On 04 Feb 2014, at 17:46, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 10:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But perhaps we should rather think of the frog focus as continuing
to be fundamentally panoptic (i.e. encompassing all the frog
perspectives) except that down there the extrinsic
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without
assuming Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their
description of physics.
You often say, we can do that, but this makes
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.
But not hidden variable in the EPR sense. In the MWI, there are
hidden universes, they are not variable, but terms in the universal
Max Tegmark of all people rejects infinity and argues we need to get back
to elegant theories with finite equations and stop playing the infinite
infinity game
That said, some of his suggestions seem dubious if I read it right. You
can't just redefine the troublesome infinities. Doing that
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2014 7:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Fine, but then if you genuinely seek to criticise it in its own
terms, as you appear to do constantly, then the usual rules of
engagement are that you cannot in all reason subsequently quarrel
with the
On 04 Feb 2014, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
The question was, How do you define finite.
Something is finite if there is no proper subset of it that can be
put into a one to one correspondence with the entire thing.
On 04 Feb 2014, at 21:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb
On 04 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:31:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 04 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:55, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
SR directly demonstrates
On 04 Feb 2014, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote (to David):
Nobody is claiming that digits can have or cause an experience; that
would be absurd.
Bruno does. His model of Comp subscribes to the idea that complex
numbers are persons.
Numbers, or number relations are 3p notions. The person
On 04 Feb 2014, at 23:57, LizR wrote:
On 5 February 2014 00:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:40:59AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA,
which is
On 05 Feb 2014, at 00:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:00:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something
The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as the planet Neptune and
the radio wave: with mathematics. Why does our universe seem so
mathematical, and what does it mean? In my new book, Our Mathematical
Universe, which comes out today, I argue that it means that our universe
isn't just
On 05 Feb 2014, at 07:54, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 5 February 2014 03:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's
meaningless to
ask why bodies emit utterances referring to the epiphenomenon.
Why? You agree that there is still
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming
Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 February 2014 09:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks for the nice summaries too, in some of your post.
I hope I didn't garble them too badly :)
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal
On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:02, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, it [the MUH] optimistically suggests that consciousness can
one day be understood as a form of matter, forming the most
beautifully complex structure in space and time that our universe
has ever known.
This seem so weird to me.
On 05 Feb 2014, at 00:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote:
..
Well, we don't know if anything is really real. I wasn't intending
to discuss metaphysics on this thread; if you want to do that, maybe
you could start another one. All I'm arguing is that SR (and to some
On 05 Feb 2014, at 00:55, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. My fault. I was alluding to the self of the universal person,
described by the arithmetical hypostases. usually I use higher
self more in the context of the some entheogenic experience. The
higher self is, basically, you, when you
proposal:
1)Instead of asking what is fundamental about math, we can consider the
case of math in physics and ask what is fundamental among the subset of
mathematical objects' directly in play in the equations and operations
describing physics .
2)If ONE of these objects can be isolated
On 5 February 2014 06:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I know I am conscious. I could say, what a silly question!
If I declare that I am conscious this action is entirely explainable
in physical terms. I am also actually conscious, but that's not why
I'm saying it,
On 05 Feb 2014, at 02:37, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:36:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:40:59AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read
On 05 Feb 2014, at 02:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that
the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of
the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the
On 05 Feb 2014, at 04:54, chris peck wrote:
you guys should check out
Dark City (has a platonic reality isn't really real thing going on)
Moon (has a memory/identity/AI thing going on)
That reminds me of Total Recall. Which is not bad.
Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being
http://25.media.tumblr.com/e4ec0767a8854cf10c8fdec1cb855703/tumblr_n06qgdRrjs1qcflzio9_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/bba3881d6f7e1d897e071fcdb60ae3cf/tumblr_n06qgdRrjs1qcflzio10_1280.jpg
more
http://rollership.tumblr.com/post/75567004763
--
You received this message because you are
Hi Folks,
Some of you might enjoy the following:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7212v1
Space and time in a quantized world
Karl Svozil http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Svozil_K/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 28 Jan 2014)
Rather than an a priori arena in which events take place, space-time is a
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for the warm and friendly tone of your posts! That's rather the
exception here and you set a high standard and a great example for other
posters.
I certainly disagree with your opinion on Bruno's theory and some other
things as well, but you always present them in a
Jesse,
A couple of points in response:
1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d
universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows
just fine in SR and GR. No clock time simultaneity of distant (relativistic
is a better descriptor) events
John,
1. No. because both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration for
the entire trip. A's watch doesn't suddenly spring back thousands of year
in the second he finally cuts off his acceleration.
2. This example comes from Kip Thorne who provides the calculations. If the
results of
Jesse,
I didn't answer these 3 because you are once again describing well known
aspect of CLOCK time simultaneity with which I probably agree. These have
nothing to do with the concept of a present moment independent of clock
time within which clock times run at different rates.
You need to
Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult
questions,
Take this example:
Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead. By
definition there is NO relative motion whatsoever.
Nevertheless A's clock runs slower than B's and both A and B
Jesse,
Correct. Yes, plenty of things are not relative. And any notion of a
cosmological spacetime is just a useful approximation. Penrose's 'Road to
Reality' points out that properly speaking all dimensional world views
exist as observer centered individual 'manifolds', and these are not
On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without
assuming
On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I didn't answer these 3 because you are once again describing well known
aspect of CLOCK time simultaneity with which I probably agree.
Uh, no they weren't, each of them concerned questions about YOUR
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration for the entire
trip.
Not if A comes to his destination AND STOPS.
A's watch doesn't suddenly spring back thousands of year in the second he
finally cuts off his
John,
No, not at all.
Forget stops. Just assume A at the point just before he stops and is still
decellerating at 1g TO stop. The situation is exactly the same except for a
few nanoseconds.
Also the apparent slowing of both A and B's clocks relative to each other
is due to their relative
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
A couple of points in response:
1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d
universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows
just fine in SR and GR.
I would
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM
Jesse,
No.
Question 1. assumes a cosmological model I don't and slicing 4d spacetime
is what people do with spaceCLOCKtime, not p-time.
2. The spatial positions analogy doesn't work if I understand it because
space is part of 4-dimensional spaceCLOCKtime. P time is an independent
overriding
Fascinating shadow projections. Conjures up thoughts in me about the
holographic universe.
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:25 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
more
http://rollership.tumblr.com/post/75567004763
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Jesse,
Correct. Relativity theory does NOT require block time. We agree on that.
Your assertion that clock time only flows in the sense that it value is
different at different points along a worldline ASSUMES a view outside of
a block time, and thus assumes what it seeks to prove. This
Wow! Those are incredible! Very Platonic ...! (I assume they're genuine
and not photoshopped).
--
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
Hi Liz,
Logician have a large notion of world. A world is a element of a
set, called the set of worlds, or multiverse.
Statisticians do the same, with the notion of population, which is
also just a set. In fact classical logic and classical statistics have
a sufficiently large common
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and seems
to me to still look like using ad hoc information to select one reality
against others. I agree with Deutsch's idea that Cramer transactional
theory is
2 Maxes? Hmm. Can't be bad. Maybe he has an evil twin!
(or maybe this is an unexpected result of that quantum suicide experiment
he talked about a few years back...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
Jesse,
Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is a same point
in spacetime that both twin meet at and in which their clock times are
different.
How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict this same point
with different clock times starting from when the one
Calculus must be one of the maths things at play in NM, surely?
Otherwise it's all probably rather complex for me... :-)
--
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
I saw Solaris many years ago.
Also (I think) Mirror (?)
Alphaville?
The Stepford Wives was very good but I didn't have any idea what it was
about, if you do of course it wouldn't have such a big impact.
Similarly The World's End which I thought was just a comedy about a few
friends...
On
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Correct. Relativity theory does NOT require block time. We agree on that.
Your assertion that clock time only flows in the sense that it value is
different at different points along a worldline ASSUMES a view
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is a same point
in spacetime that both twin meet at and in which their clock times are
different.
How does your theory, or relativity, account for or
Jesse,
No, what the equations of relativity say, and the only thing they compute,
is that WHEN the twins meet up again at the same point in space, that they
will have different clock times.
But what is that 'WHEN'? It is not A's clock time and it is not B's clock
time. Thus it is a completely
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
You have it exactly backwards, Edgar. I am the one arguing that there is
no definitive way to decide whether block time or presentism is correct,
you are the one trying to present various proofs that presentism *must*
be the
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is, you aren't just saying that you personally choose to
interpret the fact that the magnitude of the 4-velocity vector is always
equal to c in terms of everything moving through spacetime is c, you're
saying that
Liz,
Sure, and that means there is an infinite stack of turtles, each with one
more dimension than the one above!
Edga
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
The point is, you aren't just
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it requires
everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact
that everything always travels at the speed of light through spacetime. I
find
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, what the equations of relativity say, and the only thing they compute,
is that WHEN the twins meet up again at the same point in space, that they
will have different clock times.
But what is that 'WHEN'? It
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
You have it exactly backwards, Edgar. I am the one arguing that there is
no definitive way to decide whether block time or presentism is correct,
you are the one
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 02:37, Russell Standish wrote:
I understand that BpDt gives one of von Neumann's quantum logics, but
it still seems an enormous jump from there to the FPI,
It will be the other way round. By UDA we have
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it
requires
everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it
requires
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
On 6 February 2014 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
But where Edgar went wrong was to suggest that this implies that all
points along a path traced out an object moving through space time
Objects don't move through space-time, only through space :-)
This is one of
Jesse,
This is just outrageously wrong. Block time implies the most magical
mystical miraculous creation event of all times, of the entire universe
from beginning to end, a creation event that makes the Biblical creation
event look completely reasonable by comparison.
That is the exact
Jesse,
Yes, that is correct. That's what I'm referring to. Epstein diagrams, which
Brent highly recommends, are also based in this single unifying concept
which I refer to as the STc Principle. I also use it in my book...
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:21:47 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
But how you don't understand that actively traveling through spacetime at c
doesn't imply everything is at one and only one point in time is beyond me.
It's a trivial inference.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 5:04:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:05:22AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
But where Edgar went wrong was to suggest that this implies that all
points along a path traced out an object moving through space time
Objects don't move
Russell,
No, I never claimed that this means that all
points along a path traced out an object moving through space time
have exactly the same clock time, because everything travels at
c. as you claim. I don't believe that.
The proper understanding is that all observers travel at c through
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:21:13PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, I never claimed that this means that all
points along a path traced out an object moving through space time
have exactly the same clock time, because everything travels at
c. as you claim. I don't believe that.
On 2/5/2014 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote:
...
I have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a problem with all
theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory.
That is a technical issue only. As comp has to predict or
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:24:12PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
But how you don't understand that actively traveling through spacetime at c
doesn't imply everything is at one and only one point in time is beyond me.
It's a trivial inference.
On 6 February 2014 11:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:05:22AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
But where Edgar went wrong was to suggest that this implies that all
points along a
Russell,
That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven.
Certainly the equations themselves don't necessitate that...
If you accept that you are faced with the intractable problem of explaining
the source of that moving 1p viewpoint.
And notice that strictly block time
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:45:47 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
Liz,
Great recommendations, and excellent topic idea.
The Prestige is the movie that got me interested in these topics and led
me to this list. Also, for US viewers, Chronochrimes goes by Timecrimes
and is available under
On 6 February 2014 11:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote:
I have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a problem
with all theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory.
Russell,
No, it's exactly the same, not the opposite. You are misinterpreting it and
reading it wrongly. I see your error now, though as stated I agree it could
be misread.
one and only one point in clock time does not mean over the whole world
line the clock time is the same. It means that
Liz,
Liz understanding of block time is correct here. I just pointed that same
error out to Russell.
Even so block time is wrong for the many reasons I've explained.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 February 2014 11:34, Russell Standish
Russell,
Now that both Liz and I have corrected your misunderstanding of block time
let me repeat what you just told me, There is no shame in modifying your
opinion in this way, particularly when the previous statement was in error.
Let's move on.
PS: I wouldn't have used this barb if you
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
This is just outrageously wrong. Block time implies the most magical
mystical miraculous creation event of all times, of the entire universe
from beginning to end, a creation event that makes the Biblical creation
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
But how you don't understand that actively traveling through spacetime at
c doesn't imply everything is at one and only one point in time is beyond
me. It's a trivial inference.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven.
Certainly the equations themselves don't necessitate that...
If you accept that you are faced with the intractable problem of explaining
the
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
And God hates Mars...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA17932
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
Jesse,
As I read this it's simply a way to define what your 'same point of
spacetime is' but that doesn't answer my question of how it predicts that
the end point will be such a same point of spacetime from the fact that the
start point was?
You seem to be just defining the conclusion rather
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:42:43AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 11:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:05:22AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
But where Edgar went
Jesse,
Again, if I understand you, this is just a way to define 'same points in
spacetime'. Again there is no calculation that tells us the twins will meet
at a new same point in spacetime from the original same point in spacetime.
Or are you claiming that every point in this lattice is
Jesse,
The fact that the entire universe from start to finish including every even
that ever happened and will happen actually somehow exists doesn't imply a
creation event??
Come on now Jesse. Let's get real here.
Of course I make some basic assumptions such as an original fine tuning. A
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:54:10PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, it's exactly the same, not the opposite. You are misinterpreting it and
reading it wrongly. I see your error now, though as stated I agree it could
be misread.
one and only one point in clock time does not mean
Jesse,
velocity vector means movement through time as I'm sure you recall from
elementary physics. You act as if actual physical motion is something no
one except Epstein (and poor misguided Edgar) believe it. The facts are
just the opposite.
And you've never responded to my noting that the
Russell,
If it's not intractable, then what's the explanation?
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:17:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:05:54PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Now that both Liz and I have corrected your misunderstanding of block time
What was my misunderstanding of block time (more usually known as block
universe) again?
let me repeat what you just told me, There is no shame
I rather like Wheeler's comment: Time is what prevents everything
from happening at once.
Another way of putting it is that in order to perceive something,
there needs to be a something with which to compare it. To get a bit
of information, one needs a difference. So time is necessary in order
to
Russell,
The 'Hard Problem' is not how qualia come about. That is the subject of the
easy problems that have to do with the structure of the contents of
consciousness.
The hard problem has to do with the fact of consciousness itself, that in
which qualia become conscious.
But back to the
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
velocity vector means movement through time as I'm sure you recall from
elementary physics.
If by movement through time you mean something inherently incompatible
with block time, then no. Velocity just means that
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:31:30PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
The fact that the entire universe from start to finish including every even
that ever happened and will happen actually somehow exists doesn't imply a
creation event??
Come on now Jesse. Let's get real here.
Yes,
Russell,
I agree with both you and Wheeler here. But the very act of comparing
assumes time flows. A flash frozen brain with its exact neural state is
dead. That neural state must continually refresh and be supported by
electrochemical energy to be alive and perceive its information state.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:49:48PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
The 'Hard Problem' is not how qualia come about. That is the subject of the
easy problems that have to do with the structure of the contents of
consciousness.
The hard problem has to do with the fact of
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
