On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a
> space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant
> equations) would see it as static. But of course *we* don't see it like
> that.
>
> This appears to be the source of the problem a few people have with this
> concept, however - they appear to confuse the god's eye view with ours. But
> of course we're embedded in space-time - along for the ride. So of course
> we see change all the time.
>
Hi Liz
I'd just like to be clear that I'm not one of those attacking block (in the
sense of co-existent) models in physics or TOEs in general (comp, for
example). In fact I'd come to this view already some years back after
finally losing confidence in my previous adherence to "presentism" -
despite (or rather because of) trying unsuccessfully to defend it against
experts. That said, as you may have noticed, I'm rather interested in the
heuristics people employ to make intuitive sense of the frog view from
within the block, as "Mad Max" Tegmark calls it.
So in that spirit could I ask you to enlarge a little on just what you are
thinking about when you use the term "we" in your statements above? Who or
what are the "we" who "don't see it like that", "are along for the ride"
and "see change all the time"? I'm thinking here specifically of the frog
or first-person perspective. Should we think of an "extended frog", for
example, that is spread out over a co-existent series of moments, each of
which encodes a slightly different spatial-temporal perspective? If so, how
specifically can we account for the "momentary frog" that believes itself
always to be restricted to only one moment of that series, but is convinced
that it's not always the same one? After all, from the frog's perspective,
the appearance of an irreversible progression through a series of changes
in a singular spatial-temporal location is the most non-negotiable feature
of its very life.
If you feel that the best available answer is that it's all an illusion,
actually I wouldn't dispute that. But I'm interested in investigating the
detailed logic of that very illusion, in approximately the sense that we
can investigate and account logically for other illusions like the apparent
continuity of vision despite constant rapid ocular saccades. With respect
to the latter, we could probably say quite a lot about how the brain
contrives that particular illusion Funnily enough, physicists also tend to
appeal loosely to the brain in response to the illusion of the "passage of
time" ("it's psychology - not my subject"). But, presumably we can say a
little more about what a brain might be doing in deleting the gaps between
ocular fixations, whereas we might be a bit in the dark about how "the
brain" (itself now conceived as a four-dimensional physical object spread
out over time) might contrive to manage the illusion of change in its own
apparent spatial-temporal location.
Is a series of frogs spread out over time, each believing it occupies a
different spatial-temporal location, equivalent to the apparent experience
of one frog occupying a single moment that keeps changing? By what logic do
we suppose this would this be distinguishable from the permanently
separated experiences of a series of individual frogs? IOW, why wouldn't
each of us have the permanent experience of being many different frogs
"stuck in time", rather than one frog "moving through time"? These are not
intended to be rhetorical questions, by the way. IOW, saying that something
is an illusion is only the beginning of an explanation, not the conclusion
of one.
Comp may fare better here because it sets out on the path of elucidating
exactly how a "we" might be defined such that this "we" might entertain the
specific illusion of successive changes in its spatial-temporal location.
But for me, at least, this is more difficult to intuit with any precision
in a non-comp block concept, precisely because of the under-definition of
the referent for "we". The frog perspective is assumed, rather than
elucidated. Anyway, as ever, your own thoughts would be much appreciated.
David
--
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.
