On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:30 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:38 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:05 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:19 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> 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 [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.
