# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Quentin,

No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates because
their clock time t values are different. Only if their clocktime t values
as well as their x,y,z values were the same would they be at the same
spacetime coordinates. I hate to say it but that is quite obvious....```
```
But they are in the exact same p-time present moment because they can shake
hands and compare clocks....

Edgar

On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:24:33 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014/1/17 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <javascript:>>
>
> Stephen,
>
> Your argument is fine. It's standard GR. BUT for the nth time it's talking
> about CLOCK TIME simultaneity, rather than the present moment of p-time. It
> still doesn't seem to register that there is a difference even though the
> fact of the twins meeting with different clock times in the SAME present
>
>
> They are at the same present moment *because* they are at the same
> spacetime coordinates, that's the only and unique reason as to why they can
> meet at that moment, there is absolutely no need of an unexistant p-time.
>
> Quentin
>
>
> moment clearly demonstrates they are different.
>
> You can argue no inherent absolute clock time simultaneities till the cows
> come home and I will agree EVERY TIME.
>
> But that just ain't the p-time present moment as the twins prove over and
> over ....
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:13:14 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King 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. :-)
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> 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,
>
> ...

--
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