On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:47 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/18/2018 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > 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. > > > You still won't believe it after reading the paper. It's full of > falacious reasoning drawing conclusions about simultaneous events at > different places instead of noting that simultaneity is meaningless for > spatially separated events. > > > Simultaneity is only meaningless between different reference frames. There is no spacial limit on how distant the present moment can be defined, once you assume a reference frame. That two adjacent observers, in different reference frames, can have a completely different (yet fully valid from their own POV) conception of the present suggests that the naive view of an objective present is fallacious. > > > >> >> >>> 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. > > > I don't know what you mean by "in time". Every event can be labeled by > four coordinate values one of which is "time", but the coordinate label is > not the same as the clock reading of an observer at that event, and which > defines that "present" for that observer. > The present is everything an observer can conclude to exist at any particular clock time. If he receives light from the sun at time (t+8 minutes), he can conclude the sun existed at time t. > > > >> 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. > > > Nonsense. An observer can read his clock at every event along his world > line. > Then it would be a worldline that exists, which spans times (block-time), rather than saying only a single moment in time exists (presentism). > > > >> >> >>> 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? > > > If you mean a pre-determined universe, I think that is ruled out by > quantum randomness. > The Shrodinger equation is deterministic. Quantum Randomness, like a moving present, is a subjective phenomenon. > But I don't think our experience rules out there being a 4-dimensional > map of all events. > Okay. 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.
