On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it > doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal > with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best efforts to > see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true. > > > What is Edgar's insight? Can you explain it? All I've seen is that > observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is > trivially the meaning of "at the same event". > > His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are > derived from some kind of "alignment" of frames, sounds more interesting. > Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light > signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of "aligning" the > clocks so they define and inertial frame. > > Brent > I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway. I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he himself seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory stands or falls on. I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem. I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be about time in the end. So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how it might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled. That's my best guess for your answer.
-- 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.
