On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stathis, > > You have avoided my main question which is the crux of block universe > theory. > > It is easy to see how a 1p block time perspective gives a STATIC view > because the memory of the past must exist in every present moment. But if > the present moment is static, then that view of the past must also be > static. > > How does that static view become the ACTIVE view of time flowing that > everyone of us experiences? And don't try to claim that we don't live in > such an active view. Our whole existence necessitates it. > > Until block universe theory can explain that it simply can't be taken > seriously and it clearly CAN'T explain how actual motion emerges from > non-motion. You say it can, but you can't explain HOW it can. It's logical > to imagine a static view in a static universe, but that static view can't > come to life and duplicate our experience of being alive in a flowing time > unless something MOVES, and in a block universe nothing moves. > You haven't explained how movement is possible in a presentist universe either, whether time is continuous or discrete. Also, you haven't explained what causality could mean if the present moment is all that exists; how could the past and the present moment "touch"? You imply that these things are somehow obvious but they are not. > If you believe, as you say, that movement is frames in a block universe, > then how do we move from one to the next without time flowing, without > something moving? It simply can't happen. > > It's easy to understand a movie consists of successive frames of film, but > the projector of that film must move for the film to move. The movie is > simply not a real MOVie unless the frames are sequentially played in time. > > Lastly your claim that the creation of the entire universe all at once > from beginning to end with all its causal networks intact but WITHOUT any > causality is frankly ludicrous. How did the causal sequences of our > universe arise all at once without any causality? What process computed > them? How could the entire universe just appear out of nothing in no time > at all? It's very creation assumes at least 1 moment of time in which it > came into being. > > And your claim that the creation of the entire universe from beginning to > end is no more improbable than simply starting with a fine tuning of 20 > some constants is also frankly ludicrous. > So you think the universe starting at ap particular point, with time and causality also starting at that point, and with particular physical constants, is easier to explain? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
