On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:04:49 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 16:56, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would >> block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while >> their time is being actively blocked in? Or does blocktime exist statically >> as the end-to-end story of the universe? >> > > Block time doesn't have any implications for individual lives. It can't > make a difference to everyday life, because obviously it predicts that > everyday life will be exactly what we observe it to be (otherwise it could > be shown to be false). It would seem that the 4D space-time manifold > "exists as the story of the universe". >
> >> I appreciate the construction is the chain of relations, but does anyone >> say whether the relations necessarily happen like a domino effect from the >> big bang through, just the one time? Or can they get washed through like >> waves of an incoming tide? is another version of me happening on the wave >> just behind the one I'm on? >> > > This interesting possibility is explored in Barrington Bayley's novel > "Collision with Chronos" which I heartily recommend even though as far as > we know it doesn't have anything to do with real physics! > I'm going to have fire up a spreadsheet to keep some record of these book references. > > For things to wash through block time you need an extra time stream. So > you move your block universe out to 5D - 3 space and 2 time dimensions. > There's no reason to posit this to explain any observed phenomenon. A 4D > space-time manifold appears to be sufficient. > I didn't mean it that way. I was using the wave just as a way to illustrate what I meant. I didn't say so of course. But that's totally your fault. > >> I think what I'm realty asking is what is blocktime giving the world? >> It's giving us a deeper vision of reality (if true). But if it is >> objectively true, what purpose or utility does it serve, if any? >> > > My experience when I ask something like that is normally >> puzzlement..."what do you mean what purpose/utility?' It's an implication >> of relativity! :o) >> > > Well, it's more an ontological underpinning of relativity, since the whole > thing is based around the concept that the universe is a 4D manifold (a > warped one in GR). So I guess the puzzlement is similar to if you'd asked > "what is the purpose/utility of the big bang, or of evolution?" It sounds > like a theological / teleological question. > yeah I see what you mean. > >> But it's strange really. Where are knowledge is strongest, at the core of >> our own universe, there is no part of it that does not serve a fundamental >> purpose in the workings of physical law. If someone asked what purpose were >> served by neutrinos, or dark matter, or gamma rays, gravity....there would >> be several interpretations involving some utility in the scheme of things. >> >> But what happens at the edges..of our theories, of our knowledge, is >> completely different. And tightly linked to what action we take. This one >> here is in the same class as what takes place with QM. An interpretation. >> Both times then, MWI and this time, the result is an - albeit completely >> differently configured - sort of translation even from a set of >> relations in one universe, to the same relations distributed in a >> multiverse-like construction. >> > > It isn't really an interpretation, except insofar as all physics could be > called that (I think "model" would be a better term). It's one of the > entities postulated by SR and GR, much as (say) mass is. I suppose it has > the benefit of being the only view of time that actually makes sense - at > least, I've never seen a physical theory that explains time any other way, > and it's hard to imagine any other way of explaining it - although > presentism expands the scope of the block universe to extra time > dimensions, but I don't consider that a good thing. > Well what I'd say is you've definitely given a very good showing for blocktime. I'm nowhere near equipped to put up a counter argument. It's an interesting idea...that I could accept....if there was a way to lose the infinity. Which I'll be thinking about. But that's just personal stuff. All in all, if I was a good popperian I'd definitely be accepting your explanation as literally true. But I'm not a good popperian :O) > >> Obviously we don't see this as a multiverse in that blocktime happens >> along the passage of time we associate with this single universe. But >> relative to the old concept of a single version of objects moving through >> the passage of time, blocktime is a multiverse-like construction IMHO. >> > > QM posits a block multiverse. > >> >> Guess what we're getting could be objective , or it could be an artefact >> of doing something improper, brought about by circumstances involving >> invoking a process of interpretation of some sense of an exposed edge of a >> theory. >> > > Any idea what? > I actually do Liz, but I don't think it'd be fair to put you through it, as my standard of explanation needs to be higher. I probably shouldn't touch on the matter at all...but the process helps to progress me..and anyway I just can't help myself. I'm always speaking insights from my theory...that's why no on ever has a clue what I'm going on about :O () > >> Two possibilities >> > > Only one of them has had amazing predictive success, however :-) > Don't be so hard on yourself Liz. Just kidding. I'm presuming you don't mean blocktime directly predicts...but relativity. If so, I take your point obviously. If you meant blocktime directly, I'd love to hear the prediction. -- 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.
