Dear Edgar,
One has to be willing to face the flames, sometimes literally, when
promoting a new idea. I do appreciate your concepts and willingness to
defend them. I must say that so far I have not seen anything original in
your proposal that really sparks my attention.
I do wish you would consider the argument that I wrote up about how we
must use a plurality of "computational spaces" and not a single
computational space -dimensional or otherwise, if we are going to argue
that computation generates the physical world. As to my argument against
block time, it, IMHO, boils down to an attempt to argue that our perception
of change is an illusion and offers no explanation for the persistence of
the illusion in the face of physical facts. This concept is not new, it is
thousand of years old, going all the way back to Parmenides- that can be
documented.
I favor Hericlutus' vision that Becoming is ontologically fundamental
and that all things in Reality come in dual pairs. This gives us a way to
think of the ontological foundation of existence as a property neutral Void
- the one thing that Democritus got right. The Void is not to be considered
to be static and timeless, but as the complete collection of all possible
forms of becoming, each of which is a Process that has, in most cases,
products. (To use the languaging of Gordon
Pask<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask>
)
Out of this Void emerges "atoms" (totally disconnected topological
spaces) and logical structures (the Stone dual of the spaces) that have
"arrows of evolution" that point in opposite directions (as discussed
by Vaughan
Pratt in his proposed solution to the mind-body
problem<http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf>).
This vision accounts for both the physical world and computation as
evolving out of Nothingness and eventually returning to Nothingness without
having to resort to 'tricks' to explain claims of illusions away.
Currently I have to go through the papers by Donald Hoffman to see if his
model of conscious agents can be used as a mathematical model in for a
project that I am working on. I don't have any more time to post to the
list and reply to comments, as much as I would like to.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Liz,
>
> Do you have some references or links indicating either Einstein or Newton
> believed in block time? That's news to me and I rather doubt they did. I
> know Einstein once mentioned time was a persistent illusion, but that's not
> at all the same as believing in block time....
>
> Or perhaps you are just wrong about that also?
>
> As for your usual flames I know it must be terribly embarrassing to have
> the very person you've repeatedly labeled a 'troll' and a 'crackpot' to
> correct your understanding of both QM (not understanding that all particle
> interactions produce entanglements) AND GR (not understanding that space
> warps at the edge of galaxies as space expands and misunderstanding p. 718
> of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation) on the same day as I did in
> the morning!
> :-)
>
> Ah well, you can always block my messages and try to hide from the
> embarrassment as you've announced you are going to. We will see if you can
> really resist the temptation for further flames and personal attacks on me
> and now Stephen as well who was just very politely and objectively
> expressing a disbelief in block time when you maligned him?
>
> Edgar
>
> On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says "block time"
>> is a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
>> Stephen has just presented to you.
>>
>>
>> Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could they have been so stupid?
>>
>>
>> All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed
>> and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it
>> simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time
>> flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully
>> should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed....
>>
>>
>> Apart from constant repetition of "I'm right and you're wrong" you make
>> one statement in here to support your views, namely "the obvious observable
>> fact that time flows". What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it
>> flow through? Don't bother to reply because far more astute minds than
>> yours have worked out the answer - it doesn't, unless you postulate another
>> time through which it flows. But so far that is completely unnecessary to
>> explain the universe. (It isn't even necessary to explain your
>> computational reality idea, ironically enough.)
>>
>>
>> And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is
>> somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with
>> relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct
>> consequence of SR.
>>
>>
>> <div clas
>> ...
>
> --
> 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.
