On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Jason, > > I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something > impossible: that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that > correlates to a specific experience of an entity that is said to be > embedded in the block. > It makes no claims that such a foliation must be unique, all possible foliations are equally valid, and correspond to the observed orderings of events from different reference frames. > My argument is that the entire way that time is considered has problems > and both presentism and eternalism are not even wrong. Their definitions of > "existence" and "time" are wrong. Existence is not observable, only > properties are observable. > How can something have properties unless it exists? > Time is not just an ordering of events that can be discovered after the > fact of the events, it is also a measure of the duration of process that > transforms one event into another. > In block time it is just a dimension. > Clocks do not measure time, they measure relative durations. Time is not a > direct observable quantity. > Just like space.. > If it was then it would be the canonical conjugate of energy. > How is time different from space in your view? Jason > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> 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 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.
