# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```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