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

`On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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.
>
> 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.
>

They can interact, despite being in different times, because the time
dimension is length-contracted to be zero-length (as they are travelling
through the proper time dimension at the speed of light).

Any photon's "now" is forever, so photons emitted by the electrons of
someone in a different time, still interact with the electrons of the
person whose hand they are shaking even though they're in a later time.

Jason

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 measuring your proposed physical quantity or entity. Again I
>>> ask: how 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK 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 the P-time radial dimension
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 ask whether
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 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
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

--
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