On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:19 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:45 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM John Clark <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arithmetical computations don't change so there can't be a >>>>>> correspondence between them and the evolution of spacetime or with >>>>>> anything else that can change. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "y = 2x+1" defines the arithmetical relation of "oddness". >>>>> >>>>> Solutions to this equation yield (compute) for *y* all possible odd >>>>> numbers. *y* changes with respect to increasing values of *x*, just >>>>> as John Clark's brain changes with respect to increasing values of *t* >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> How does 'x' change? >>>> >>> >>> With respect to y, and vice versa (like your brain state and your >>> location in spacetime). >>> >> >> Poor analogy. Change in the physical world is governed by dynamics, >> described by equations with a veritable 't', called time. Time is probably >> only a local phenomenon, but I do not see any 'time' variable in arithmetic. >> > > It depends on the equation. > What equation? There are no dynamics in arithmetic. > The analogy with the block universe idea is useless, because the block >> universe idea is only a picture, not a reality. Special relativity merely >> abolishes any notion of Newtonian absolute time, it does not prove that all >> instants of time are equally and simultaneously existent. The whole notion >> of simultaneity is abolished in relativity. Minkowski's block universe was >> a response to this, but not a very good picture in the final analysis, >> because it completely fails to capture the local dynamical aspect of the >> time variable. >> > > Did you read https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11921131.pdf ? > No. Why should I? > What is your interpretation of the > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument ? > The "present" is a local concept which cannot be extended to global hyperplanes. Remember, the only sensible definition of "time" is an operational definition -- "time is what is measured on a clock". This is a purely local concept. > Do you agree in principal, that human experience of a dynamically evolving > universe cannot be used to decide between block time and presentism? > Special relativity certainly cannot be used to justify the block universe concept. Bruce -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
