Re: "The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations"
Bruno may well be able to help when he comes online. Do you have a particular sticking point you'd like to ask about? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same shared present moment. There is simply no way around that Edgar Of course it's an observation. It's an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates. I have no problem with you calling that a present moment (although everyone else calls it an event). The problem is not that you can't define a global time at which they meet, it's that you can't define a *unique* global time. There are infinitely many choices of coordinate time and they will all agree that the twins meet at the same coordinate time - but they will not agree as to which other distant events in the universe are at the same time as the meeting. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: "The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations"
Yes. Just stay on this list and read every single post that comes through - particularly posts by Bruno himself. Maybe look at the archive of the list. The background to all of this goes back to 1994…and the conversation is still going... Cheers, Kim Jones On 6 Jan 2014, at 12:48 pm, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: > Hi Bruno (& all), > I was trying to read through your paper "The Origin of Physical Laws and > Sensations", which I saw linked to in a conversation earlier. I started to > get lost about page 13 of the PDF, and by page 17 I was too lost to > profitably continue. Can you (or anyone) suggest, based on the topics on > those pages, some resources that I might find helpful for understanding the > paper? > -Gabe > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
"The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations"
Hi Bruno (& all), I was trying to read through your paper "The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations", which I saw linked to in a conversation earlier. I started to get lost about page 13 of the PDF, and by page 17 I was too lost to profitably continue. Can you (or anyone) suggest, based on the topics on those pages, some resources that I might find helpful for understanding the paper? -Gabe -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Edgar, It might help if we all used consistent language for "present", "event", "simultaneous", etc. I recommend we use the definitions which Einstein works out (starting on page 2 of his paper): http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf It would avoid a lot of confusion I think, because so far we seem to be talking past each other over what basic words mean. Jason On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the present > moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present moment > when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual clock > times which are different. > > Edgar > > On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >>> Liz, >>> >>> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times. >>> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor >>> explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained >>> assumption >>> >>> There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their >> clocks. >> >> -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the present > moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present moment > when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual clock > times which are different. > > It's quite hard to work out what you mean by this. Are you imagining the twins (or rather, their minds) travelling along their world lines, and hence having to "arrange to meet" at a particular point? Or rather, you seem to be envisaging that the laws of physics automatically arrange for their minds to meet at the same instant, and that if they didn't, one of them might arrive at the meeting point ahead of the other (and presumably would be faced by a person without a mind - a "robot zombie", so to speak). Is that the sort of idea you have in mind? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the present moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present moment when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual clock times which are different. Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times. >> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor >> explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained >> assumption >> >> There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their > clocks. > > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
No, of course not. Just pointing out that this is a common tactic used to spread misinformation. "THERE IS A THREAT!!! HERE ARE THE DETAILS!!!" "Oh, wait. It turns out the above news was untrue. You can see the details have been faked by some panic-monger. So we're safe. There's nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep." On 6 January 2014 10:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 8:56 PM, LizR wrote: > > The idea would seem to be, get someone to present an exaggerated claim, > show > > it to be false, then claim that therefore there is no problem. > > Maybe you are right, but this does not invalidate the need to point > out misinformation. > > > Happens all the time with climate change denial. > > > > > > On 6 January 2014 08:57, wrote: > >> > >> Now the question is, do you believe the opposite of what SNOPES has > >> presented? Also, as global peasants, we have no influence over what the > >> scientists look for on behalf of politicians, their bureaucrats, or the > >> billionaires that pay them. We can have an opinion about being thrown > out a > >> window from twenty stories up, but we have no control over gravity-this > is > >> known as free will. > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Telmo Menezes > >> To: everything-list > >> Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 9:57 am > >> Subject: Fukushima myth > >> > >> http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp > >> > >> -- > >> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > -- > > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 8:56 PM, LizR wrote: > The idea would seem to be, get someone to present an exaggerated claim, show > it to be false, then claim that therefore there is no problem. Maybe you are right, but this does not invalidate the need to point out misinformation. > Happens all the time with climate change denial. > > > On 6 January 2014 08:57, wrote: >> >> Now the question is, do you believe the opposite of what SNOPES has >> presented? Also, as global peasants, we have no influence over what the >> scientists look for on behalf of politicians, their bureaucrats, or the >> billionaires that pay them. We can have an opinion about being thrown out a >> window from twenty stories up, but we have no control over gravity-this is >> known as free will. >> -Original Message- >> From: Telmo Menezes >> To: everything-list >> Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 9:57 am >> Subject: Fukushima myth >> >> http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp >> >> -- >> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> -- >> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times. > The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor > explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained > assumption > > There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their clocks. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:57 PM, wrote: > Now the question is, do you believe the opposite of what SNOPES has > presented? I don't have sufficient domain knowledge to have an opinion. The most I can hope for is to try to distinguish valid information from lies. This one was a lie. > Also, as global peasants, we have no influence over what the > scientists look for on behalf of politicians, their bureaucrats, or the > billionaires that pay them. We can have an opinion about being thrown out a > window from twenty stories up, but we have no control over gravity-this is > known as free will. I agree that we have no influence over political decisions. Here, given the availability of Geiger counters, I find it hard to believe that it would be possible to keep catastrophic levels of radiation a secret. Telmo. > -Original Message- > From: Telmo Menezes > To: everything-list > Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 9:57 am > Subject: Fukushima myth > > http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times. The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained assumption Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:00:57 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically >> verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on >> that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same >> shared present moment. >> > > That phenomenon is well-explained by special relativity, and has nothing > to do with the existence of any "universal present moment". > > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 6 January 2014 06:47, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions, >> > > True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumptions: > > 1) High School algebra and trigonometry works. > 2) Things are local. > 3) Things are realistic. > In fact Bell made a fourth assumption, although he didn't realise he was making it until later. Namely, he assumed that time is asymmetric (i.e. that it's possible to tell which time direction is the past and which is the future *at every level*). This assumption contradicts a lot of empirical measurements at the quantum level, and as Bell later agreed (in correspondence with Huw Price), if hsi 4th assumption is dropped (i.e. if he assumes time symmetry *at any level*) then that will *also* lead to his inequality being violated. So add to the list: 4) Time is asymmetric not just at the level of everyday experience, but also at the quantum level Dropping Bell's 4th assumption is one way to "fix" the violation of Bell's inequality while keeping all the above assumptions. That is, assumptions 1-3 listed above can still hold IF the particles being measured are subject to time-symmetric laws of physics. The jury is still out on which of Bell's 4 assumptions should be dropped. Bell himself considered time symmetry to be too weird to be the one that should go, however a lot of experimental evidence suggests that the quantum states used in EPR experiments do indeed operate time-symmetrically (i.e. can be influenced by boundary conditions in both the past and the future). Bell's 4th assumption seems to me quite a reasonable one to drop, given that most physics contradicts it. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically > verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on > that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same > shared present moment. > That phenomenon is well-explained by special relativity, and has nothing to do with the existence of any "universal present moment". -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
On 6 January 2014 09:55, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > Don´t try to convince hyperinformed idiots. they will consume the > information that they choose to believe. > > For the new analphabets, consumers of the internet fantasies and myts, > what formerly was called "spirits" are now "energies". And Nuclear energy > is the worst of all with the three other horsemen of the Apocalypse: Oil, > Capitalism and Church. Don´t try to whitewash their evils. the want them as > evils in perpetual fight against the Mother Earth, and nothing more. Or, > else, they will hang you > > What are you talking about? Sounds like the "Straw Horsemen of the Apocalypse" to 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 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
The idea would seem to be, get someone to present an exaggerated claim, show it to be false, then claim that therefore there is no problem. Happens all the time with climate change denial. On 6 January 2014 08:57, wrote: > Now the question is, do you believe the opposite of what SNOPES has > presented? Also, as global peasants, we have no influence over what the > scientists look for on behalf of politicians, their bureaucrats, or the > billionaires that pay them. We can have an opinion about being thrown out a > window from twenty stories up, but we have no control over gravity-this is > known as free will. > -Original Message- > From: Telmo Menezes > To: everything-list > Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 9:57 am > Subject: Fukushima myth > > http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
Don´t try to convince hyperinformed idiots. they will consume the information that they choose to believe. For the new analphabets, consumers of the internet fantasies and myts, what formerly was called "spirits" are now "energies". And Nuclear energy is the worst of all with the three other horsemen of the Apocalypse: Oil, Capitalism and Church. Don´t try to whitewash their evils. the want them as evils in perpetual fight against the Mother Earth, and nothing more. Or, else, they will hang you 2014/1/5 Telmo Menezes > http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Brent, No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same shared present moment. There is simply no way around that Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:08:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/5/2014 4:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the > same "present place" when their clocks don't agree. > > > Yes. So why don't you recognize that "present place" is just a label, > exactly like a latitude and longitude - and then that "present time" is a > label, a coordinate time - which the diagrams I posted made perfectly > clear. The problem is that you seem to think "here and now" implies a > "there and now"; but "there and now" is ambiguous and is RELATIVE to the > state of motion. > > > Now a question for you. What is this "present place" they are in? > > > It's the location defined by their meeting, it's just a label with an > ostensive definition, aka "here". > > Brent > > > > Edgar > > > > > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 10:01:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in >> the same present moment is "an event" as if that explained something. >> >> >> I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As >> something with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and >> place, where and when. >> >> Jason >> >> Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire >> universe is an event. But what is the nature of that event from your >> perspective? >> >> >> Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is >> that two people who followed different paths between two events in >> spacetime are at the second event. They synchronized their odometers >> before they left the first event. One took the freeway, which was straight >> to their meeting point. The other took some interesting mountain roads and >> when he arrived at their meeting place his odometer indicated a bigger >> distance. But Edgar said that's impossible, "How could they both be at the >> same present place when their odometers don't agree?" >> >> Brent >> > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fukushima myth
Now the question is, do you believe the opposite of what SNOPES has presented? Also, as global peasants, we have no influence over what the scientists look for on behalf of politicians, their bureaucrats, or the billionaires that pay them. We can have an opinion about being thrown out a window from twenty stories up, but we have no control over gravity-this is known as free will. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2014 9:57 am Subject: Fukushima myth http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/5/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On 05 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You say of the present moment "Yes, it's not a clock time." I agree, then what is the
present moment if it isn't a clock time?
It is the set of computational states on which a first person is associated as a sort of
"hero" in some histories, corresponding to the most probable relative computations or
universal neighbors.
It is an indexical: each states supporting that "hero story" is handled "indexically",
by itself, through self-reference and encodings of that local "past(s)" and "future(s)"
possible with respect to approximate representations of the universal neighbors.
'Present, 'me, 'here, 'now, 'actual, like 'yesterday and 'tomorrow, ... are indexicals,
and can be handled relative to universal numbers ("programming languages",
"interpreters") with a simple diagonal method (If Dx produce 'xx', DD produces 'DD').
And just like "here" is relative to state of motion, so is "now". SR isn't complicated, it
just takes a little adjustment before it's intuitive.
I think there's an interesting question as to the temporal aspect of consciousness, but it
has nothing to do with SR. It has to do with entropy, memory, and information processing.
Brent
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/5/2014 4:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the same "present place" when their clocks don't agree. Yes. So why don't you recognize that "present place" is just a label, exactly like a latitude and longitude - and then that "present time" is a label, a coordinate time - which the diagrams I posted made perfectly clear. The problem is that you seem to think "here and now" implies a "there and now"; but "there and now" is ambiguous and is RELATIVE to the state of motion. Now a question for you. What is this "present place" they are in? It's the location defined by their meeting, it's just a label with an ostensive definition, aka "here". Brent Edgar On Saturday, January 4, 2014 10:01:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > wrote: Jason, PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in the same present moment is "an event" as if that explained something. I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As something with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and place, where and when. Jason Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire universe is an event. But what is the nature of that event from your perspective? Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is that two people who followed different paths between two events in spacetime are at the second event. They synchronized their odometers before they left the first event. One took the freeway, which was straight to their meeting point. The other took some interesting mountain roads and when he arrived at their meeting place his odometer indicated a bigger distance. But Edgar said that's impossible, "How could they both be at the same present place when their odometers don't agree?" Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 05 Jan 2014, at 18:47, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions, True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumptions: 1) High School algebra and trigonometry works. 2) Things are local. 3) Things are realistic. If those 3 assumptions are valid then Bell's inequality can NEVER be violated. Yes, that is correct. You showed this correctly indeed. But from experiment we know that Bell's inequality IS violated. In our branch. Not in the multiverse. You can interpret the violation of Bell's inequality as a "local" phenomena, due to our absence of consideration of the bigger (multiversal) structure. Aspect experience confirms the existence of the many worlds, for someone believing in the wave-realism, and locality. EPR and Bell worked in the Copenhagen QM: they assume the projection postulate when they apply QM to reality. Without collapse, there is only entanglements which spreads at speed lower than c. There is no action at a distance, although there would be huge one, if realism is correct, and if there is only one branch of the wave. Therefore at least one of those three assumptions must be wrong. > assumptions which are not made in Everett's theory. Exactly. Everett did not make assumption #2, if he had then MWI would be as dead as a doornail; but he didn't so it's not. We still don't know for sure that MWI is true but because he didn't make the same assumptions that Bell did we know that Everett's theory still might be correct. Everett already analyses in his long thesis, the locality question (assumption #2), and he explains already how the MWI restores locality. More rigorous argument have been provided since. That is what is interesting with Everett: MW restores 3p determinacy, and it restores 3p locality (and it restores physical realism). Like in comp, both the non locality and the indeterminacy are 1p plural, shared or passed by the linear entanglement. And this without special boundary conditions, nor selection principle. The UDA shows that if we assume comp, we have still to justify the wave itself, in the same way Everett justifies the 1p phenomenology of a collapse, though. I show why and how. Bruno John K Clark -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 05 Jan 2014, at 16:18, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al, Boy it's amazing how heavily personally invested you guys are in your belief system. You respond as if someone was daring to challenge the quasi-religous core orthodoxy your very existence and self-image depends upon. As I said before, "Lighten up guys, these are only theories for goodness sakes." Why all the self-righteous anger over a theory, over just ideas? I've been consistently polite, courteous, and on topic with no personal attacks or flames at all. I suggest we all keep it that way. Fair enough. As for 'block time', it's a theory that is riddled with contradictions so ridiculous and numerous it's actually amazing that anyone would give it any credence at all much less believe it like some core religious doctrine from on high. But here you contradict what you say above. Never say that something is ridiculous, just prove the contradiction. Always focus on the point. You do have a patronizing tone, and your way of presenting the things seems to witness that you are not used to confront others with a theory. Just saying it's not, which is what most of today's responses to my questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true. On the contrary, I think that the people are very patient with you. For my part, I still don't know what you assume, and what you derive from what you assume. You do seem to assume some ontological "present moment", but this does not make sense with computationalism, nor with SR, nor with GR, as other pointed out. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions, > True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumptions: 1) High School algebra and trigonometry works. 2) Things are local. 3) Things are realistic. If those 3 assumptions are valid then Bell's inequality can NEVER be violated. But from experiment we know that Bell's inequality IS violated. Therefore at least one of those three assumptions must be wrong. > assumptions which are not made in Everett's theory. > Exactly. Everett did not make assumption #2, if he had then MWI would be as dead as a doornail; but he didn't so it's not. We still don't know for sure that MWI is true but because he didn't make the same assumptions that Bell did we know that Everett's theory still might be correct. John K Clark -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Hi Edgar,
On 05 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You say of the present moment "Yes, it's not a clock time." I agree,
then what is the present moment if it isn't a clock time?
It is the set of computational states on which a first person is
associated as a sort of "hero" in some histories, corresponding to the
most probable relative computations or universal neighbors.
It is an indexical: each states supporting that "hero story" is
handled "indexically", by itself, through self-reference and encodings
of that local "past(s)" and "future(s)" possible with respect to
approximate representations of the universal neighbors.
'Present, 'me, 'here, 'now, 'actual, like 'yesterday and
'tomorrow, ... are indexicals, and can be handled relative to
universal numbers ("programming languages", "interpreters") with a
simple diagonal method (If Dx produce 'xx', DD produces 'DD').
The first person knowledge can be defined by the true believing,
making it undefinable by itself, and linking it to a temporal logic of
knowledge states.
God created the Natural Numbers, all the rest belong to the Numbers
Dreams, emulated by the additive and multiplicative number structure.
Some dreams cohere in shared "video games", if you want, which can
have very long and deep histories. Some dream are true, or have true
component relatively to the more probable universal neighbors.
Machines and numbers, from their points of view, are confronted to the
non computable.
Machine's or Numbers' dream are lawful, and consciousness, or the
belief in a reality, is eventually guided or differentiated by truth
and relative consistencies. (And thanks to computer science those
terms needs only the Tarski notion of truth for the arithmetical
propositions, which assumes not much).
I think this is in the spirit of the cautious relativists like
Galilee, Einstein, Everett, or Boscovitch, and Rössler, all the
genuine monist, I would say.
This does not solve all problems, but has been used to transform the
mind-body problem into a "belief in bodies" problem in pure
arithmetic, and we have already the tools to interview, in some
literal sense, Löbian machine (universal numbers who know that they
are universal, in some weak sense) on that very question. That's
enough to derive a proposition 'theology, including the propositional
'physics (which appears quantum like).
After Gödel 1931, we understand that the Arithmetical Reality is far
richer and intricate than we thought before. We can understand that
all numbers can understand that too, and even test it, making comp (+
classical definitions of knowledge, belief) falsifiable.
It remains to extract the linearity and tensor structure we can
suspect at the core physical bottom.
But you need some math to grasp the real thing here. I can explain
more if interested. You can find the paper and thesis in my url, also.
Or you can read this list, if it was not an infinite task ...
The present moment is only a "true" moment (its relative existence is
satisfied by arithmetic) with the ability to refer to itself, more or
less correctly.
(Its logic is captured by some formula due to Grzegorczyk).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
John, This may be a case of a little knowledge being dangerous. Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions, assumptions which are not made in Everett's theory. If you won't review the materials Quentin, Bruno, and others have sent you then there is no hope for you. Jason On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Several years after he found the mathematical derivation experiment >> showed that Bell's inequality was indeed violated. So a Wheeler theorists >> is free to invoke locality or non-locality as he wishes; but because MWI is >> a realistic theory a MWI theorist is in a much tighter box, if things are >> local then there is no appeal, MWI is dead dead dead. >> >> > Show this >> > > Show this? SHOW THIS!! Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself. Do you > want me to repeat my long detailed post that I sent to this list several > months ago where I show exactly how Bell's inequality was derived? > > John K Clark > > > > > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Edgar, FWIW, from my lurker's perspective, the people on this list are giving you what you need - criticism. They are actively engaging you on your theory, which is so much better than being ignored. Better still, the quality of the criticism on this list is likely to be of the same caliber as you would encounter among the most important and influential readers of your book, i.e., those whose hearts and minds, being convinced, could carry your ideas where they need to be carried. I.e., convince the experts on this list, and chances are you can convince almost anyone. Now, their criticism may be warranted, or not, but to this point, it seems to me as though your responses have failed to answer their very specific, well-articulated questions. It's only natural that such criticism will be coming from the null hypothesis. From the years I have been on this list though, one quality I have observed over and over is a willingness to entertain alternate theories even when folks don't agree with them - with much less of the typical intolerance you see on the internet. It's inspiring. Since you have the extraordinary theory, it is your responsibility to meet that criticism. Resorting instead to ad-hominen betrays your lack of any significant challenge to the criticism offered. In particular, Jason Resch has been nothing but respectful and dogged in his attempts to understand the differences between your theory and e.g. SR. And you are getting this for free - I think a little gratitude might not be out of line. But I think most here would rather you just answer their questions head on and could live without the "thank you". Terren On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al, > > Boy it's amazing how heavily personally invested you guys are in your > belief system. You respond as if someone was daring to challenge the > quasi-religous core orthodoxy your very existence and self-image depends > upon. > > As I said before, "Lighten up guys, these are only theories for goodness > sakes." Why all the self-righteous anger over a theory, over just ideas? > > I've been consistently polite, courteous, and on topic with no personal > attacks or flames at all. I suggest we all keep it that way. > > As for 'block time', it's a theory that is riddled with contradictions so > ridiculous and numerous it's actually amazing that anyone would give it any > credence at all much less believe it like some core religious doctrine from > on high. > > Just saying it's not, which is what most of today's responses to my > questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true. > > Best, > Edgar > > > > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> PPS: More questions about your theory of block time. >> >> 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? >> >> >> See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams. >> >> With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe >> have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum >> randomness? >> >> >> One way of looking at it is we all exist in the past of a complteted >> spacetime. Another is as Wei Dai described on his home page. Yet a third is >> to dispense with collapse altogether. >> >> >> 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the >> beginning of the universe? >> >> >> There is no beginning (or end). >> >> Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed? >> >> >> In a sense, everything that exists has always existed. >> >> >> 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, >> fixed and actual aren't they? >> >> >> Yes. But I would add there is no one universe and no one history. >> >> >> When did that happen? >> >> >> When God made 2+2=4. >> >> In what time, at what time was this structure created? >> >> >> Things don't happen and are not created. These things only appear to >> happen to observers embedded in universes with time-like structures. >> >> >> And since that time had to exist before the creation of block time for it >> to be created within it, just what is that 2nd kind of time that is not >> part of block time? >> >> >> There is no change, as Parmenides supposed and Einstein proved. >> >> >> 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things >> happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? >> >> >> Our brains play many tricks on us. >> >> What is moving if it's not time? >> >> >> Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. >> >> >> 4. If block time corresponds to clock time, then how can there be a >> single block time structure that encompasses all events when clock times >> progress faster or slower for different observers? >> >> >> This corresponds to different objects having different velocities through >> space time. >> >> 5. Why, if block time is true
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Several years after he found the mathematical derivation experiment > showed that Bell's inequality was indeed violated. So a Wheeler theorists > is free to invoke locality or non-locality as he wishes; but because MWI is > a realistic theory a MWI theorist is in a much tighter box, if things are > local then there is no appeal, MWI is dead dead dead. > > > Show this > Show this? SHOW THIS!! Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to myself. Do you want me to repeat my long detailed post that I sent to this list several months ago where I show exactly how Bell's inequality was derived? John K Clark -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al, Boy it's amazing how heavily personally invested you guys are in your belief system. You respond as if someone was daring to challenge the quasi-religous core orthodoxy your very existence and self-image depends upon. As I said before, "Lighten up guys, these are only theories for goodness sakes." Why all the self-righteous anger over a theory, over just ideas? I've been consistently polite, courteous, and on topic with no personal attacks or flames at all. I suggest we all keep it that way. As for 'block time', it's a theory that is riddled with contradictions so ridiculous and numerous it's actually amazing that anyone would give it any credence at all much less believe it like some core religious doctrine from on high. Just saying it's not, which is what most of today's responses to my questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true. Best, Edgar On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > > wrote: > > Jason, > > PPS: More questions about your theory of block time. > > 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? > > > See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams. > > With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe > have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum > randomness? > > > One way of looking at it is we all exist in the past of a complteted > spacetime. Another is as Wei Dai described on his home page. Yet a third is > to dispense with collapse altogether. > > > 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the beginning > of the universe? > > > There is no beginning (or end). > > Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed? > > > In a sense, everything that exists has always existed. > > > 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, > fixed and actual aren't they? > > > Yes. But I would add there is no one universe and no one history. > > > When did that happen? > > > When God made 2+2=4. > > In what time, at what time was this structure created? > > > Things don't happen and are not created. These things only appear to > happen to observers embedded in universes with time-like structures. > > > And since that time had to exist before the creation of block time for it > to be created within it, just what is that 2nd kind of time that is not > part of block time? > > > There is no change, as Parmenides supposed and Einstein proved. > > > 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things > happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? > > > Our brains play many tricks on us. > > What is moving if it's not time? > > > Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. > > > 4. If block time corresponds to clock time, then how can there be a single > block time structure that encompasses all events when clock times progress > faster or slower for different observers? > > > This corresponds to different objects having different velocities through > space time. > > 5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will, > > > That is a big assumption. That free will requires indeterminism. If a die > roll determined your actions would you be more free? If the universe was > cyclic over trillions if years, would you only have free will the "first > time through"? > > Are you familiar with the idea called compatibalism? > > > are you any more than a robot zombie? > > > It was your theory that everything is a computation. Doesn't that also > make everything deterministic? > > > > Awaiting your answers with interest... > > > Me too. :-) > > Jason > > > Edgar > > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: > > Jason, > > If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your > theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our > actions within? > > > I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any other > event. You might interpret this as "all events exist". Our own > perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing to the > existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other places or in > other times. > > Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical property of > an observation. That is, one of Caesar's observations believes the present > to be some moment in time around 0 AD, while one of mine believes it to be > 2014. Another, equally real observation of mine, replying to a previous > e-mail of yours might consider it to be 2013. > > It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands > and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are > not simultaneous. > > > This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativit
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, LizR wrote: > On 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch < >> jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb < >>> meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> You don't really have to say it's an illusion. It's a description of >>> the world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the >>> same (x y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those >>> different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it >>> doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase). >>> >>> Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be >>> stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases? >>> >>> Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in >> reversed time? >> >> To store information is to overwrite some information that was already >> there. Think about writing a bit to a hard drive. If you write a 1 to >> position X you can no longer say if position X was formerly a 0 or a 1. So >> setting a bit (storing information) is equivalent to irreversible erasure. >> > > I believe with most hard drives overwriting is imperfect so you can say > what was there before if you inspect it carefully enough. But the point is > taken. Certainly in the future, when computers really do operate at or near > the Landauer limit, it's possible that erasing a bit will completely > replace whatever used to be there. However, I still feel a teensy bit of > scepticism here, because if I believe QM, no information can be lost from > the universe. > >> >> Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens in >> one direction of time. >> >> The thing is, I always thought entropy was an emergent phenomenon. In > practice it happens in one time direction, but in principle - and at a > fine-enough grained level of description - it doesn't exist, all the > interactions involved being reversible. > Yes, it all follows as a result of there being more ways for energy to dissipate into the environment than for it to spontaneously concentrate itself in some area. Because you need energy to do useful work, which information storage is, you must expend energy to do so. Therefore some process that operated (from our perspective) backwards in time, could not perform useful work (such as recording information about it's past (our future)) because that would from out perspective appear as energy spontaneously concentrating itself (whereas from its perspective, it is expending energy to store information). So creating memories seems to be something that is highly correlated with the arrow of time. > > However this is taking us away from the topic under discussion, and giving > Edgar an excuse not to reply to our questions (again)... > Well this point can also defeat some argument defenders of presentism make: "if the future exists how come we know nothing about it?" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Fukushima myth
http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Bruno, This is wrong on all points. I've already shown why SR requires a present moment and falsifies block time. Because the fact that everything continually travels through spacetime at the speed of light requires everything to be at one and only one point in time and that time is the present moment. This also provides the explanation for the arrow of time. Same with GR. And of course a present moment DOES make sense in a computational universe. That's what provides the processor cycles in which everything, including space and clock time, is computed. A present moment is required for a computational universe to work. Otherwise nothing would even happen Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:16:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:06, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > > wrote: > > Jason, > > If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your > theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our > actions within? > > > I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any other > event. You might interpret this as "all events exist". Our own > perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing to the > existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other places or in > other times. > > Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical property of > an observation. > > > Ah! :) > > That is, one of Caesar's observations believes the present to be some > moment in time around 0 AD, while one of mine believes it to be 2014. > Another, equally real observation of mine, replying to a previous e-mail > of yours might consider it to be 2013. > > It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands > and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are > not simultaneous. > > > This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not > only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems > to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism > and possibilism. > > > This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your > answer... > > > I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what > time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you > have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I > don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is > true. > > > Presentism is the time form of believing "we" are special. It is a > reification of a relative state, with an abstraction of the relative aspect > of the situations. > > I agree that presentism does not make sense in special relativity, still > less in GR and in Gödel's rotating universe. But it already doesn't make > any sense with computationalism 'if that was not obvious). > > Bruno > > > > > Jason > > > Edgar > > On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I > like that! > > > Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-) > > > I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here. > > First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed > to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following > argument re present time easier to understand. > > > In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 minutes > worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes > accelerating. How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and > 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory? > > > > Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam > but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of > exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times > run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear > they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and > their identical clock times correlate to this. > > Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her > clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so > again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. > And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's > clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. > Again clock time correlates with present moment time... > > > I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before > trying to tackle GR... > > > This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are > absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all > observers agree upon. They must
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Bruno, You say of the present moment "Yes, it's not a clock time." I agree, then what is the present moment if it isn't a clock time? Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:07:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your > theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our > actions within? > > > Before I read Jason answer, let me tell you in three words: the indexical > theory. "present" is an indexical, and can be defined by using the > arithmetical theory of indexicals, or self-reference theory. It helps to > define all indexicals the 1-I, the 3-I, the now, this and that , etc... > Each machine lives his state as belonging to the present moment. > > > > It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands > and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are > not simultaneous. > > > Yes, it is not a clock time. > > Bruno > > > > This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your > answer... > > Edgar > > On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I > like that! > > > Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-) > > > I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here. > > First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed > to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following > argument re present time easier to understand. > > > In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 minutes > worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes > accelerating. How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and > 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory? > > > > Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam > but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of > exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times > run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear > they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and > their identical clock times correlate to this. > > Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her > clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so > again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. > And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's > clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. > Again clock time correlates with present moment time... > > > I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before > trying to tackle GR... > > > This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are > absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all > observers agree upon. They must be distinguished from SR effects which make > the situation more difficult to understand in terms of a present moment. > > > You may be right that P-time has no difficulties with GR, but it seems to > have some with SR so let us focus on solving that. > > > An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce the > exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative velocity effect. > > Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past > each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is > relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both > observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are > equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see > the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the > absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time > dilation is not permanent and absolute like GR time dilation is. It > vanishes as soon as the relative motion stops, > > > That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well. Let's > say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri travelling at 80% c > toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth at this speed, but when we > see baby James on board as he whizzes by he is only 3 years old. If the > ship stops (or not), James is still 3 years old. GR never was a factor in > James's reduced age. > > > whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the > acceleration stops. > > This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding what is > going on particularly with respect to the common present moment. > > > SR and GR are not two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, but two ways > of explaining two different phenomena. > > > > So duri
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Brent, No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the same "present place" when their clocks don't agree. Now a question for you. What is this "present place" they are in? Edgar On Saturday, January 4, 2014 10:01:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > > wrote: > > Jason, > > PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in > the same present moment is "an event" as if that explained something. > > > I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As > something with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and > place, where and when. > > Jason > > Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire universe > is an event. But what is the nature of that event from your perspective? > > > Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is that > two people who followed different paths between two events in spacetime are > at the second event. They synchronized their odometers before they left > the first event. One took the freeway, which was straight to their meeting > point. The other took some interesting mountain roads and when he arrived > at their meeting place his odometer indicated a bigger distance. But Edgar > said that's impossible, "How could they both be at the same present place > when their odometers don't agree?" > > Brent > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 05 Jan 2014, at 06:13, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, meekerdb wrote: > His inequality also depended on discounting retro-causation and hyper-determinism, If retro-causation exists then things are not local. > and hyper-determinism If things are super-deterministic then things are not realistic. Bell assumed realism because he needed to be able to talk about what the results of a experiment would have been if different choices were made, but if things are super-deterministic then different choices could NOT have been made. So Bell assumed realism. > which Bell considered but rejected as unbelievable. It doesn't matter what Bell personally thought was believable or unbelievable, Bell proved that if realism and locality and high school algebra and trigonometry are valid then his inequality can never be violated. But experiment showed that Bell's inequality WAS violated, therefor at least one of Bell's assumptions is wrong and either realism or locality or high school mathematics MUST be wrong. And I don't think its high school mathematics. Bell assumes unicity of the outcome of measurement. EPR too. Bruno > Now both have been seriously proposed: the former by Cramer and Stenger, the latter by t'Hooft. All those interpretations are still in the running just as MWI is, but theories that are both realistic and local are not. John K Clark -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 04:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Hi Gabe, These questions are ill formulated but I'll take a shot at them 1. For every observer there is a uniquely true (actual is a better descriptor) order of events in their own experience. All these events always occur in their Present moment. The rate at which these events occur is controlled by their local Clock times. Their clock times can pass at different rates through their present moments. So "Clock times can pass at different rates through their present moment". What is the relation between them? Does a person always experience clock time? If so, that makes the present moment undetectable by any means whatsoever, afaics. It also does no work within the theory of computational reality, which can equally well have a cell of the automaton at every point in Minkowsi space- timeI think. And the cells all interact locally, thus limiting the speed of influences... In fact I quite like my theory of "cellular automaton time" (hereinafter CAT) which places a computing cell at each locus in space-time. Now, how can I make it Lorentz invariant? Maybe it exists on the light cone and uses the holographic principle to project the appearance of slower than light particles? The "initial" computations are in arithmetic. You will never ask id "17 is prime" lorentz invarainat? Lorentz invariance has to be an emerging pattern. Comp shows a stringer form of invariance: physics does not depend on the ontology of the TOE (just that it has to be rich enough (but not necessarily Löbian, RA is rich enough in that sense). Physics does not depend on the choice of the universal enumeration phi_i. Bruno -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:20, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Pierz, It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present moment and Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they are basic aspects of reality. However, a theory does have to be consistent with observation. So far, every attempt to make your theory consistent with the millions of observations that support SR fail, except by saying that "P-time" doesn't have any measurable effects whatsoever. Which is also true of the invisible pink unicorns that actually control reality. Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what is mathematically describable. Or does reality emerge from physics? Reductionists think so. Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its computed. And we know this because a. Edgar says so or perhaps b. I have a 2000 year old book which says so ? Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure but not all of that logic is mathematical operations. I believe all operations carried out by software can be reduced to a series of just one logical operation repeated lots of times - I think it's NAND? So all computer programmes can be reduced to a series of NAND gates connected with wires (in principle). The structure of the programme would therefore be how the NAND gates are connected, and the operations would all be NANDs. I'm not sure if the wiring can be represented mathematically - well, actually, yes I am sure, it's just a directed graph. And I assume NAND is mathematically definable - it follows this truth table iirc 1 0 --|- 1 | 0 1 0 | 1 1 So it looks to be as though a "silicon software progam" may actually be a mathematical structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic You need NAND, and a clock time, if only to build the flip flop and memory. You need also some duplicator (which is implemented by a wire splitting and is usually taken for granted in classical computation, but is not quantum computation. But you are right, all this can be defined, and exist, in arithmetic, including the quantum computations. The mystery is not the existence of quantum computation, which is a theorem in arithmetic, but of their local apparent stability, which must be justified in arithmetic too, and that is the hard thing to solve. The result obtained are promising, because the indexical approach of matter already provide a quantum 'quantization" obeying a quantum logic. Bruno -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 04 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz,
It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present
moment and Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact
they are basic aspects of reality.
Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just
what is mathematically describable.
Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its
computed.
Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure
but not all of that logic is mathematical operations.
Logic is a branch of mathematics. Roughly, any other branch is
equivalent with logic (usually classical, but not always) + the non
logical supplementary axioms.
For applied mathematics, we usually relate the axiom with facts that
we infer (or believe in for any reason), assuming some reality (to
which the axioms and consequence are supposed to be applied).
For example, we all have a good intuition of the structure (N, +,
*), and we can axiomatize it by classical logic (= a set of axioms
and inference rules) + the supplementary axioms, in the language of
first order logic, with variables, with equality, union {0, s, +, *}:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
If you accept Church thesis, computability is a purely mathematical
notion. Even an arithmetical notion, which means that you can define
it in that {0, s, +, *} language, and already prove something in
that theory. In fact that theory is "universal" with respect to
computability. It is a full complete programming language. It is not
complete with respect to provability, as no effective theory can be,
by Gödel incompleteness.
Not all reality is mathematical, indeed. This can be proved in the
weak comp theory I work on. The first person notion that we can
associate to machine escapes in some sense the "mathematical". But
that escape itself is mathematical. Mathematics cannot prove the
existence of something non mathematical, but it can prove that comp
entails the existence of some machine's attribute which are non
mathematically definable by the machine, yet "real" from the
machine's point of view.
HERE COMP IS AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF EMERGENCE, BOTH
WEAK AND STRONG.
Opps. Sorry for the caps. But perhaps they were meant to be, one of
my superstitions, regarding at least my higher self.
I propose an argument showing that IF your consciousness is
invariant for a substitution of your "brain" at some description
level, (or any finite 3p description you want) by a digital
computer, THEN a weak form of computationalism is incompatible with
a weak form of physicalism. This can be used to reduce the mind-body
problem to a problem of justifying the beliefs in a physical reality
by the average universal number/machine. (I identify machines with
their number indice in some fixed universal enumeration).
I am agnostic about the existence of a primitive physical reality,
but "atheist" with respect to this when working in the
computationalist theory.
I have still no idea of what you assume. You seem to assume some
physical or psychological computational space, which makes not sense
to any ideally correct introspecting machines relatively to its most
probable universal implementations and neighbors. The + and * laws
above describe already the unique possible computational space, by
the Church-Turing-Post thesis/law. By its big but subtle
redundancies, it defines in arithmetic a "matrix" of
"dreams" (computations seen in the 1p view), and the physical and
psychological realities develop from there, in a relative indexical
way. Computationalism can exploit computer science and mathematical
logic to justify such proposition, even constructively, making the
comp theory falsifiable (up to some technical nuances).
Many physicists assume (not always consciously) a primitive physical
reality. Do you? It seems you said that you do not, but then how you
define term like moment, time, present moment, etc. And from what?
It looks like you take for granted some hybrid 1p and 3p notions.
You seem also to assume special relativity? What does that mean if
you don't assume some physics?
You talk often about something you call reality. Is not reality
exactly what we are searching and what we should not taken for
granted?
In "science" we start from what we agree on, if only momentarily,
and proceed. If not, there is no genuine attempt to communicate.
I hope you will succeed in clarifying your assumptions. I have still
no idea of your basic ontology. Keep in mind that with Church
Thesis, or with any known formal definitions, computation is a
purely arithmetical notion. You might keep in mind also that the
arithmetical reality is vastly greater than the "computable
reality"
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our actions within? Before I read Jason answer, let me tell you in three words: the indexical theory. "present" is an indexical, and can be defined by using the arithmetical theory of indexicals, or self-reference theory. It helps to define all indexicals the 1-I, the 3-I, the now, this and that , etc... Each machine lives his state as belonging to the present moment. It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are not simultaneous. Yes, it is not a clock time. Bruno This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your answer... Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I like that! Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-) I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here. First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following argument re present time easier to understand. In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 minutes worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes accelerating. How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory? Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and their identical clock times correlate to this. Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. Again clock time correlates with present moment time... I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before trying to tackle GR... This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all observers agree upon. They must be distinguished from SR effects which make the situation more difficult to understand in terms of a present moment. You may be right that P-time has no difficulties with GR, but it seems to have some with SR so let us focus on solving that. An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce the exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative velocity effect. Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time dilation is not permanent and absolute like GR time dilation is. It vanishes as soon as the relative motion stops, That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well. Let's say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri travelling at 80% c toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth at this speed, but when we see baby James on board as he whizzes by he is only 3 years old. If the ship stops (or not), James is still 3 years old. GR never was a factor in James's reduced age. whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the acceleration stops. This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding what is going on particularly with respect to the common present moment. SR and GR are not two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, but two ways of explaining two different phenomena. So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a common present moment, but trying to figure out what clock times of Pam and Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a contradiction (as you quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams) because Pam and Sam see clock time differently and do not agree on it. They did agree on th
