Jesse, Again I will post shortly a detailed analysis addressing this and other points you've made.
Best, Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:59:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is >> ultimately a conscious experience. >> > > Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are > always of quantitative values that can be measured by some sort of > measuring-instrument. > > Anyway, it's fine with me if you want to argue in favor of p-time using > qualitative aspects of conscious experience, and in fact I did address the > argument from conscious experience in the last two paragraphs of the post > at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/jUPOnqbP6hwJ-- I > don't think you addressed that part. In any case, I'm trying to get a > sense of whether you think there are multiple *independent* arguments in > favor of p-time, or whether any argument you could make for p-time would > depend crucially on pointing to qualitative aspects of conscious > experience. The exact nature of the conscious experience of change seems > pretty slippery and hard to pin down, so I would prefer to just agree to > disagree about what is proved by conscious experience and discuss other > less subjective arguments, if you do have any independent ones. > > > >> 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. >> > > Giving an "operational" definition is not the same as a description of > "how the theory works". Operational means that any terms are defined in > terms of some test procedure that anyone could carry out, even one who does > not agree from the start about your metaphysical assumptions. For example, > my operational definition of "same point in spacetime" didn't require any > assumptions about the ontology of spacetime, it was just things like > sending out a light signal and seeing if there was a measurable delay in > getting back the reflected signal, or yelling "hey!" and seeing if the > other person starts to react quasi-instantaneously. > > > >> In fact you criticize me in your first paragraph for doing that too much! >> > > Once again you repeat the annoying strawman that I am telling you not to > discuss your theory, when in fact I was expressing irritation that YOU > scolded ME for answering a direct question you asked about my ideas with an > on-topic answer. I guess you're not going to apologize for that, you think > it was entirely fair to scold me for an on-topic response to your own > question? > > Jesse > > > >> >> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<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 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.
