On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:30 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:38 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:05 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:19 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you include all events as as present moments, and say that they >>>>>> all exist, then how is this different from the block-time view (which >>>>>> says >>>>>> only that all points in time exist and are real)? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They differ in exactly the same was a 10^80 protons differs from one >>>>> proton. The block-time view claims that all moments exist timelessly and >>>>> simultaneously. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think your addition of the word "simultaneously" is invalid and >>>> incorrect. It is enough to say timelessly. Simultaneously is an observer's >>>> reference-frame dependent phenomenon. It has no objective meaning. >>>> >>> >>> The trouble is that the very concept of "timeless" involves some "super >>> time" dimension. The only possible interpretation is that the unchanging >>> block endures for ever in some other temporal dimension. Any slice of that >>> temporal dimension across the block is a moment of simultaneity. The very >>> notion of "timeless" is a temporal concept. >>> >>> >> As I see block time, there is no need to add any super time dimension. >> It is only to say other points in time are real, just as other points in >> space are real. And that "here" is as much a property of me as is "now". >> That is, there is spacetime (that's it). I happen to be in one point in >> space time (here and now), but other people and events are in other theres >> and thens. >> > > I don't think you understand my objection to the very notion of "timeless" > in connection with the universe. The universe is not timeless, and > arbitrary imaginary constructions involving the universe always are built > with a concept of time. You have no evidence that other points in time are > "real", whatever that might mean. It is just a notion, without any basis. > > Do you believe other locations in space exist? Do you believe other locations in time exist? (I answer yes to both questions, that is all I mean by block time -- that there is no privileged part of space time blessed with the property of existence). 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.
