like regions. Imagine that spacetime is a 3 dimensional instead of four dimensional. Now take any object's velocity through that space time, and consider a plane perpendicular to the direction of that velocity. The content of that plane is considered the "present" for that reference frame. This is more clear if you consider euclidean space time rather than Minkowski space. The only difference you need to make to convert spacetime to Euclidean is to imagine that every object's velocity through space time is c. /Relativity Visualized/ is a good book which explains this view, but this site also explains it: http://www.relativitysimplified.com/ . It enables an intuitive understanding of all the strange effects like time dilation and length contraction. Since we see only the three dimensional "shadow" of objects, an object with a different velocity is rotated in space time. It is like having an umbrella pointed straight at the sun vs. it being tilted, if it is tilted its shadow becomes compressed along the direction it is tilted. In other words, there cannot exist a single Cauchy hypersurface what acts as the set of initial (or final) conditions for a GR field equation for the entire universe. The fact that relativity iplies a unique present for every reference frame is one of the main arguments for block time. How can the car driving past you have a present containing different real objects than yours? Presentism assumes the present is the set of real objects at a given period of time, but what is real to you now in this moment is different from what is real to me in the same moment if we are moving relative to each other (even if we are at the same location). See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument The paper I cited also goes on to counter objections made to that argument. Thanks, Jason--Hi Jason, Stephen,Thanks for your comments. I will not reply to everything youmentioned, because I think Jesse did a good job of adressing most ofthe issues you raised.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 the events in time are pre-specifiable. This also involves strong determinism which is ruled out by QM. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#StaDetPhyThe for a general overview and tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/1994-calude.pdf <http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/%7Esvozil/publ/1994-calude.pdf> for a discussion that involves computationalism.Determinism and locality are only lost in the collapse theories.Under MWI and similar theories, physics is local and deterministic.The idea that time is a dimension assumes that the events making up the points of the dimension are not only isomorphic to the positive Reals but also somehow can freely borrow the well order of the reals.Imagine space time as an apple. Now I ask you the question "Whichseed comes first?" There is no objective answer, the seed that comesfirst depends entirely on the angle at which you approach the apple.The same is true of events in space time, there conclusion of whichevent occurred first depends entirely on the angle at which one istravelling through space time. Time, under Euclidean relativity isexactly like any spatial dimension, the reason it seems different fromthe other dimensions (we can't change direction through it, gobackwards, change our velocity through it) is because there is aphysical law that all objects must always travel at the speed oflight. The dimension of time is merely the one parallel to theobserver's direction at the speed of light. This is why two objectsin relative motion to each other have slightly differentinterpretations of what the dimension of time is. It is why inFeynman diagrams, one can rotate or swap dimensions of space or timeand the physical interaction remains entirely possible. Since lengthcontraction occurs in the dimension of time, from the perspective ofan observer their dimension of time is 0-length (this is intuitivebecause if everything has to move at c one cannot speed up or slowdown to travel freely through the dimension of time).Please do not think that I am trying to knock Special or General Relativity, they both represent time in terms of local readings of clocks and therefore bypass the question that I am considering. The block universe idea assumes a unique and global ordering of events, the actual math of SR and GR do not!In the context of the everything, there exist an infinite number ofdifferent block universes, and an infinite number of them contain youas you exist in this moment. Just as you can be recreated (andbrought back to life) in a different time or place, using differentmaterial, you may also be "recreated" in these other universes. Thusfrom one second to the next, you can travel between these universes,between vast times, between vast distances. You can never be surewhere you are or where you will be. This is the reason for theapparent indeterminism in physics. For details, see this paper, whichexplains how the simple theory that our universe is infinitely large,leads directly to the weidness of quantum mechanics:http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066Jason --

Hi Jason, Please see my last response to Jesse.

`I like that Aguirre`

`<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Aguirre_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>, Tegmark`

`<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Tegmark_M/0/1/0/all/0/1> and`

`Layzer <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Layzer_D/0/1/0/all/0/1>`

`paper ! I only take exception to its tacit assumption of spacetime`

`substantivalism.`

`http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/#PriSpaSub It`

`assumes an infinite number of spacetimes instead of just one and so does`

`not address the problem that I am trying to point out.`

`I am arguing that spacetime is not a substance what we are somehow`

`embedded in but something that emerges from the interactions of many QM`

`systems; it is what their observables have in common. I take QM to be a`

`theory of observers and GR is a theory of how observations are`

`organized. A theory is a explanatory model and its concepts should never`

`be considered as objectively existing 'things'. If there is a one-to-one`

`correlation between the entities of a theory and entities within our`

`phenomenal experience then that is the hallmark of a good theory, but`

`the theory is never the phenomena itself.`

Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.