Der LizR,

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> I have a 2c worth on block time, too :)
>
> On 17 January 2014 09:33, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Jason,
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Each foliation would correspond to a set of trajectories and a light cone
>> structure, no? Time, defined as a ordering of events vanishes in such. I
>> get that.
>>
>
> The first part is right, but within a given foliation, there is an
> ordering of events. It's only when comparing foliations that you get
> different orders. (I believe this is called proper time or something?) Time
> doesn't vanish within a foliation.
>

Right, it doesn't vanish within a foliation, but if we add or integrate
them together it does. If i got the math right...

>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Existence is a priori -eternal-, properties are a posteriori - after the
>> fact of measurement.
>>
>
> Yes, this is the problem with the "ontological argument" (and probably
> with "Edgar's first postulate" too).
>

I am trying to use avoid the problem by using a ontological foundation that
is eternal, thus no absolute notions of "before" or "after". Neutral
existence, having no particular properties by having ALL properties.


>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> Not if there isn't a unique ordering of events in the Block!
>>
>
> There is a unique ordering along each observer's worldline, and a unique
> LOCATION for each event within the block. Foliations are slices thru the
> block at various angles, as I'm sure you know, and drawing a hyperplane
> thru a 4D manifold at different angles withh allow it to intersect the
> points within the block (events) in a different order. So the positions of
> events are unique, but we can construct foliations which "encounter" them
> in a different order. Since a foliation corresponds to a plane of
> simultaneity for a given observer, the observer will see events in the
> order defined by the foliation. (Another way to look at this which may be a
> bit more intuitive is that an observer sees events when they intersect his
> light cone, and different observers have different light cones, and hence
> may see events in a different order).
>


 That is all correct, The point is that there is no prefered foliation, no
special narrative for all the events.

>
>>>
>>>>  Clocks do not measure time, they measure relative durations. Time is
>>>> not a direct observable quantity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just like space..
>>>
>>
>> right.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it was then it would be the canonical conjugate of energy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is time different from space in your view?
>>>
>>
>> Space has no possible canonical conjugate.
>>
>
> I thought momentum was space's cc, and energy was time's??? Or am I
> getting mixed up with something else?
>

 You got it right.

>
>
>  --
> 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
> 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 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 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