Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
If we are going to insist that time is an illusion, I can accept that,
but please explain the persistent illusion when it can be proven that there
is no a priori ordering of events allowed by QM. This is the fundamental
problem of uniting QM and SR/GR.
They treat time fundamentally differently. Sure, we can do Deutsch's trick
of a pile of snapshots, but "states" do not come with little timestamps on
them for easy ordering nor is there a unique ordering of them even
possible. David Albert explains this very well in several of his talks. (He
does not have a paper on it that I can find though... that bothers me...)
Nevertheless, the point is that it is possible to explain time as a measure
of change iff we take change as fundamental and drop the Parmenidean dogma.
A couple professors that I know are working on a paper that might slay
that monster finally... But how many will read it????
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:43 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 December 2013 19:36, Stephen Paul King
>> Hi Jason,
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>> You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved
>>>> in the discussion here.
>>> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
>>> fundamental rather than emergent.
>> How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some
>> process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
>> emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses
>> the obvious.
> It can be emergent exactly in the way Jason explained. It emerges because
> instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be
> smooth change between them. The snapshots used in FOR illustrate this.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.