On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 4:59:15 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Dec 2018, at 00:50, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On 12/19/2018 4:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:40 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:14 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > From: *Jason Resch* <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:19 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:45 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM John Clark <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. > > But no dynamics. > > > I'm not sure what this means. Not dynamic in what sense? > > > Dynamics is the study of matter in motion. There are no clocks in > arithmetic. > > > Matter only moves with respect to different times, likewise the state of a > computer's registers and memory only change between steps of a CPU. You > could study the dynamics of state changes in a computer. > > > > > 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. > > > I do not have the time or inclination to rebut every argument that is > presented in arbitrary papers. But if you abandon the idea of > 'simultaneity' as used in this paper, the objections to the idea of "the > present" as a ourely local concept collapse. > > > Then you have already abandoned the idea of a 3-dimensional space evolving > in time. How does this not leave "block time" as the only view that > preserves an objective global spacetime? Why give up an objective realist > view that captures all of spacetime when you do't have to? > > > In what sense has this given up an objective global spacetime? All that > has been abandoned is the concept of a universal time parameter which could > give unique sense to global time slices. One can imagine such a foliation > of space like hyper surfaces if one wants to, but it is not imposed by > relativity. > > > But relativity does rules out "naive presentism" -- the idea that there > are is an objective spacelike hypersurfaces that we can call a present. You > seem to agree with me on this. What I am struggling with is the > interpretation of time, or of the present, when you reduce present moments > to single points in space time. What does this buy you? It seems to make > it much harder to talk about the relationship between remote points in > space time. > > > It's easy: They are spacelike, pastlike, or futurelike. > > > For example, how do they effect one another? > > > Each one is affected by those in its past light cone. > > How can one talk about machines (such as our own brains) which are > extended in space time, when we can only talk about individual atoms, or > neurons existing in their own present, when they must interact with other > neurons whose signal remains but that neuron now no longer exists (being in > its own present time different from the perspective of the neuron which > received its signal). It just seems so much more complicated to add the > notion of popping into and out of existence, when it is wholly unnecessary > and adds nothing to the theory. > > > There's no problem with considering those events in the past light cone as > affecting each event. > > > > The problem with the "objective realist view" to which you seem to wish to > cling is that not only is it not required by SR, it is positively ruled > against by quantum mechanics, particularly non-local EPR-type correlations. > > *WHO WROTE THE ABOVE? EPR ONLY RULES AGAINST *LOCAL* CORRELATIONS. AG *
> > I don't agree EPR has any bearing on this topic, but also don't want to > re-open that can of worms here. > > > > This reminds me quite a bit of the break down of the naive conception of > personal identity. The normal view is each person's experiences are > bounded by either psychological or biological continuity. Thought > experiments such as duplicating or permuting minds show neither of these > can work. The only consistent choices that remain are: > 1. "universalism" -- all experiences belong to one universal experiencer > 2. "no-self" -- there are only single individual thought moments > > > Your person-duplicating thought experiments have no such drastic > consequences -- there are other possibilities. > > > > I would like to hear what they are, as I am not aware of them. > > > The thought experiments of relativity, such as the Rietdijk-Putnam > experiment, lead to a similar break down. You either reduce what exists > "presently" to a collection of independent events (points) in space time, > or you expand it to include all of space time. But in both cases, you are > saying what exists in the present is the same (all points in space time vs. > all of space time). I'm not sure you there > > ... -- 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.
