On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Jason, > > I would not say " that only a single "present" moment of time exists". > I would say that we have a concept of a "present moment" that we may > believe that each person has. Maybe you are directing this post to Edgar... > > But you argue against block time, so how many points in time do you believe to exist? Jason > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stephen, >> >> If you say that only a single "present" moment of time exists, that >> implies that the existence of that moment in time is entirely sufficient to >> explain your current experience. >> >> Now consider if the rate of flow of time slowed down, such that it took a >> thousand years to go from one Plank time to the next. No one would feel any >> different, as in each moment in time, still, only one point in time exists, >> and it is still the same moments (it just remains the present moment for a >> longer period of time than before). Since they are still the same moments, >> everyone's state and experiences remain the same. >> >> Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at a >> single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the idea of a >> flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is enough to explain >> your experience of now, since according to this idea, the past and future >> do not exist (so what role could they play in effecting what you feel?) >> >> So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our perception of >> time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely, it would make no >> difference to our brain states, perceptions, or conclusions, then it seems >> to be that postulating the flow of time to be ontologically or >> fundamentally necessary is completely unnecessary and without base. We >> cannot say if time flows, how fast it flows, or whether or not more than >> one present moment exists, so for what reason should we believe that the >> current present moment will disappear and be replaced with a new future >> moment? >> >> The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to >> undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place. >> >> Jason >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear LizR, >>> >>> Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the >>> block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make >>> the case using your remarks below. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind >>>>>> blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the >>>>>> ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for >>>>>> laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But people actually do, very smart people too! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Even I do, so not just smart people. >>>> >>>> Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe >>>> concept, which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is >>>> wrong. >>>> >>> >>> We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that >>> Newtonian physics is "wrong", even thought it can be used for making >>> approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and >>> relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions >>> built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR. >>> One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately, >>> completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We >>> know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our >>> reasoning. >>> I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good >>> article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's >>> theorem. See, for example, >>> http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor >>> yourself. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any >>>> case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse - >>>> all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a >>>> deterministic evolution. >>>> >>> >>> Not at all! A block universe is a static 4 dimensional object. Am I >>> mistaken in this belief? A "block multiverse" is a word salad, IMHO. >>> >>> >>> >>>> The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop >>>> time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe" >>>> means - that time is a dimension. >>>> >>> >>> Ah! How exactly does this "mapping of time evolution" occur? If a block >>> universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy, >>> spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully >>> represented as a "dimension"? >>> Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not "dimensions", at >>> best they are partially ordered sets of "events" that have properties >>> associated with them. The association is done using tangent spaces... I >>> digress. >>> The idea that time is a dimension has been repeatedly been shown to >>> be problematic by people such as Chris Isham and David Albert, I didn't >>> just make up that it is a problem. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> There is no problem with change in a block universe. Change occurred in >>>> the past, which is a good example of a block universe. No one has refuted >>>> that argument as yet, and in fact they can't - the past clearly *is* a >>>> block universe, by all the definitions given, one that extends from the big >>>> bang to just before the present. The logical inference is that it continues >>>> through the present into the future, and our feeling that time "flows" is >>>> an illusion (no one has ever explained what that metaphor means, by the >>>> way, except with reference to a second time stream - but that just moves >>>> the block universe from 4D to 5D). >>>> >>> >>> I disagree. We forget that when we think of a 4d object we are >>> involved with it, we are associating change with features of it. They are >>> not "in it". Our thinking using this idea only re-enforces the mistake that >>> we can observe things in a way that is 1) faithful to what is "actually out >>> there" and 2) that our observations are passive. No work is required nor >>> disturbance of the observed occurs. >>> This thinking is wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The argument from incredulity has never worked very well in science. >>>> >>> >>> Could you point to an example of an "argument from incredulity" so that >>> I might understand how you are claiming that my arguement is such? >>> >>> >>> >>>> A lot of things that people couldn't get their heads around turned out >>>> to be true. But for most physicists the BU isn't one of them, it has long >>>> been understood and accepted. Anyone who draws a graph with a time axis >>>> implicitly accepts it. Anyone who describes time as a dimension implicitly >>>> accepts it. No sensible alternative has ever been proposed. Saying that "it >>>> doesn't explain becoming" is disproved with reference to the past - clearly >>>> things became other things in the past. >>>> >>> >>> I have proposed a sketch of an alternative, it may not be sensible >>> yet... I welcome questions... >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>> >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
