Quentin, But it's NOT the case...
Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer <[email protected] <javascript:>>: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so >>> "arbitrary precision" does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept >>> correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that >>> in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. >>> >> >> I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks >> for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine >> p-time and you had said things like "we should be able to compute p-time >> from Omega, the curvature of the universe" (in the post at >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg47450.html). >> So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in >> p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that >> answers what I was wondering about in question #1. >> > > If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such "p-time"... it's > useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to > solve ? > > >> >> Jesse >> >> >> >>> >>> Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of >>> everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just >>> like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it >>> doesn't exist. >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time >>>>> simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D >>>>> spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is >>>>> perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by >>>>> the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is >>>>> assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated >>>>> our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific >>>>> species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were >>>>> 'at >>>>> the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how >>>>> the >>>>> existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of >>>>> measurement. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it >>>> could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree >>>> approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about >>>> the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could >>>> the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the >>>> neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild >>>> coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres >>>> coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't >>>> just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's >>>> claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all >>>> circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically >>>> determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what >>>> empirical observations would be used. >>>> >>>> Jesse >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javascript:> >>> . >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > -- 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.
