Stephen,

What is this magical FPI that tells us in this present moment that there is 
no such present moment? What's the actual supposed proof?

Edgar



On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:17:31 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> 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 <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > 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 i
>
> ...

-- 
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