On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All, >> >> ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. >> >> To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. >> > > Can you explain your justification for this assertion? > > >> Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes >> refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the >> important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the >> SAME common present moment.. >> > > How can there be a single common present if relativity says one person can > consistently believe that A happens before B, while, another person, every > bit as consistent, could believe that B happens before A. > > If anything like a present exists, there must be at least two of them (one > for each person in this example), and they must each be different in their > content. Relativity of simultaneity absolutely rules out the notion of a > single objective present. The only alternatives are: 1. a present for each > inertial reference frame, 2. four dimensionalism (block time / eternalism). > > > >> I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their >> minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of >> time. >> >> The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states >> would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of >> physics. >> > > If there are two observers in relative motion to each other, Alice and > Bob, then Alice's present contains things that exist in both Bob's future, > and Bob's past. How can something exist in Alice's present which supposedly > stopped existing for Bob, and how can something exist in Alice's present > which hasn't yet happened, from Bob's point of view? I think this is clear > evidence that all points in time exist. They don't stop existing just > because we can't see them--to me this seems a head-in-the-sand mentality, > i.e. if I can't see it, it mustn't be there. > > If a theory explains why we can't see some particular thing, our inability > to see that thing should not be considered evidence against that thing > (within that theory). > > >> Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of >> reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid >> perspective. >> > > What if multiple possibilities exist for the present moment, such as after > a quantum erasure. Could there be more than one past moment consistent with > the current present moment? > > >> Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact >> and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. >> > > How does this work with QM? You expressed distaste for multiverse > theories, but quantum mechanics is not 100% exact and predictable under > single-universe interpretations. > > >> The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility >> of other pasts. >> > > Say there are two very similar but different universes, one in which a > photon took path A, and another where it took path B. However, mirrors are > arranged such that regardless of which path is taken, the photon bounces to > the same spot. After this happens the two universes are in identical > states. Could either Edgar Owen (in either of the two universes) rule out > the idea of multiple pasts consistent with their present? > > >> This is another difficult concept for many. >> >> Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist >> > > If Julius Caesar still exists (in a point in space time some 2000 light > years away), nothing changes in the laws of physics, and yet the future > would seem just as as probabalistic and unpredictable from his point of > view as it seems to us in ours. We can't use the presumed "lack of > existence" as an explanation for the unpredictability of the future. > > Actually, we can entirely explain the unpredictability of the future from > thermodynamics. Storing information requires energy, and energy can only > be used to perform useful work in the direction of time through which > entropy increases. Therefore no machine, brain, etc. can operate backwards > in time and store information about future events, as it would represent a > thermodynamically impossible system. Imagine a device using energy to store > memories running backwards in time (from our point of view). It would be > expending energy to store those bits, but from out perspective, expending > energy in a useful way (backwards in time) from our perspective, appears as > gather energy from the environment. It would be like seeing light bounce > randomly off all the walls in the room to focus on the filament of a > flashlight and recharge its batteries. It's physically possible but > extremely unlikely. If no (likely) process can possess information stored > about the future, then we have an explanation for our inability to know > future outcomes. > > >> and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has >> been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it >> exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. >> > > I think the ideas you have developed are good, but are based on starting > assumptions that are different from mine, hence our disagreement. Where I > think we agree: > > Everything travels at the speed of light > Physical reality emerges from computation and as seen by observers > Consciousness creates consciousness > Sorry, I meant "Computation creates consciousness" Jason -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
