Stephen,

How many times do I have to tell you? You are on an entirely different 
train of thought and not addressing the argument I made at all...

Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:22:22 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>   Parse what I just wrote and read the linked references.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> 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 <edga...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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</
>
> ...

-- 
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