# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Dear Edgar,
```
```
The "universality" of the first person experience of a flow of events
(what you denote as time) is addressed by Bruno's First Person
Indeterminism (FPI) concept. This universality cannot be said to allow for
a singular present moment for all observers such that they can have it in
common. It fact it argues the opposite: observers cannot share their
present moments! THus your claims fall apart

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL
> observer has his OWN present moment time. You are trying to extend it to a
> cosmic universal time which this argument doesn't address. That's the
> second argument you referenced.
>
> This argument demonstrates that for every INDIVIDUAL observer SR requires
> that since he continually moves at c through spactime, that he MUST be at
> one and only one point in time (and of course in space as well), and thus
> there is a privileged present moment in which every observer exists, and
> since he is continually moving through time at c he will experience an
> arrow of time in the direction of his movement.
>
> Once that is agreed we can go on to the 2nd argument to prove that these
> are universal across all observers....
>
> So can we agree on that?
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:19:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/2014 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>>  Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they
>> don't follow?
>>
>>
>> Well the first one is true, if you take time to mean a global coordinate
>> time.  But then it's just saying every event can be labelled with a time
>> coordinate.  All that takes is that the label be monotonic and continuous
>> along each world line.  It' saying that 'everything can get a time label'.
>> But it doesn't say anything about how the label on one worldline relates to
>> labels on a different world line.
>>
>> The SR requirement that the speed of light be the same in all inertial
>> frames then implies that the labeling along one line *cannot* be uniquely
>> extended to other lines, but must vary according to their relative velocity.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  Edgar
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>>  Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would
>> state them slightly differently.
>>
>>  The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have
>> missed, is simple.
>>
>>  SR requires that everything moves at the speed of light through
>> spacetime. This is NOT just "a useful myth", it's a very important
>> fundamental principle of reality (I call it the STc Principle).
>>
>>
>> It's a commonplace in relativity texts.
>>
>>
>>  This is true of all motions in all frames. It's a universal absolute
>> principle.
>> Now the fact that everything continually moves at the speed of light
>> through spacetime absolutely requires that everything actually moves and
>> continually moves through just TIME at the speed of light in one direction
>> in their own frame. This movement requires there to be an arrow of time,
>>
>>
>> Not exactly.  It requires that there be a time-axis, but it doesn't say
>> anything about which way the arrow points.  It only implies that bodies
>> cannot move spacelike (because when they get up to c they've used all their
>> speed to move through space and none to move through time).
>>
>>
>>   and this principle is the source of the arrow of time and gives the
>> arrow of time a firm physical basis.
>>
>>  Second, because everything is always moving through time at the speed
>> of light everything MUST be at one and only one location in time.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't follow.
>>
>>
>>   That present location in time is the present moment, it's a unique
>> privileged moment in time.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't follow.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>>  (This argument demonstrates only there must be a present moment for
>> every observer. The other argument Brent references is necessary to
>> demonstrate that present moment is universal and common to all observers.)
>> Bravo again Brent, for
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> 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