Stathis, If we assume time flows, as everyone in the universe other than block time devotees do, the answers to all your questions are obvious.
First of all my universe is NOT a "presentist" universe. Don't use misleading incorrect labels to describe it. If time flows, as it clearly does, then all movement follows automatically. The flow of time is a fundamental assumption in my theory. Doesn't matter if it flows continuously or in minute increments. The way my theory says it actually flows is in minute processor cycles in which the current state of the universe is continually recomputed. This also corresponds to the continual extension of the radial dimension of a hyperspherical universe. The current present moment is simply the current surface of that hypersphere, and the current processor cycle of p-time. It is not the SAME present moment all the time because the present moment is just the current moment of p-time. It does continually move along the radial p-time axis of the universe. That's how the past continually transitions to the present as the universe continually recomputes its current state. This is a simple elegant theory that is consistent with all of science, and reflects the basic idea of science that time flows from the big bang to the present moment of time. Everyone believes this with very few exceptions, and everyone WITHOUT exception lives according to it. Even block universe believers live their entire lives as if time flows because that is the only way they can possibly function. That's overwhelming evidence that time does flow. Now, how does that work in a block universe? You didn't answer my questions, you just asked the same questions back to me and I gave you the answers. So now what are your answers please? And another question. What is the basic reason you think we need a block universe? What does it explain that the normal view of time flowing from the big bang to the present doesn't explain? The block universe theory explains nothing that the ordinary scientific view of the universe doesn't explain better and just adds all sorts of complications and convoluted explanations. So why come up with it in the first place? Edgar On Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:35:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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.
