I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal
present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read
it? It is impossible to define a clock on an infinitesimal region of
space-time thus it is impossible to define a "present moment" in a way that
could be "universal" for observers that exist in a space-time. There are
alternatives that I have mentioned.
The non-communicability of first person information, that leads to the
concept of FPI, is another argument that may be independent. (I am not so
sure that it is truly independent, but cannot prove that the intractability
of smooth diffeomorphism computations between 4-manifolds is equivalent to
first person indeterminacy.)
If the information cannot be communicated then it also follows that
there cannot exist a single computation of the present moment information.
Your premise falls apart. There is an alternative but it requires multiple
computations (an infinite number!). Can you handle that change to your
Frankly, your arguments are very naive and you do not seem to grasp that
we are only responding to you because we try to be nice and receptive in
this list to the ideas of members. There does reach a point where the
discussion becomes unproductive. It has been useful for me to write
responses to you as it improves my ability to write out my reasoning. I
need the exercise. :-)
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> 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?
> 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> wrote:
>> 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?
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:19:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/15/2014 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> 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.
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 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 email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“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
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.