Dear Jason, As many as are possible.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King < > stephe...@provensecure.com> 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 <jasonre...@gmail.com>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 < >>> stephe...@provensecure.com> 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 <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King < >>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> 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 >>>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> stephe...@provensecure.com >>>> >>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>> 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 >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> 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 >> >> stephe...@provensecure.com >> >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 stephe...@provensecure.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
