Edgar,

  It is not possible to "get around" the consequence of a finite maximum
velocity of signal propagation. Even if we where to accept the notion that
the computation is being done "outside of space-time" one has to show how
the relationships between the events in space-time are computed. In
computing there is something called the concurrency problem... You may wish
to consider it carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)

  Arguing that the concurrency problem does not apply because the
computation is not distributed (outside of space-time) will not work since
the events in space-time are correlated in ways that are equivalent to a
distributed system. So with the computation itself is distributed over many
processes or the results of the computation involve timing relations that
are distributed or both. Concurrency problems cannot be escaped. This must
be solved by your proposal even before we can address the 'randomness"
question.

  BTW, in a classical (Newton, Laplace, Einstein) view of the world there
is no randomness of events at all. All appearances of such is "explained"
as observer ignorance. QM does not allow the appearances of randomness to
be explained away by the limitations of individual observers. QM randomness
comes from the algebraic relationships between observables (entanglement)
and cannot be "explained" away by anything that can be attributed to
individual observers (taken as isolated from each other).


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but
> he couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims is invalid. Do you
> know?
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:41:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a
>>> moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified
>>> block time is false.
>>>
>>
>> SR doesn't require a moving arrow of time, and the present moment is only
>> defined for a given location in space-time.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another
>>> problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them
>>> that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems
>>> without giving any reasons why not.
>>>
>>
>> Since your point 1 is false, you couldn't have asked any meaningful
>> questions.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of
>>> block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were
>>> unable to provide.
>>>
>>
>> In SR it's a continuum.
>>
>>>
>>> Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so
>>> much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not
>>> tenable and which of course you are not responsible for....
>>>
>>> As far as I know, the idea of block time was proposed by Newton (I think
>> he called it the sensorium of God, or something like that) and was later
>> used by Laplace, Einstein and Minkowski.
>>
>> Since your point 1 is false, you failed to falsify block time. If you
>> *can* show that SR requires a moving arrow of time, or whatever, then SR
>> may invalidate block time, but it hasn't yet.
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“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
immediately.”

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to