On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Edgar, > > 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 > thesis? > > 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. :-) > > Stephen, I recall that before you defended presentism. Are you now of the opinion that block time is possible? Jason > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 > > [email protected] > > 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 to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
