On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > > > 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]> > 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? > > The way I see it I wouldn't even call it emergence. I imagine that all > the moments where I can be conscious are eternal. They belong to a > structure (block universe), and what we perceive as time is an aspect > of this structure.
Right, but if you have the block already, why would you want an "aspect", and how would that constraint be accomplished? What I'm looking at is not a structure of eternal possibilities, but an ongoing accretion of self-partitioning experience. It's made of aesthetic novelty from which 'structure' (an aesthetic appreciation of experience from a distance...slowed to appear static from some perspective) diverges. > Imagine we are experiencing all the possible > moments, "eternally", right "now". I don't believe in 'possible' necessarily. What is 'now' possible is constantly new, but imposes constantly new constraints as well. "We" are not only experiencing all of the moments that have been experienced, but "we" *are only* the ongoing experience of them. This is not to say, obviously, that we personally experience all that has been experienced, because I think that experiences are constrained into tunnels of insensitivity. > Would things appear any difference > from the perspective of any of these moments? My point is just that > this hypothesis is consistent with observed reality. > > Do you find this idea incompatible with multi-sense realism? > Yes, it's very close. The key though is seeing that 'appear', 'perspective' and 'aspect' are actually the nature of sense, not of anything else. The block of possibilities does not need to be there once we relocate these functions within sense itself. It's kind of like Relativity's 4D mollusk but from the inside out. We are pushing the mollusk into dimensionalized alphabets, but its metaphorical; the mollusk has no exterior, it has no need for containment of fixed indexes of possibilities. It's all ad hoc, but weighted by the inertia of participation and perception. > > > Wouldn't it make > > more sense for there to be no 'observation' at all? > > Yes, even with no block universe, in my opinion. > I agree. Unless we define the universe as 'observation' (really participation) from the start. > > Block universes need not > > have any consciousness. What would be the point? > > I wish I knew, but I feel the question also applies to non-block > universes. > Exactly. Which leaves us with the option of turning the whole thing inside out and seeing the universe as the telling of the story of storytelling - fundamentally, physically, ontologically, realistically. That is the fabric of eternity - not uni-verse but universal weaving, diverting and reverting sensory experience. Craig > > Telmo. > > >> > >> 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]. > >> > 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] <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.
