On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because
you are not here. However it is quite clear that you absolutely
must be doing something in the exact same present moment that I
write this sentence. That is the present moment that we share.
No, that's not clear at all. Since you and Liz are not in the
same place and the speed of light is the same in all inertial
frames, there exist a whole range of Liz's moments which may
correspond to your moment depending on which moving frame is
arbitrarily chosen to determine simultaneity.
Yes. Presentism does not make sense with special relativity.
"present" is an indexical. No need and in fact no means, to reify
Do you somehow imagine that there is some gap in your time line
that takes you out of existence as I write this sentence? If
there isn't then you must agree we do share a common present
But it is not uniquely defined.
A long time ago, in my childhood, I saw a movie with a friend. My
friend found the movie boring, and he felt like if it never ends:
time was going slowly, for him. But I loved that movie, and time
was going very quickly for me. We discussed that after, and I was
troubled. Was we still at the same moment?
Well, with computationalism, that question just does not make any
Being at the same event, same point of spacetime, should still make
For immaterial Newtonian-like point. If not we can't hardly breath.
Our bodies do have volume. OK?
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 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.