# Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

```On 12/29/2013 5:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
```
`All,`
```
All,

```
Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish that we also share a common present moment when we are separated in space. Only if we can prove that can we establish that the present moment is universal, that the same present moment is shared across the universe.
```
```
Obviously we cannot establish this by direct observation due to the finite speed of light, but it is easy to prove with the following argument.
```
```
Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their watches and shake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both the same actual present moment time, and the same clock time.
```
And that the clock's run at the same rate.  Right?

```
```
```
Step 2: One observer makes a 1 year space flight at relativistic acceleration while the other remains where he was. During this period both observers continuously exist in their own actual present moment, and their clocks appear to progress at a constant proper time rate.
```
```
Step 3. The traveling observer returns and shakes hands with the observer who remained behind. Again, by direct observation they both confirm they both share the exact same actual present moment time but their clock times are no longer the same. Their actual present moment times are the same, but their clock times are not simultaneous.
```
```
This is confusing "being at the same event" with "measuring the same duration". Of course they are at the same event. But they are different durations away from their previous shared event.
```
```
```
```
At this point it is obvious that actual present time and clock time are two different things. Both observers confirm this by direct observation.
```
```
Now the question is can we confirm that both observers also shared the exact same actual present times during their separation in space? Yes we can and the argument is simple. Both observer's actual present times and their clock times were continuous during the 1 year they were separated. There was always both some actual present moment and some actual clock time. During the separation period each observer was always continuously extant in time as both actual present time and clock time progressed.
```
```
Now since both observers started at the same present moment of time and ended at the same actual present moment of time and since each observer always had some present moment during the separation it is obvious that at every point in each observer's actual present time there must have been a corresponding point in the other observer's actual present time. In every point in each observer's actual present moment the other observer must have been doing something at the same actual present moment time. This is because there was never a gap in either observer's present moment, a moment when they didn't exist in their present moment, thus there must be a one to one mapping of actual present moments even when the observers were separated.
```
```
But there is no *unique* one-to-one mapping. In Newtonian physics there was. But in special relativity the one-to-one mapping depends on the choice of inertial frame and the speed of light is the same in every frame so there is no preferred inertial frame.
```
```
```
```
Think of two points on a sheet of graph paper, one vertically above the other. Join the points by one straight vertical line and one curved line which will be of greater length. The vertical grids will correspond to the passage of present moment P-time while the different lengths along the lines will correspond to their clock times. Note that while clock time passes at different rates on the two lines, P-time, the vertical distance between the grids, passes at the same rate across both lines. And there is ALWAYS a corresponding point on both lines that represents the same present moment time where the lines are intersected by the same grid line.
```
```
There is no unique point that is "at the same time". It is arbitrary up to a choice of reference frame. I have suggested that the CMB can provide a preferred reference frame so long as the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. But this introduces other problems. (1) We're not on a preferred frame (2) clocks run at different rates because of the expansion of the universe.
```
```
```
```
Thus there is always a common present moment no matter how observers may be separated in space.
```
```
This is also confirmed by the fact that the observers left from the same actual present moment and returned to the same actual present moment. The observer who traveled has a clock that reads less than a year passed while the observer who stayed behind has a clock that tells him a year has passed BUT their actual present moments are simultaneous (because they can observably confirm that by shaking hands both before and after the trip) and thus must also always have been simultaneous during the period of separation.
```
```
This conclusively proves that observers inhabit the exact same actual present moment both when they are at the same place and when they are separated in space. Thus we must conclude there is a common universal present moment that all observers inhabit, and thus that that common universal present moment is the only moment anything exists in, that it is the only locus of reality.
```
```
This conclusively proves that there are two kinds of time, clock time which is measured by clocks, and the actual universal present time moment (P-time) that is common to all observers, and that clock time and P-time are only synchronous in non-relativistic situations. Clock times vary with relativistic circumstance but P-time doesn't. It remains simultaneous for all observers in all circumstances. Everything continually inhabits the same actual P-time present moment.
```
```
But what that moment is depends on an arbitrary choice of reference frame and so can have no physical significance.
```
Brent

```
```
```
I don't think the argument can be expressed much clearer and more obviously than that. If it still isn't clear then so be it.
```
Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 9:39:30 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Pierz,

Yes, observers observe they are in the same present moment by the
simultaneity of
events. Exactly, but the important point is that is the simultaneity of
actual
events, not of clock time readings. Observers can simultaneously shake
hands even if
their clocks have different clock times (their clocks are not
simultaneous). Actual
versus clock time simultaneity. Two completely different things!

That's the absolutely critical point to understanding my thesis.

ACTUAL simultaneity (2 observers shaking hands) IS self-evident. Do you
dispute
that? You can't...

The experiment that proves my thesis is the hand shaking. Absolute
incontrovertible
proof of actual simultaneity.

That is how to operationalize P-time. By actual simultaneity. It CANNOT be
measured
by clock time as proven above.

The P-time now of Caesar is long gone. Unfortunately for you, you can only
share the
same NOW as Edgar, not Caesar! :-)

Yes, P-seconds should be calculable from Omega. Differences from the clock
time age
of the universe can account for things like inflation, Hubble expansion etc.

However please note that the whole notion of 'the ~14.7 billion year age of
the
universe', of an age of the universe, that is the same for all observers
means that
cosmology DOES accept the notion of a single common universal present
moment since
cosmology assumes that age of he universe is going to be the same anywhere
in the
universe for every observer.

That's very important confirmation of the notion of a single common
universal
present moment. Cosmology accepts my thesis of a common universal present
moment of
existence.

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:35:01 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:19:57 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Pierz,

The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply
by
observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time.

How do they observe that they are in the same moment except by the
simultaneity
of events in their perceived time-space environment?

It is self-evident

really?  It is anything but self-evident that different moments in
clock time
are "the same moment". I don't even know what what means. Sure it's
'self-evident' that the now I experience is present everywhere. But that
self-evident truth was qualified by relativity, which was the actual
great leap
forward in our understanding of time.

and experimentally proved

again - really? You can't even tell me how to measure "P-time" so I
fail to see
how any experiment has or can prove such a thing. If this is physical,
scientific theory as opposed to a metaphysical speculation about "the
eternal
Now" a la Eckhart Tolle, then you *must* be able to provide some means
of
will you
prove this sharing of a moment other than by blustering that it is
"self-evident"?

that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock
time t
values are not simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some
have
maintained, its the standard mode of existence of everyone
throughout their
lives to share the same present moment with others.

Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure
P-time, they
measure clock time.....
:-)

P-time doesn't fail.

The *concept* of P-time fails as far as physics goes, as far as I can
tell,
because you can't operationalize it. You can only make exasperated
noises that
no-one else "gets it" except you despite it's being so obvious.

It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or anything to escape
the
present moment. That's the basic fact of our existence for goodness
sakes!
The present moment is the locus, and only locus of reality. Without
a
present moment there could be no reality. The presence of reality
manifests
as the present moment....

Fine so far as it goes. The Now is ever-present and unchanging while
phenomena,
including clocks, move through it as it were. In some sense, all things
happen
Now and nothing will ever occur anywhere except Now and we all share
it. That's
the Now of Eckart Tolle's "The Power of Now". The problem is when you
try to
insist that this is a concept relevant to physics. Let me ask: do I
share the
"Now" with you as you were an hour ago? Do I share the same "now" as
Caesar at
the moment of his death? In the metaphysical sense, maybe. But not in
any way
that is relevant to physics and measured time. *Which" moment are we
sharing if
not a moment we can measure with a clock? If you just say "the current
present
moment, for goodness sake!" you are merely demonstrating that your
concept is a
tautology.

time, not
P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time.

P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back
to the
point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional universe

4-dimensional - there's the whole problem!

in the present moment which is the locus of reality and all that
exists. As

Wow, so time P-time is single dimension orthogonal to the 3 dimensions
of space
that proceeds at a constant rate? It sounds *just like* good old clock
time did
in Newton's day! In fact just like our natural, naive intuition of time
before
an immense amount of deep thought and hard work on Einstein's part
revealed that
intuition to be mistaken.

extends happening occurs within the present moment and the current
state of
the universe in continually computed. This is experienced as
'proper time'
which is always the same no matter at what rate clock time is
running.

The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega,
the
curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius =
P-time
dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be?

So a measurement requires units. If P-time can be calculated from the
"curvature
of the universe" (itself problematic, since space-time is warped and
curved by
gravity and is not a simple sphere), then what units will result?
P-seconds? Is
there any way to convert P-seconds to normal, good-ole clock seconds?
If there's
no use the P-time measurement in any other equation with other physical
quantities such as time, distance, mass etc, then one has to wonder
what on
earth good it is.

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:

Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments
against your
position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You
two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However
you don't
define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of
two
observers who aren't me then of course they seem to share the
same
moment, regardless of how far apart they are. To say they
"don't share
the same moment" would be like saying that one exists and the
other
doesn't at some point in time, right? But this is really
begging the
question about what a "point in time" is. You seem to be
relying on an
intuitive sense of time that is not bound to anything
measurable (the
hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U-time'). How need to
define what
you mean by "sharing the same moment" and you need to show how
it is to
be measured. I submit that the only method of making such a
determination is by means of something that measures clock
time. For
example, a clock! And you already agree that clocks will show
that the
observers don't precisely agree about the simultaneity of
events.

In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not
to use
observers or people as the objects said to share the same
common present
because observers persist in time and this makes things less
clear.
event like a
pulse of light from a diode. Do the diodes themselves share the
"same
present moment"? Yes, whatever that means! Do the flashes occur
simultaneously? Well you know the answer depends on the
inertial frame
of reference. Substituting a mental event (the thought "I am here
now")
for the light flash, we can see that two thinkers cannot have
that
thought at an objectively identical moment. All events can be
timed
using clocks, which after all cold be anything that has a
regular cycle.
There is nothing in space-time, including mental events, that
is not an
event that can be timed in this manner. What is confusing you
is merely
the persistence of the observer and the impossibility of
imagining that
both observers don't exist at any point in time you can
imagine. But
*what* observer? The observer is constantly changing, and the
only way
to see if they share the same moment is to time the changes in
each
using clock time. P-time is an ad hoc postulate to save your
intuition
of an all-embracing moment. It fails when you try to
operationalize it.

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:57:18 AM UTC+11, Edgar L.
Owen wrote:

All,

I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common
universal
present moment across so here's another approach with a
thought
experiment....

To start consider two observers standing next to each
other. Do they
share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any
disagreement?

Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in
San
Francisco. Do they share the same common present moment? In
other
words is the one in San Fran doing something (doesn't
matter what)
at the exact same time the one in New is doing something?
Yes, of
course they do share the same present moment. Any
disagreement?

Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some
far away
galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact
same
relativistic frame in the sense that there is zero relative
motion
and the gravities of their planets are exactly the same so
that
clock time is passing at the exact same rate on both their
clocks.

Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present
moment as
well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic
circumstances of the previous two examples so there can be
no
relativistic considerations. Do these two observers also
share the
exact same present moment as well? Yes, of course they do.
Not only
do they share the exact same present moment but they also
share the
exact same clock time t value. Any disagreement?

OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step
towards
accepting my thesis of a common universal present moment.
You now
must agree that there is at least a common universal
present moment
across the universe for all observers in the same
relativistic frame.

Agreed?

Edgar

--
```
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```