On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can emerge from >>> something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing >>> something changing. Change is by definition things being different at >>> different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you >>> will naturally get a "static" universe, just as putting together all the >>> moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only from a "God's >>> eye perspective". This is the perspective science gives us, the perspective >>> given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; it isn't >>> the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those equations and >>> so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as to be >>> isomorphic to reality). >>> >>> Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a non-problem, >>> and has been since Newton published his Principia. >>> >> >> Is a description the same as emergence though? We can read a film strip >> as a moving picture because of the nature of our sensory capacities, not >> because the moving picture emerges from the God's Eye view of the frames. >> F=ma begins with acceleration already assumed, so it is an equation that we >> interpret as referring to motion, nut the equation itself doesn't refer to >> anything. It's neither static nor dynamic, its just conceptual. >> >> I am illustrating where the idea of a block universe comes from, and the > context in which it makes sense. If you mean ontological emergence, the > origin of physics, that can't be answered within the framework of > explaining how a block universe works. It's a separate question. If you > mean emergence within a block universe, clearly that can occur, as it > happened in the past, and the past is a block universe according to the > normal definition. >
I thought that the whole point of a block universe is that nothing can or needs to "emerge". It is all there in the block. > > Or maybe you're just talking nonsense. F=ma refers to a mass accelerating > under a force. It is a static equation describing a dynamic process, > something that could be useful in visualising how a block universe works, > which is why I mentioned it. It's quite straightforward. It isn't rocket > science. > But F=ma can only be epiphenomenal in a block universe. There can't be an true acceleration because acceleration requires time, and a block universe would have only coordinates within a static temporal axis, wouldn't it? Acceleration would be a statistical derivative only, it seems to me. > > (Oh, wait...) > > -- 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.
