On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:53:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen 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. 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 > The way I used to think p-time, that I can explicitly remember, was occasionally looking up into the starry night at Andromeda and saying to someone "no matter where Andromeda is now these millions years after where it is up in the sky there, wherever it is if there are thinking people up there, then some of them could be thinking their thoughts right now, maybe looking right back at me, and that's a sense in which things are connected" Or something like that. And for me that would be a hugely important sense of connection. And it was. It's also - I think - the sense in which p-time would need to be true, given it's an idea deriving from that kind of intuitive sense. But it isn't true. Not in the meaningful sense that would be important. Because if Andromeda was running away or toward at millions mph, the sense of sharing that moment with the kids on Andromeda could be false because relative to me they might experience that time in a few micro seconds. So it isn't true in that most intuitive sense. Which maybe doesn't matter. But then I we lose the aspect of this that is intuitive and obvious. Well, then it's counter-intuitive e
> and not obvious. Or worse, it might feel intuitive and obvious, but later >> on we realize we were wrong. >> >>> >>> 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 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.
