That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out.
However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give
direct answers to the following logical questions. A direct (non-evasive)
answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of "true" or "false" for each
question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond
that if you think the explanation is helpful. An answer which excludes
picking either "true" or "false" for each question independently is
evasive. I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your
theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing. When I
get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean
and will be able to move on to deeper questions.
1. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order of
events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference
frame: True or False?
2. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order of
events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference
frames: True or False?
3. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order of
events at the same point in space: True or False?
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this
> works and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.....
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>> (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
>> The "P-time" notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that
>> there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space.
>> Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday
>> The "P-time" notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B)
>> P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The
>> "P-time" notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer
>> any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it
>> is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true.
>> By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some
>> reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in
>> other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle,
>> exactly one of A, B, or C is true.
>> So there's a direct contradiction. And "P-time" falls on the wrong side
>> of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental
>> work in physics.
>> Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f.
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that
>> indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build
>> a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between
>> two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the
>> "P-time" notion won't even have the appearance of being a local
>> approximation to the truth.
>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>> I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what
>>> Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an
>>> orderly or logical manner.
>>> From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri
>>> happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam
>>> reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!
>>> If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no
>>> what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...
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.