On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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 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.
