On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi Edgar, > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Liz, > > > > Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving! > > > > The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of reality. > The > > problem is that you are denying the flow of time. > > Why is this a problem? How can you know for sure that there is a flow > of time? Block universe hypothesis can explain how time would appear > to flow for each observer.
Does it though, or does it just use emergence as a crutch? Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be no 'observation' at all? Block universes need not have any consciousness. What would be the point? > This doesn't prove that block universe > hypothesis are correct, but they cannot be dismissed that easily > either. > > Now you could argue that this is counter-intuitive, but I would remind > you that nature doesn't care. Our intuition is just a bunch of > heuristics evolved to deal with a very narrow set of survival > scenarios. > > > For equations to compute (not just describe) reality, there must be > active > > processor cycles. There is simply NO way around that... > > I wonder. > > Telmo. > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > 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. > >> > >> There are problems with comp, of course, like the "white rabbit" > problem. > >> Does anyone have any new views on the real problems, rather than > worrying > >> about straw men? > >> > > -- > > 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] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javascript:>. > > > 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.
