Jesse, A couple of points in response:
1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows just fine in SR and GR. No clock time simultaneity of distant (relativistic is a better descriptor) events does NOT imply time is not flowing at those events. This is quite clear. It's a fundamental assumption of relativity that time flows. In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it requires everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact that everything always travels at the speed of light through spacetime. I find it baffling that so many can't grasp this simple fact. 2. You complain about me not answering a few of your questions. As I've explained before I have limited time to post here because running my business keeps me very busy. And please note that a lot of my posts have received NO answers at all either, e.g. a. Several major posts, some as new topics, on my theory of how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Apparently this has just sailed over everyone's heads with not a single meaningful comment, not even any negative ones which is pretty surprising among this crowd! Apparently no one is interested in understanding the nature of time at the quantum level? b. My post on a solution to Newton's Bucket. Also no relevant responses. c. Several thought experiments lending very strong support to my present moment theory, posted just a couple days ago. Again zero response. And weren't those directed to YOU? d. Several thought experiments designed to dig into the fine points of various aspects of time dilation. Again only a vague comment or two on 'asymmetry' but zero actual analysis of the points I raised. e. Several other new topics on basic issues of science and epistemology. Again no relevant responses. So don't be so quick to criticize me for not responding to every one of your questions. I received several hundred emails a day. I respond to most, delete some, but have a list of several dozen from this forum I hope to reply to given time. And when I do reply to posts with substantive topics, I always try to give the time to reply carefully and reply only when my responses have been well thought out... So with limited posting time I have to be selective in my responses. Others here seem to have a lot more time available to post here and wish I did also... As for your comment that "you have no idea what moving in clock time could mean" pull your head out of your physics books and watch your watch for a little while and see if the hands are moving. If not, you are in block time. If they are, you are in the normal reality that everyone else is. And actually yes, the fact that clock time does move perceptibly DOES imply a separate present moment in which clock time moves. You've hit on one of the major arguments FOR a present moment. But I know this direct observation that you can repeat over and over and over and confirm, (which has the same status of all scientific observations and measurements) doesn't carry any weight at all with you. However in denying it you are denying the most basic fact of your own existence. Edgar On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:41:56 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always >> establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even >> imply block time. >> > > Einstein just says there is no "simultaneity of distant events", he > doesn't suggest that there's some alternative to "clocktime simultaneity" > which he believes in. As I understand it you definitely believe that there > is such a thing as simultaneity of distant events, since you think there's > a definite yes-or-no answer to whether they happen at the same p-time. > > And I guess you're going to just ignore my point about the obvious meaning > of a sentence of the form "we should think of physical reality as A instead > of, as hitherto, as B", that such a sentence is endorsing A and rejecting B > as outdated? No surprise there, you always seem to just drop the discussion > once it goes down a line you'd have trouble answering without damaging your > position (as with the issues I asked you to address at > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/BaKE8Sq-fN8J-- > another post you simply ignored). > > > >> >> What it actually implies is that everything is MOVING in clock time and >> if things actually move in clock time that is the opposite of block time. >> Nothing moves in a block universe. >> > > I have no idea what "moving in clock time" could mean (wouldn't "moving" > in a time dimension require a second "meta-time" dimension to keep track of > "changes" in an entity's position in the first time dimension?), or why you > think a lack of absolute "clocktime simultaneity" should "imply" this. But > if you'd care to explain in detail I would be happy to address the argument. > > Jesse > -- 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.
