On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > 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 [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.
