Stephen, Yes, of course p-time is observable. The present moment of p-time is the present moment we all observe our entire existence within from birth to death.
It's the most fundamental and persistent of observations... Edgar On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:28:06 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > Is P-time observable? > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > PS: I agree with the rest of what you are saying here but again you are > talking about clock time, dimensional spacetime, and not P-time which is > distinct and is prior to any metrics... > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:23:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > I would agree with your idea here if you made one change: replace the > single abstract computing space for all of space-time and replace it with > an abstract computing space for each point of space-time. The *one* > computation becomes an *infinite number* of disjoint computations. There > are also an infinite number of different computations possible for each > point for space time! Consider programs that are written in disjoint > languages, i.e. that have no trivial translation between them or a common > compiler. How many different computations can generate a simulation of the > same physical system? More than one! > > This can be proven, I think, by rewriting A.A. Markov's diffeomorphism > theorem into a weaker form. Something like: There does not exist a general > algorithm that can decide in finite time whether or not a smooth > diffeomorphism exists between any pair of 4-manifolds. > OTOH, there do exist finite approximations of computations of clocks > that can be defined in finite hypervolumes of space-time. This gives us the > illusion of a present moment that is percievable at each point of > space-time, but it is not one that can be arbitrarily extended to cover all > of the manifold. Computation thus cannot be extendible over the entire > manifold and thus there cannot be a global present moment that can be > "computed". > > The point is that GR requires an infinite number of infinitesimal > space-times that are "patched together" into a space-time manifold in order > to make its predictions (including the equivalence principle). Since a > physical clock cannot be defined *in* a infinitesimal space-time > hypervolume (specifically the local neighborhood or "ball" of every point > in the space-time manifold), there is no way of globally ordering the > "present moments" that would be said to exist at each point. > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > Yes I do have an explanation for how GR effects are computed. Thanks for > asking. It's refreshing to just have someone ask a question about my > theories rather than jumping to attack them. Much appreciated... > > The processor cycles for all computations are provided by P-time (clock > time doesn't exist yet as it is going to be computed along with all other > information states). Thus all computations occur simultaneously and > continually in a non-dimensional abstract computational space as p-time > progresses. > > The results of these computations is the information states of everything > in the universe including all relativistic effects. The way this works to > automatically get GR effects is simply to use the pure numeric information > of the mass-energy particle property as the relative SCALE of the > dimensionality of spacetime as it is computed. The effect of this is to > automatically dilate (cur > > ... -- 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.
