On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@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. > That things move does not disprove block time. All movement is is being in different places at different times, which is perfectly valid and consistent with the block-time view. So I don't see what makes it any different if everything moves at some fixed speed. Also, the "arrow of time" has a different meaning in science than in the sense you seem to be using it. It refers to the general process of entropy increase which serves as a "pointer" in the same direction through space time in which we accumulate memories, it is not refer to any particular direction in which things travel through space time. Everything with a non-zero velocity has a different direction through time than you do. Some say anti-matter is even traveling in the opposite direction. > > 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. > I provided reasons, as I did above. On the other hand, I asked you a number of questions, such as how you can know there is only a single present moment, rather than 2, or 10, or 100, etc. but got no answer at all. > > 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. > I don't recall being asked this question, but in any case I don't know, it seems the jury is still out on whether or not space-time is quantized. > > 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.... > If anything, presentism is not tenable under relativity. See "Time and Physical Geometry" but Putnam ( http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS04/PutnamJPhil.pdf ) or "Is there an alternative to the block view" ( http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS04/PutnamJPhil.pdf ) by Petkov, or "How Relativity contradicts Presentism" ( http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/kansas.pdf ) by Saunders. I have given you several of these sources before, but you will not read them, so I don't know what more you expect me to do when you say I give you no explanation or reason. Please surprise me and read at least one of those papers. Jason > > Edgar > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >> Bruno, >> >> Thanks for the correction. >> >> But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in >> 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, >> and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement >> is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the >> nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is >> riddled with contradictions and lacunas.... >> >> >> I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which >> I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> Edgar >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Liz, >> >> Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited. >> That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere >> is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious. >> >> >> I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in >> previous posts. >> I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. "all math" is >> an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. >> >> Now, if you believe that "29 is prime" does depend on you, show me the >> functional relation between "29 is prime" and "you", with "you" defined >> without using the notion of numbers. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a >> mass-energy content in one cell dilating it. That automatically produces a >> curvature in the rubber sheet around that mass-energy consistent with the >> effects of space curvature in GR. >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:52:24 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 14 January 2014 16:49, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >> Liz, >> >> Sure, the particle property conservation laws that conserve the amounts >> of particle properties in elementary particle interactions, and the laws >> that govern the binding of elementary particles in matter. These are the >> fundamental computations that determine most of the structure of the >> universe.... >> >> >> OK, but I would imagine most conservations laws don't require much >> computation - aren't they more akin to storing (i.e. conserving) data? >> >> >> How and where is the code stored? There is no 'where' in a >> non-dimensional computational space. How it is stored I intimated in an >> earlier response of an hour or so ago. It's stored as combinations of code >> and data in the actual process of evolving computationally. >> >> >> I don't understand what you mean by the code and data are stored "in the >> process of evolving computationally" >> >> >> How do the computations decide what data they will interact with? The >> computations include the data they compute in one information structure as >> explained above. >> >> >> Where does that data come from? Is there any interaction between adjacent >> computations? (Are there such things as adjacent computations? If there >> isn't, how does locality emerge?) >> >> >> What grid cells? Aren't you familiar with the standard rubber sheet model >> of GR? The rubber sheet has grid cells drawn on it. >> >> The grid cells drawn in embedding diagrams are there to show the metrical >> properties of space-time, while the computations you're talking about are, >> I believe, what *generates* space-time. I don't (as yet) see an obvious >> connection between the two. >> >> >> -- >> 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-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> >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To uns >> >> ... > > -- > 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. > -- 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.