Jesse, What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is ultimately a conscious experience. The observation of a present moment we share when we are together in space is the most FUNDAMENTAL observation of all.
It's much much more than "an intuition". It's a directly observable FACT. As for operational definition, I explained in detail how the theory works on numerous occasions. In fact you criticize me in your first paragraph for doing that too much! Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:28:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? >> > > No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically > about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you > suddenly change the subject and make scolding comments like "Once again, > for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity > with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of > p-time." And now when I explain that I was just responding to your > questions and give you quotes showing that you had been asking about my > model, instead of apologizing for losing track of what we'd been talking > about you get all pouty and pretend I'm saying we can only discuss my > ideas. I just don't like being scolded for giving an on-topic response to > some questions of yours, that's all. > > > >> I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is >> what I was/am doing... >> >> Yes, I'd like to understand your take on "whether relativity can give a >> coherent account of what phrases like "same point in spacetime" .... really >> mean physically." I think I understand that from your reflected light test. >> >> But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a >> local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in >> that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the >> fact with the reflected light test. >> > > Like I said, it can also predict that this will happen in advance, by > using an inertial coordinate system and the known equations of physics to > predict both the path and clock readings of the twins and to model the > light signals being sent out and reflected between them, and predicting > what their clocks read at the point where the reflection time goes to zero. > > > > >> But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem to >> calculate or explain. >> >> What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain or >> calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) >> > > Can you give an operational definition of this "shared present moment", > one that goes beyond just the observation that the time between an action > directed at the other gets an almost immediate response (whether we're > talking about light signals or just about one twin saying "hey!" and > observing the other to immediately begin turning around)? Or is the > existence of this "shared present moment" only verifiable in terms of > conscious experience or metaphysical intuitions or something? > > 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.
