On 6/22/2012 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    I think that we agree that [time] transitions are occurring!

Maybe time changes as a smooth transition, maybe it's a series of discrete jumps, it would look the same to us either way, and even if our best instruments were a billion trillion trillion times as sensitive as they are they still could not detect the granularity in time if it was as small as the Plank Time level.

Hi John,

This quantization of time is easily seen as problematic when we consider that SR tells us that any granulation of time is equivalent to a grnulation of space which has observable effect. Basically it predicts violations of Lorentz invariance by ultra high energy photons. So far observations have not shown any violations, even in very high gamma rays from GRBs. see: http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4927

    > we cannot think of time as just a ordered collection of entities.

I don't see why not.

Ordered collections alone do not have transitions. This is part of my argument against Bruno's idea of abstract implementation.

    > Just because we can get a from a concatenation of "physical
    constants" does not make it a physical constant.

True, but it's also true that a simple formula produces units of time [Gh/c^5]^1/2 = 5.38 * 10-44 second. so it's not hard to imagine that there is something special about 5.38 * 10^-44 seconds, and there is no logical reason to think that time must be continuous, and there is little or no experimental evidence that it is, and our best theories suddenly start producing nonsense at times less than that; so until we have reason to think otherwise using Occam's Razor I think our default position should be that just like matter and energy and momentum and spin, time is not continuous but quantized

Your reasoning here is good but it ignores the implied violation of Lorentz invariance.

    >The word "Free" means that it is not forced or coerced.

Sometimes I can not do exactly what my will wants me to do, in fact usually that is the case. Sometimes I can't do what I want because other people prevent me and sometimes I can't do what I want (move faster than the speed of light, walk through a brick wall, jump over a mountain) because the laws of physics prevent me. I see no fundamental reason why one class of restrictions is "coercion" but the other class is not, thus "free will" means you can't always get what you want and nobody has free will, even God does not have free will because according to theologians God wants us to obey him and be happy but His creations keep malfunctioning and so even He can't always get what he wants. He can't get no satisfaction either.

  John K Clark

    That's a good thing, otherwise we would be completely incorrigible. :-P



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to