On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:19 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:45 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> >>>>>> 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. > There are computations. > > >> 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? > Because you believe relativity cannot be used to justify the block universe concept. > > >> 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. > Which would means there is no such thing as a present point in time. > 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. > So then you have reduced the present to a point in spacetime, a single event. > > >> 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. > > That wasn't my question. Do you believe your experience rules out the block universe? Jason -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
