On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com 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. > Final word from me: The only new distinction I'm proposing that isn't already what Edgar is saying and not already a 'fact on the ground' given so much time is already being given to this, is that we seek to formalize things a little bit by getting clear, what is already effectively in play, and seeking to reinforce whatever that is by some basic principles that can be enshrined in method because that's the generally accepted best way to ensure on-going consistency. The outcome I have proposed assumes the goal is sort of, positive in the extreme, and everything else rolls from that. But another totally legitimate outcome would be that having stopped to collectively think about this, people throw up their arms and say "what the fuck are we doing giving all this freakin' attention to such an undeserving idea that is clearly totally screwy and wrong". That would be perfectly legitimate too. If the garbage needs to be taken out and the collective insight is that is Edgar and his ideas, then it's best for him too that he can know that cleanly and make his own mind up the merits on which it was based, and keep open for himself that he focuses on searching for a fairer bunch of folk to get his idea considered. That's fine. I can definitely vouch for that outcome as totally in the gift of any group of people to decide. What I personally couldn't vouch for and wouldn't feel good about in the fulsomeness of reflection, would be if that had been the built in implicit decision, in effect by the way things were actually done on the ground. But that was never fully realized by either side him or the collective. For him that could be really bad. That could be like, being left totally burned out by the process and walking away from his idea forever, when actually that outcome and kind of been an realized given from the start. Not purposefully - that is not necessary at all for that to be the real intention at the level of the METHOD. The method is objectively real, and it is always there whether it's realized or not. It's objective in that sense. If it isn't explicit worked through, then it's just the whatever was most repeating and most long term influential in the carcrash of what happened.
> > -- 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.
