# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Stephen,

We have to be very careful when we try to 'measure' p-time because it is
prior to dimensionality since it provides the processor cycles in which
dimensionality and thus measure is computed and is the locus or substrate
of those computations. ```
```
We all experience the present moment of p-time all the time as the basic
experience of our existence. But, when we try to measure it we just end up
measuring clock time instead, because clock time continually flows through
the present moment at different relativistic rates depending on
circumstance, but it always flows in the same presence of reality, which is
the present moment of p-time.

The computations that take place in p-time compute all change, and the
relativistic rates of all that change. So since the mechanisms of clocks is
part of what is being computed it is natural that clocks only read the
compute rates of change = clock times.

As I stated previously though I do see one way to measure p-time. Since
p-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe, and it is
the continued extension of that radial dimension that accounts for the
happening measured by clock time to flow through the present moment, then
the curvature of the universe, omega, should give us the p-time radius.

Thus my theory predicts that omega will be a positive number very very
slightly >1, which corresponds to a finite hyperspherical universe with no
edges.

I asked previously if any of you math whizzes could give me the equation to
calculate the radius of the universe from omega, the curvature, but no one
could. I'm still hoping to get the equation.

Edgar

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:15:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>   Can you describe the construction or basic mechanism that one would use
> to measure P-time?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> wrote:
> <blockquote
>
> ...

--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.