On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
I would agree that the 4D mathematics of relativity theory doesn't require
the ontology of block time, though I don't see any alternative to block
time besides some sort of "metaphysically preferred" definition of
simultaneity (which wouldn't contradict relativity as long as long as this
definition wasn't "preferred" by the measurable laws of physics). I don't
know what you mean by "clock time still flows" in SR and GR--it only
"flows" in the sense that its value is different at different points along
a worldline, the same sense in which we could say that "distance from the
end of the wire" flows along a piece of wire (i.e. the value of "distance
from the end of the wire" is different at different points along the wire).
> 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.
>
What mathematical element of relativity corresponds to your notion of
"flow"?
>
> 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.
>
Huh? "Everything moves at the speed of light through spacetime" is not how
most physicists would describe relativity, and those few who do are just
speaking in a colorful way about the magnitude of the 4-velocity always
being equal to c. And the 4-velocity is just defined as a vector whose
components give you the rate of change of the spacetime coordinates t,x,y,z
relative to proper time.
Nothing about this notion is contrary to the notion of block time--as an
analogy, if we have a piece of wire embedded in a block of ice and forming
some type of curved shape, and we use an x,y,z coordinate system to
describe different points within the block and on the wire, then at every
point along the wire we can define a vector whose components give the rate
of change of x, y, z coordinates relative to "proper length" at each point
(where "proper length" refers to the distance between that point and the
end of the wire--or some point along the wire marked "0"--as measured along
the the wire itself). And in fact it's not hard to show (I can give you the
derivation if you like) that using these purely spatial definitions, the
magnitude of *this* vector must always be 1 at every point on the wire,
regardless of the shape of the wire. Would you describe this situation by
saying "every wire-point moves at the same speed through the block of ice",
even though we are talking about wires that from our point of view are
completely static, frozen in a particular shape within the block?
>
>
> 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.
>
Those posts were not part of an ongoing discussion with *me*, though. I'm
not asking you to respond to every argument I make, just to respond to
posts that are part of ongoing discussions with you, in which I raise
serious difficulties with arguments you have presented to me. And I don't
mind if you take your time in getting back to me, but it is rather
suspicious when you continually ignore my requests to address specific
issues I've raised with you, even when you do apparently have time to
respond to other posts of mine.
>
> 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.
>
So does your argument for "movement in clock time" depend on our conscious
perceptions, rather than any sort of well-defined quantitative
measurements? It's not obvious to me that my perception of movement is
anything more than a mental comparison between what I'm seeing now and my
very short-term memory of what I was seeing half a second or less
earlier...and of course the idea of comparing memories or other records
with current observations still makes perfect sense in a block time view.
I am interested in the issue of the difference between conscious
perceptions ("qualia" as philosophers refer to them) and objective physical
facts, and I have considered the possibility that if there is a "theory of
consciousness" of the type that the philosopher David Chalmers discusses,
then perhaps the "flow of time" would play a more fundamental role there
than it does in physics. But I don't see that this implies any *unique*
subjective present--if I can imagine a multiverse where different versions
of me are having different experiences, I can equally well imagine that
there are different mes-at-different-ages having distinct experiences, each
of them experiencing their own "flow" of time...it'd be a bit like a series
of TV screens which are each playing the same movie, but where each screen
is one frame ahead of the screen to its left, so screens at sufficiently
far-apart positions can be showing completely different parts of the movie.
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.
