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 <[email protected]<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 <[email protected]> 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] <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]. 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.
