Jesse, OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was looking for them in the link you gave.
I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's. Edgar On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've > provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is > asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since > you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but > presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the > theory? > > > No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover > contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of > the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock > times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account > for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my > spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving > quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous > argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you > wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed > there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about > the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered > my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative > facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments > that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. > > Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to > show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that > there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were > simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't > think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a > metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do > so myself. > > > > > Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this > discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct? > > > In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that > A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are > simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects > are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are > simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can > you please consider the scenario I described in the post at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith > the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the > individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous > in p-time according to your rules? > > If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very > idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop > assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for > empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my > point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion. > > > > And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell > me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said > you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those > assumptions what DO you agree with? > > > You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe > in and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a > discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions > either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very > broad question, could you narrow it down by mentioning the specific > assumptions I should adopt (for example, whether they would only include > assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C even though > I think this leads to conclusions that contradict presentism), and specific > ideas you want to know if I agree or disagree with given these assumptions? > > Jesse > > > > Why is this could not a WOULD? > > Edgar > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example > could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and > the p-time simultaneities I stated there? > > > What do you mean "agree with"? I don't even agree there is any such thing > as an objective frame-independent truth about simultaneity, I think block > time is quite satisfactory. And if there was an objective simultaneity, > which you would call simultaneity in p-time, I would see no reason to think > it should obey the postulates you suggest, like the postulate that for two > clocks at rest relative to one another, simultaneous readings in their rest > frame should automatically be simultaneous in p-time. > > Are you just asking me to consider the hypothetical that *if* there was > such a thing as objective p-time simultaneity, and *if* it respected the > postulates you believe in, would I *then* agree with your analysis of > various examples? If that's all you're asking I can tell you if I agree > with your analysis of various examples given these hypotheticals. But if > you are asking me to agree or disagree on anything more than that, then my > answer is "no, I don't agree with your statements about p-time because I > don't believe in your basic premises." > > > > > I gave simpler examples to make p-time simultaneity easier to understand, > so it makes no sense to address your slightly more complex examples until > we agree on my 3. > > Also in general it would be useful if you could let me know what you do > agree with that I say about p-time. Your MO is just to continually ask > question after question without usually indicating what answers of mine you > agree with or don't. To conduct an objective discussion it helps to know > what we agree with as well as what we don't. Don't you agree? > > > Sure, but I thought you understood that I was an advocate of block time, > so that it would go without saying that I wouldn't agree with any > statements that presupposed p-time. None of the statements I ask you to > agree or disagree with presuppose block time, they are either questions > about your own beliefs about p-time, or questions about your use of > examples from relativity theory to make arguments for a need for p-time. > > Jesse > > > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:45:07 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it... > > For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second > that concludes there IS transitivity.. > > Edgar > > > > OK, then in the scenario I described, please tell me if you disagree with > any of the conclusions 1-4 about which events are simultaneous in p-time: > > Start by considering their init > > ... -- 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.
