Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 12/25/2013 10:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 December 2013 19:11, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/25/2013 9:15 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 December 2

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 26 December 2013 19:11, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/25/2013 9:15 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> The notion that everything "travels through spacetime at the spe

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

On 26 December 2013 18:30, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> All, >> >> ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. >> >> To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. >> > > Can you explain your justification for this assertio

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 12/25/2013 9:15 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer mailto:laserma...@gmail.com>> wrote: The notion that everything "travels through spacetime at t

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> All, >> >> ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. >> >> To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. >> > > Can you explain your justification for th

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > All, > > ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. > > To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. > Can you explain your justification for this assertion? > Only the common present moment exists. All the comments

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> The notion that everything "travels through spacetime at the speed of >> light" was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a >> rather od

Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, > > Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic > approach. > > Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already > exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 12/25/2013 11:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: The problem with all your other comments (which I agree with as I scanned them) is they refer to clock time, not the P-time of the present moment. Of course clock time t values vary in a number of ways, but the key insight is they always vary in the e

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer > wrote: The notion that everything "travels through spacetime at the speed of light" was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a rather odd definition of "

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 12/25/2013 12:59 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Coordinate time is clock time, proper time is P-time, at least as I interpret it. Note the important, crucial, point that clocks measure only clock time. ?? Clock is proper-time along the worldline of the clock. P-time can't be measured by clocks b

Fwd: Better late than never? Turing has been pardoned.

Me too. Brent Original Message There are also brighter theories; I personally hope this one was true: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 -- Mike Stay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" g

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

On 12/25/2013 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Hi Howard, Your comments pertain (correctly) to clock time but not to P-time, the time of the present moment. It is clear that the t's of clock time differ between clocks according to relativistic conditions. You need to understand that the presen

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good starting hypothesis - show that some specific thing must exist, such as the facts of simple arithm

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer wrote: > The notion that everything "travels through spacetime at the speed of > light" was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a > rather odd definition of "speed through spacetime", one which I haven't > seen any other physicists m

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

All this stuff about time is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, or at least hasn't been shown to exist. No one has yet shown what is wrong with the relativity of simultaneity and the block universe (or multiverse). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog

Re: God or not?

What is OE? In New Zealand that stands for Overseas Experience when you go off in your gap year to travel. Or is it Owen, Edgar?! :) Again this begs the question of how and where and when are these computations occurring? This implies a time external to the universe, at the very least, computation

Re: God or not?

I use my fingers. On 26 December 2013 07:26, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving >> some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. >> > > God > noun > > A noise m

Re: God or not?

On 26 December 2013 04:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, and Samiya, > > Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the > universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from > millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... > > ...and not me

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

On 12/25/2013 7:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST exist because non-existence canNOT exist. That is why there was never a nothing out of which something appeared. Therefore there is no need for a creator nor a creation eve

Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)

Oops, the browser seems to have decided to post before I did. Oh well, I must have hit the wrong key. I'd almost finished but I see there's a bit of a muck up in one place. ERRATUM :) The inverse * sqIt's *quite capable of doing this across time while not actually being in time itself, e.g. throu

Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)

On 26 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, > > Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic > approach. > See below. > > Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already > exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

Hi Jesse, Thanks for your thoughtful reply again. Your notion of 'simultaneity' in your first paragraph is clock time simultaneity (same clock time readings), not the common actual present moment of P-time. Big difference. So it doesn't apply to my points. Coordinate time is clock time, proper

Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)

Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

Hi Edgar, thanks for the reply. But do you agree or disagree with the point that since different frames are considered equally valid and they define simultaneity differently, either there would have to be no experimental means to determine which frame's definition of simultaneity is correct (so tha

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

Jesse, Good physics based post. Yes, Brian Greene mentions "everything travels through spacetime at the speed of light" in both his books but only in passing as a curiosity without recognizing its profound significance. Thanks for your link to your physicsforums post. The meaning of 'speed thr

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

John, Yes, you are absolutely correct it depends on the universe being a logical structure. That 2nd fundamental Axiom is in my book on Reality also. However there is overwhelming evidence for that... You slightly misunderstand my statement that 'there is no need for a creation event'. Of cour

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

Hi Howard, Your comments pertain (correctly) to clock time but not to P-time, the time of the present moment. It is clear that the t's of clock time differ between clocks according to relativistic conditions. You need to understand that the present moment is independent of any particular clock

Re: Yes, my book 'Reality' does cover quantum reality.

Hi Russell, Glad you agree with my approach here. No, I haven't worked out the mathematical details and that certainly should be on science's 'to do' list. However there is considerable more detail on how this works and how General Relativity emerges automatically from quantum events in my book

Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel

On 25 Dec 2013, at 16:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:07:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:31, Craig Weinberg wrote: It's straighforward I think. What you are saying is that "this semantic trick prevents us from seeing that the truth doe

Re: God or not?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. > God noun A noise many members of the Everything list still insist on making with their mouth even th

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

The notion that everything "travels through spacetime at the speed of light" was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a rather odd definition of "speed through spacetime", one which I haven't seen any other physicists make use of. See my post #3 on the thread at http://www.p

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 16:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... But "what exists" n

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrot >> As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST > exist because non-existence canNOT exist. [...] The very notion is > illogical and impossible > Provided of course that the laws of logic exist. > there is no need

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

Amen on most points, Edgar. I also have misgivings about the existence of the multiverse for different reasons that this posting is not the place to vent. But, for we humans, the present moment exists for each of us. Your "common present moment" is an assu

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 16:15, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, There simply is no physical universe. We might agree, if you use "physical universe" in the Aristotelian sense. The universe is information being computed in OE only. OE? Can you make precise what you mean by information being c

Re: Yes, my book 'Reality' does cover quantum reality.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 04:15:13PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > All, > > Someone asked somewhere if I cover quantum theory in my book. Yes, I do. > The entire 'Part III: Elementals' of the book covers reality at its finest > scale, the quantum world. I'll summarize here but can only gloss over

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this work? Idea-wise, Wolfram and Von Neumann's cellular automata, also known as programs. I am not saying there is a programmer (like Herr Doctor Scmidhuber has pondered) but there seems to be a pre-exi

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 12:39, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I am sympathetic to your defense of the search for truth. I would differ with you, however, and probably everyone on this list, in stating that science must have a goal. Some Transhumanists are ok with the entire human endeavor turned ov

Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

Ok, so the Quantum needs an Observer. Who are the Observers, Boltzmann Brains. When intelligent Observers croak, Boltzmann Brains, Humans, The Intelligent Octopii, from the Sombrero Galaxy, should not the universe (one universe) collapse or devolve into chaos (particle probabilities)? Am I too i

Re: Privacy

Liz: W E A R E . On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM, LizR wrote: > I trust everyone is celebrating Newton-mas today? > > One of the greatest men of the past 2000 years, without whom we would > probably still be ignorant peasants ruled by clergy and kings... > > -- > You received this message b

The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differ

Re: God or not?

Why and How does all exist? Samiya On 25-Dec-2013, at 8:21 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: > Bruno, and Samiya, > > Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the > universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia > ago. The universe by definit

Re: God or not?

Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... Edgar On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Re: God or not?

Bruno, There simply is no physical universe. The universe is information being computed in OE only. Physical universes are interpretations of the actual information universe in organismic minds. That is their only reality. They are mental models or simulations of the actual information reality,

Why there is something rather than nothing...

All, As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST exist because non-existence canNOT exist. That is why there was never a nothing out of which something appeared. Therefore there is no need for a creator nor a creation event. The very notion is illogical and impossi

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

Brent, I agree up until your last sentence. There you ignore the fact that the different orders of events are seen by both observers in the exact same common present moment. This can only be understood when two kinds of time are accepted and the difference between clock time (different for diff

Re: A proper definition of reality

More to the point, the product of the two cycles gives a much greater period than what their predators can track - in effect implementing the linear congruential pseudo random number generation algorithm. Evolution is very smart! Cheers On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:43:01PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote

Re: God or not?

I am sympathetic to your defense of the search for truth. I would differ with you, however, and probably everyone on this list, in stating that science must have a goal. Some Transhumanists are ok with the entire human endeavor turned over to the Machines, and this includes Science. It may be

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your theory comes from Von Neumann, and Chaitin, and Wolfram, does it not, Edgar? That everything is a program or cellular automata, and "in the beginning was a program." Following along, what is this Logic comprised of (sort of like SPK'

Re: God or not?

On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:24, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: My iteration is simply this: How does this help our species, how might this all change the human condition? My interruption in this flow of rational, logical, and analytical reasoning. I am sorry if this offends, but like Dr. Suess's Who'

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 09:18, LizR wrote: On 23 December 2013 09:10, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 07:29, Samiya Illias wrote: Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? With comp, this will be non distinguishable from arithmetical truth. I am OK with that definition, but from the machine's first person po

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:20, Edgar Owen wrote: Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. See previous answer to this. Church thesis makes computations as soli

Re: God or not?

On 22 Dec 2013, at 21:10, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God t

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 12:59, Edgar Owen wrote: Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are mo

Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel

On 21 Dec 2013, at 21:52, Edgar Owen wrote: Liz, No, that doesn't make Reality subject to the halting problem. The halting problem is when a computer program is trying to reach some independently postulated result and may or may not be able to reach it. Reality doesn't have any problem

Re: A proper definition of reality

On 24 Dec 2013, at 18:18, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. Really? Discovery channel would disagree with

Re: A proper definition of reality

On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. Show me the dependence. I think you confuse the human math, with math. "17 is prime" is defined without mentioning any humans. It just means tha

Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel

On 25 December 2013 16:51, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 21, 2013 5:28:29 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Craig, >> >> Sorry, but I don't really understand what you are trying to get at. Your >> terminology is not giving me any clarity of what you are really trying to >>

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 25 December 2013 14:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > So exactly contrary to your statement, it is precisely special relativity, > properly understood, that puts both the arrow of time and a common present > moment on a firm physical basis. > OK. I was just going by all the physics books I've read

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On 12/24/2013 5:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz states that "Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a "common present moment". but this is incorrect. Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I explain how this works. It is well known, though little un

Re: God or not?

On 23 December 2013 09:10, Edgar Owen wrote: > All, > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise > everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. > The concept of G

Re: God or not?

On 25 December 2013 19:29, Samiya Illias wrote: > Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and > Everything Else that is or may exist? > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 4:20 AM, wrote: > >> Pantheism, Why didn't you just come out and say so? :-D >> >> >> -Original Message-