On 26 February 2014 04:50, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Stathis, > > I understand your point but you don't understand my point. > > My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example > is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run in > time to give the motion of the frames. > > That kind of proof obviously doesn't work. Please give me a proof that time > DOES NOT flow without using something running in time. I say this is > impossible. There is no way you can prove time does not flow without using > some FLOW of time, something running in time, to try to prove it. > > Therefore the notion that time doesn't flow cannot be proved. > > Do you see my point now?
The computation occurs in two parts, separated across time and space. They could even be done simultaneously, in reverse order, or in different universes. The effect of continuous motion would be maintained for the observer in the computation. If "running time" were needed to connect them how could mangling it in this way have no effect? -- 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.
