Stephen, That's not my argument. Where are you coming up with that stuff?
Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:03:45 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]<javascript:> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 > > [email protected] <javascript:> > > 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, y > ... -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
