On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:12:05 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks > nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise > are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES > reality. It doesn't make it more complex as you claim. And in fact it > clarifies many points that relativity can't on its own, such as how the > twins can have different clock times and different real ages in an agreed > upon and empirically observable single present moment. Only p-time can > explain that. > > Relativity on its own just can't explain that... My theory makes it all > clear, and directly leads to the clarification of many other mysteries as > well, from cosmology to how spaceclocktime is created by quantum events. By > doing that it resolves quantum paradox, conceptually unifies GR and QT, and > explains the source of quantum randomness. > > So rather than complicating things, it simplifies and clarifies things. > > Edgar > Hi Edgar - if you thought something I asked was worthwhile why didn't you have a go at answering? I don't recall the two themes you answered in being part of what I put to you. I tend to throw out metaphor if it feels easier at the time, maybe you answered one of those literally, which maybe was a reasonable thing to do, no bother either way my end. I've seen you reference that piece about not telling nature how to do things. It's certainly an idea to admire and agree with, and something to aspire to also. But what's really worth just for the knowing and speaking? How do you translate the goal of seeking to see nature as pure as possible, involving the least reflection of yourself? For example, I've put that front and centre by seeking the nature of discovery as a methodical procedure. How go you? Also, if you are tempted to respond to just one of the questions I asked, the one I'd most like to hear back about is how you reconcile that back end logical perfection for initial conditions, with what nature then did when she got local to where we are? Why all the relativistic overlays and finite speeds of light, and fussy complex arrangements to minute scale, and all the rest? Why would she do all that if she already had something in the opposite direction that was perfect? p.s. we share a lot of basic instincts about the nature of the world. About infinity and its usage and so on. But as things stand, I actually regard p-time as one of the worser cases opf infinity like thinking. It might be finite in some key dimensions, but that absolute consistency, that sameness, that all corners of reality being in earshot of the same single drum. That's infinity thinking to my mind unless and until I can see why not. Infinity thinking isn't just about infinity, it's just any kind of magical thinking, in which nature is assumed capable of anything even at such an early stage as you envisage p-time But I'm interested to see otherwise. You clearly have a good culturally-empirical mind
-- 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.
