On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
You might read the book by Pale Yourgrau on "Einstein and Gödel".
Einstein never believed in time, and definietly stop to believe in its
possibility after contemplating Gödel's solution of GR with time loops.
I don't know for Newton, as its metaphysics is rather messy and
complex, but Pascal is close to the block-universe idea, which is
sleepy in all deterministic account of reality.
You have not answered my question of "can we share the same p-time, in
case we can slow down our brain?"
Bruno
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some
actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim.
That's only fair...
Edgar
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:11:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 11:48, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also
a great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a
better idea.
Good, that was the point. A lot of people seemed to be attacking it
on the basis of straw man arguments, so obviously not everyone
"gets" it.
I remember reading someone argue against it in terms of energy, and
I think this was thrown out by others with explanations, but can't
remember any details. Any chance you could me by the explanation of
that?
I do remember that, but only very vaguely - so I can't really say
what the problem or resolution was. Sorry. If anyone can remember,
please let me know.
(Maybe it was something similar to the fallacy that the MWI violates
conservation of energy because it's constantly "creating new
universes" ... ?)
I was also able to get a good beginner foothold understanding of
your explanation how SR gives rise to blocktime via relativity of
simultaneity. Best I can I do see the implication is compelling and
hard to avoid - I can't think of any criticism directly. But then I
wouldn't expect to be able to do that from the level I am at.
I haven't been able to come up with anything. Of course any type of
physics that treats time as a dimension implies block time, for
example Newtonian mechanics does, as illustrated by Laplace's
comment about an omniscient being that could know the past and
future given the configuration of the universe at a single moment.
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime
sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond
that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are
there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from
relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of
reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond
blocktime?
The idea of space-time seems to be central to SR, and even more so
to GR. (It was also central to Newtonian physics, but as "space and
time" which taken together have the features of a block universe.)
If not then out of interest, what sort of strength would you
personally attach to blocktime? Say compared to the speed of light,
or big bang? Genuinelly curious.
I'm not sure what you mean about the speed of light. I'd say block
time is the best interpretation of what phyics is telling us about
the universe because (a) the theoretical and experimental evidence
is very strong and (b) the ontological basis for it is good - it's
the minimal explanation necessary. Although other variants like
"presentism" are theoretically possible, they're unnecessary to
explain all existing observations, and only push the problem of time
back a step, since presentism just says there's an extra time
dimension in which our universe is being continually created and
destroyed - but of course another time dimension can also be viewed
as a block universe, one step removed. If that time dimension is
also given a time dimension in which it's happening, that can also
be viewed as a block universe, 2 steps removed ... and so on.
The intuitive problem I would have with blocktime would veiry much
be along the same themes as a lot of other inferences in one way or
another at the 'edge'. The same assumption seems to come into play,
that nature has infinite resources at her fingertips...is able to
get those resources pretty much anywhere she likes too. Which might
be true, but I return to that worry that, whether true or not, the
explanation is always available to us, and will always deliver this
kind of resolution, regardless of context. So long as the problem is
at the edge of knowledge.
Is that a worry for you as well?
It might be for some things, but block time has been so
uncontentious amongst the vast majority of physicists since Newton
that I don't have any problems with it. It's been very well thought
through by many minds, and no one has come up with a viable
alternative that I'm aware of.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.