Ghibbsa, Brent, Russell, Jesse, What Ghibbsa and others are trying to do here is establish a notion of a universal CLOCK time, and there are several approaches to doing this. The best way we would do this is to take an observer in deep space with no gravitational field or acceleration and calculate things like the Hubble age of the universe in his frame since that does provide a de facto standard for a universal observer. It's my understanding that the 13.7 billion figure is essentially that and that thus the true CLOCK TIME age of the universe can be considered 13.7 billion years because it would be measured (calculated) as such for a standard non-accelerated, non-gravitationalized observer, and by far most of the (non-accelerated) spatial points in the universe would approximate that frame as they would be located in intergalactic space. Thus it does give us a de facto standard frame for clock times.
HOWEVER that is NOT the p-time concept. That's an entirely different notion of time that has no proper metric. P-time is just the active presence of reality. The presence of reality manifests as a present moment because since reality is real and actual it must also be present, and that presence manifests as a present moment. The present moment is simply the actual presence of the universe, the actual directly observable presence of reality. That present moment must be universal because it is the actual presence of the reality of the universe. The presence of the universe and the universe itself MUST be coterminous. Thus the present moment must be universal across the entirety of the universe. P-time is a dimensionLESS (or pre-dimensional) abstract computational space. As such it has no intrinsic measure other than its characteristic of 'happening' which provides the processor cycles to compute all dimensionality and the current information state of the entire universe. So the present moment of p-time is that IN WHICH all dimensionality, including clock times, are computed. It has no intrinsic dimensionality of its own. Though p-time is the actual radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe it cannot be directly measured because we can only use clocks of one form or another to measure time and clocks only measure CLOCK time. So the universal time you are discussing is a universal notion of CLOCK time, not p-time. However because we, and all biological observers, exist as a part of reality, as a part of the actual universe, we are automatically IN the presence of the universe and thus in the present moment which is our direct experience OF that presence in which we exist. Thus we all directly experience the presence of reality, the actual presence of the universe, as the present moment in which we all exist. Thus our fundamental experience of a personal present moment is actually our direct experience of the most fundamental process of reality itself, of the continual re-computation of the current state of the universe, driven by the continual extension of the radial p-time dimension of the universe. In my judgment this is an extremely profound insight! Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:41:17 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> > Ghibbsa, >>>> > >>>> > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. >>>> > >>>> > P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe >>>> though it >>>> > doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to >>>> > dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time >>>> radial >>>> > dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension >>>> actually >>>> > is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. >>>> > >>>> >>>> I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega > 1)? >>>> >>>> Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely >>>> considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. >>>> >>>> Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative >>>> curvature? >>>> >>>> Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the >>>> spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension >>>> extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. >>>> >>>> Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding >>>> space. >>>> >>>> > So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor >>>> cycles >>>> > of all the computations that produce the current information state of >>>> the >>>> > universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different >>>> > relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. >>>> > >>>> > Hope that makes it a little clearer.... >>>> > >>>> >>>> Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical >>>> computer with the curvature of spacetime? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble >>> Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually >>> adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). >>> >>> I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a >>> frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. >>> >>> Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big >>> bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately >>> nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By >>> whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in >>> terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' >>> right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we >>> allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? >>> >>> In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet >>> resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other >>> reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some >>> future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? >>> >>> What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that >>> common history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of >>> moments all the same? What is different between different units of energy >>> at particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they >>> are not? >>> Ways >>> >> >> p.s. it's clear that between any arbitrarily chosen pair of bits of >> energy there's a whole universe of ways to be different relative to one >> another. But assuming there is a sense the universe has a single age in >> some sense that is true, and that that then looks like a wafer >> thin symmetrical bubble the big bang at the centre, then it seems >> reasonable that all such differences cancel out when the whole bubble is >> taken together. Therefore being no different than any more conventional >> definition of a frame in that sense at least. Is there some extra sense, >> then, that doesn't reasonably cancel out, that this isn't by whatever gross >> stretch, a frame, or some reasonable metaphor for a parallel? >> > > > p.p.s. the rationale for this in context of seeking a strongest sense of > his argument, is that although fair enough he himself choose to state > things first and foremost as deriving from things like the sense people > on Andromeda share this moment, and two twins share this moment and so on. > The fact is, his argument is actually for a sense there is a universal > shared moment, and we would have to allow he hasn't worked out the niggly > details of exactly how that pans out between specific pairs of frames, and > indeed in terms of relativity theory at all. > > The first question is surely, is a sense that we can agree that a universe > common moment can be true at the scale of the universal. That hopefully can > be stated in some sense of relativity, but more importantly, can be stated > in some sense that is true independently of whatever relativity has to say. > -- 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.
