On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> >> 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.
Hi Craig, Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm having a hard time keeping up with the mailing list and even finding the threads I'm participating in... > 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. I'm mostly ok with what you're saying here, but I meant something slightly different by "we". I meant the set of all first person experiences of everybody. What do you mean by 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. I don't understand half of what you say but I recognise some themes that I can agree with, namely the fundamental importance of self-reference. I suspect that part of what you're trying to do is doomed to failure because you're trying to communicate the non-communicable. Telmo. > 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]. >> > 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]. > 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]. 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.
