Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with things
moving.
No, No! Not moving in a space- changing position coordinates, but some
form of motion. For example, the spin of an
2014/1/21 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
As we say in french C'est l'hôpital qui se fout de la charité...
Quentin
Just requoting some abstract mathematical proof won't suffice
Stephen,
Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in the
sense of being actively computed. That's what I am talking about. Thought
that was understood...
And I do NOT take perception as passive. It's an ACTIVE computation, a
computational interaction with the program
On 1/21/2014 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is already present in Gödel 1931, and today we know that even just one diophantine
(on integeres) polynomial of degree four can emulated all computations; or be Turing
universal.
Just to check that I understand what that means: There is a
Stephen,
OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that.
2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA can also be discounted for the same reason
block time can be, that there is no way to get movement out of it?
3. Do you agree
Stephen,
Typo alert. That should obviously be Bruno's UDA, not USA!
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:24:24 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that.
2. Do you
Dear Edgar,
Cool! We are making progress in understanding each other. :-) Let me get
into some details, where the devil is!
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in the
sense of
On 22 January 2014 07:27, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.
Talk about pot and kettle!
--
You received this message because you
Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that.
good!
2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA can also be discounted for
On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you?
Heinz performs the magic trick of convincing us that the familiar objects
of our
existence can be seen to be nothing more than tokens for
Dear LizR,
Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of
ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging these assumptions
and thus as to use a mixture of poetry and math to explain and elaborate
the idea.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Stephen,
A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later after
I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of your points.
You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some
ontological merit in the idea that Numbers can serve as a fundamental
On 22 January 2014 11:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of
ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging these assumptions
and thus as to use a mixture of poetry and math to explain and
Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later after
I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of your points.
You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show
Dear LizR,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 11:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of
ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging
From what I've read so far, he (?) seems to have a lot of ontological
assumptions built in. Unless I am misunderstanding what he is saying.
Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to cut and paste from that
document... But he says something like Mathematical results...have an air
of permanence...
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that
seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste from a pdf. Can you
open it in the Chrome browser?
In this ontology, all of the known math ideas still work, and those that
become known as discovered. The
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It
only seems to work because we
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
How do you deal with the fact that there are more than one self-
consistent theory where those theories contradict each other?
That is what explains the consciousness differentiation. Take the WM-
duplication, as basic
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Forgive a small cherry-picking. You wrote:
It does not necessarily make the physical into a mathematical
structure. It makes the whole coupling consciousness/physicalness
into an arithmetical internal phenomenon.
Can the
Dear Bruno,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write
Becoming can emerge from being, or at least it appeared to do so from the
reel of film (or digital equivalent) I watched last night.
--
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
Dear LizR,
Did you take into consideration the rapid transition, enabled by the
projection machine, that made the appearance of motion appear? We have to
take all the details of the schemata into account. The movie did not
magically appear on the screen...
Consider a movie where all the
Dear LizR,
If you have a chance, scan through this paper. Its ideas follow the same
basic ontology of Becoming as mine. (My thinking is far less formal and
even crackpotish in comparison.)
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Eigen.pdf
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Stephen Paul King
On 21 January 2014 11:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Did you take into consideration the rapid transition, enabled by the
projection machine, that made the appearance of motion appear? We have to
take all the details of the schemata into account. The
I scanned it ... I'm not sure if it mentions becoming and being, or does it?
Could you point out any particularly relevant bits?
On 21 January 2014 11:08, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
If you have a chance, scan through this paper. Its ideas follow the same
Dear LizR,
Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you?
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I scanned it ... I'm not sure if it mentions becoming and being, or does
it?
Could you point out any particularly relevant bits?
On 21 January 2014
something for taxes?
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 7:53 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:54:08PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It
only seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there and
subject to our inspection from the outside. As if we are God or
something... This very idea is the
On 19 Jan 2014, at 00:33, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp does not need actual infinities, but it still needs the
potential infinity of all finite things (integers, or something).
But finitist physicalism
Oops! I meant
On 18 Jan 2014, at 17:54, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
You argue that my stipulation of a dualism is a violation of
Occam's razor, ala Step 8 of UDA.
On 19 Jan 2014, at 05:18, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:38:58PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I am soo happy, BTW, that you participate in this list!
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18,
On 18 Jan 2014, at 19:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
I agree with your criticism of Bruno's UDA. It has no explanation
for becoming, for anything ever happening. I've also pointed this out.
However, this is equally true of block time, which you seem to
believe in. In block time there
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:29, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and
based on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can
reason as if the physical
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It only
seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there and subject to
our
Dear Bruno,
How do you deal with the fact that there are more than one
self-consistent theory where those theories contradict each other? The
example is where one theory takes the continuum hypothesis as true and
another takes it as false.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bruno Marchal
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 17:54, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
You
Bruno,
To answer your questions sequentially.
I don't see any way the arithmetical true relations compute or emulate
anything. They just sit there motionless and nothing happens. You haven't
explained how motion arises from non-motion and no one else here
understands that either.
Reality is
On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is
saying. Space is
Craig,
I think you are late to the discussion and missed some of my previous posts.
First the present moment of p-time is directly OBSERVABLE. It's the most
basic observation of our existence from birth to death. That is undeniable,
and direct observation is the foundation of all scientific
Brent,
But there is NO inertial frame that is not (presumably you meant 'in which
THEY are not') moving relative to one another for the twins during the
trip. If you think there is then what is it and how is it defined?
One twin is accelerating and the other isn't for goodness sakes. There
Brent,
Again, for the nth time, P-time is the presence of the logical space in
which all dimensionality and thus all measurables are computed. Thus it has
no measure in the sense that clock time does because it is the substrate or
background of all measurement.
However it can be directly
2014/1/18 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Craig,
I think you are late to the discussion and missed some of my previous
posts.
First the present moment of p-time is directly OBSERVABLE. It's the most
basic observation of our existence from birth to death. That is undeniable,
and direct
Stephen,
I agree with your criticism of Bruno's UDA. It has no explanation for
becoming, for anything ever happening. I've also pointed this out.
However, this is equally true of block time, which you seem to believe in.
In block time there is no convincing way anything can ever actually
Dear Edgar,
LOL! You don't parse what I read very well... I have been saying that
block time is a BS idea. Time is not like that at all. I have a model of
time that works great in physics, but not many know of it. BTW, I do
appreciate your concept, but it is a cartoon with many lacuna. It needs
I would like to promote this blog post and the comments on it.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Edgar,
LOL! You don't parse what I read very well... I have been saying that
block
Stephen,
Speaking of parsing correctly, I presume you meant WRITE rather than read?
:-)
Anyway glad we agree block time is nonsense. So what's your idea of time
that is not BS, and that is not a cartoon with many lacuna?
A quick summary please?
Edgar
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 2:06:04
On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and based on
a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can reason as if
the physical world does not exist and discuss ideas that
Dear Edgar,
I am dyslexic... Do you know what a Fiber Bundle is? I ask this because
the explanation does not transfer very well into English. I have tried to
summerize the theory previously and didn't get very favorable results. I
didn't discover it... It is the work of a Japanese Prof. Hitoshi
Dear Edgar,
The concept in Kitada's theory of local time that may resemble your idea
of an absolute present moment is the universal mapping of QM systems (via
their centers of mass) to each and every point of a space-time manifold.
All uncountable many of them. This creates a Fiber
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and based
on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that
On 19 January 2014 10:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
To the contrary! Bruno seems to eschew the very idea of Becoming!
He appears to derive it from something static and eternal, hence the next
question...
I have to ask, do you accept block universes? If not imho
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 10:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
To the contrary! Bruno seems to eschew the very idea of Becoming!
He appears to derive it from something static and eternal, hence the
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp does not need actual infinities, but it still needs the
potential infinity of all finite things (integers, or something).
But finitist physicalism is indeed a way out of comp. But then your
theory is
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:54:08PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear spudboy100,
As far as I know, no. It isn't possible to shift from one universe into
another and back. The universes are orthogonal to each other; they are not
stacked like sheets of paper on top of each other. The
Dear Russell,
I would agree with you IFF the substitution level is way above the
micro-scale. Molecules do operate quantum mechanically and molecules are
above the substitution level. So I am skeptical.
Virtual reality in silico would have to have have a quantum level
resolution do do what
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I would agree with you IFF the substitution level is way above the
micro-scale. Molecules do operate quantum mechanically and molecules are
above the substitution level. So I am skeptical.
Virtual reality
On 19 January 2014 11:49, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It only
seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there and subject to
our inspection from the outside. As if we are God or something... This
Dear Russell,
I am soo happy, BTW, that you participate in this list!
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I would agree with you IFF the substitution level is
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:38:58PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I am soo happy, BTW, that you participate in this list!
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
You wrote: I don't know why you would think destructive scanning is
necessary. I
certainly don't. You only need to wire up the brains inputs and
outputs. I thought the problem you were raising was how to
emulate the universe with sufficient fidelity for it to count as
visiting other
On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
Bruno and I agree on this one, our usually imagined space is
completely a construction of our minds. That is fundamental to my
theory. I explain in detail how it happens in my new topic post
Another shot at how spacetime emerges
On 16 Jan 2014, at 21:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
The closest thing that I can comprehend that might line up with
your ideas of a abstract dimensionLESS computational space is a
Hilbert space.
+ unitary evolution.
But arithmetic is far simpler, conceptually, and less
Brent,
Of course you can calculate the radius of a sphere (in this case a
4-dimensional hypersphere) from the curvature of that sphere.
Just make the assumption the universe is a hypersphere and then what's the
formula to calculate the radius from the curvature? And don't tell me it's
not a
Bruno,
Of course I assume ALL established science, QM, SR, GR and all the rest,
always subject to correction and improvement of the science of course.
But I maintain it is all being computed at a more fundamental level by
active computational process of pure abstract information.
BUT I
Stephen,
Your argument is fine. It's standard GR. BUT for the nth time it's talking
about CLOCK TIME simultaneity, rather than the present moment of p-time. It
still doesn't seem to register that there is a difference even though the
fact of the twins meeting with different clock times in the
2014/1/17 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Stephen,
Your argument is fine. It's standard GR. BUT for the nth time it's talking
about CLOCK TIME simultaneity, rather than the present moment of p-time. It
still doesn't seem to register that there is a difference even though the
fact of the
Quentin,
No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates because
their clock time t values are different. Only if their clocktime t values
as well as their x,y,z values were the same would they be at the same
spacetime coordinates. I hate to say it but that is quite obvious
On 16 Jan 2014, at 23:14, LizR wrote:
Or rather timeless? (Of course comp does that, with Platonia!) I
agree this is the sort of ontology we should look for, which is one
reason I find comp attractive even if I don't follow it all (but
Bruno has promised to give more lessons!)
Yes, on
2014/1/17 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates
Yes they are...
because their clock time t values are different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
Quentin
Only if
Quentin,
Yes, I understand this. But they are clearly not at the same clock time
coordinates. So called 'coordinate time' is basically an accounting trick
that relativity uses to d make sense of the problems I point out without
realizing the real implications of those problems, namely that
2014/1/17 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
Yes, I understand this. But they are clearly not at the same clock time
coordinates. So called 'coordinate time' is basically an accounting trick
that relativity uses to d make sense of the problems I point out without
realizing the real
Quentin,
No. If you think so called 'coordinate time' is a real kind of time then
how do you measure it?
You can't, it's just a calculation, a way of calculating things from
theoretical frames. Clock time is the only real kind of relativistic time
because it's the only kind of time that is
As your P-Time is not measurable either and solve nothing else than
coordinate time does... it is useless... The twin can meet because they are
at the same coordinates in the same reference frame... you don't need
unexistant universal present time which is refuted by SR for that.
Quentin
On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:30:16 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Quentin,
No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates because
their clock time t values are different. Only if their clocktime t values
as well as their x,y,z values were the same would they be at the
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is
saying. Space is completely a construction of our minds. There is no
3,1 dimensional Riemannian manifold out there. We measure events and
our minds put those
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. *Space
is completely a construction of our minds.* *There is no 3,1
On 17 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Of course I assume ALL established science, QM, SR, GR and all the
rest, always subject to correction and improvement of the science of
course.
You assume a primitive physical reality?
But I maintain it is all being computed at
On 18 January 2014 10:13, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Of course I assume ALL established science, QM, SR, GR and all the rest,
always subject to correction and improvement of the science of course.
You assume a primitive
Bruno,
Stop trying to put words in my mouth and don't tell me what I can or can't
assume.
I can assume anything I want and if it works then that's good evidence the
assumption was valid...
Edgar
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:13:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at
On 1/17/2014 5:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Of course you can calculate the radius of a sphere (in this case a 4-dimensional
hypersphere) from the curvature of that sphere.
Just make the assumption the universe is a hypersphere and then what's the formula to
calculate the radius from
On 1/17/2014 8:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
Your argument is fine. It's standard GR. BUT for the nth time it's talking about CLOCK
TIME simultaneity, rather than the present moment of p-time. It still doesn't seem to
register that there is a difference even though the fact of the
On 1/17/2014 10:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No. If you think so called 'coordinate time' is a real kind of time then how do you
measure it?
You measure it by using clocks in an inertial frame that are not moving relative to one
another. That's exactly how Einstein thought of it.
How do
On 16 January 2014 19:00, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
One thing that this line of thinking that I am pursuing implies, is that
systems what have different computational capacities will have differing
realities. The best analogy/toy model to explain this is
Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 7:33 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 16 January 2014 13:31, Edgar L. Owen lt;edgaro...@att.netgt;
wrote:
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:32 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes, GR assumes smooth Riemannian manifolds. The mapping works
for them wonderfully. That fact was proven by the people that
discovered Fiber Bundles. The hard thing to grasp is how the
mapping
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:
So although the troll theory is tempting, because that is exactly
how trolls behave, I'm going to go for a bot instead. Someone
decided to write a programme which trots out a theory that doesn't
make sense, then
Thanks, SP. I guess I will just have to buck and be satisfied with one
universe. ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 7:54 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
Dear
Thanks, Liz. I am suspecting that Stargate or Sliders is not just around the
corner, then. Cancel my trip to Neverland then!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New
Brent,
No, moving just means changing. Time most certainly changes, and if you
accept that time is a 4th-dimension (necessary if you accept SR and GR)
there can certainly be movement along the time axis...
We see the movement of time all the time and measure it with our clocks. I
hate to use
Brent,
Sure. So what? That's not inconsistent with everything being at one and
only one point of time as time continually moves. That is in fact what
proves that time moves.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:40:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/15/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Second,
Stephen,
Bruno and I agree on this one, our usually imagined space is completely a
construction of our minds. That is fundamental to my theory. I explain in
detail how it happens in my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from quantum computations if anyone cares to read it...
Jason,
This is only a problem if you don't understand that everything happens in
the present moment P-time. The clock times diverge in value but always in
the same present moment. There is no 'catching up' in p-time because
nothing ever leaves it no matter how fast or slow their clocks are
Stephen,
It's amazing how much your mouth has to move to tell me it's not moving!
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Bingo! You are correct. All motion in space-time is an illusion. The
ancient greeks figured that out already.
Stephen,
No, it's not static relations between numbers, it's an active computational
process.
If just static relations between numbers your mouth would just be hanging
open forever in the same look of shock...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:48:44 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL
observer has his OWN present moment time. You are trying to extend it to a
cosmic universal time which this argument doesn't address. That's the
second argument you referenced.
This argument demonstrates that for
Dear Edgar,
The universality of the first person experience of a flow of events
(what you denote as time) is addressed by Bruno's First Person
Indeterminism (FPI) concept. This universality cannot be said to allow for
a singular present moment for all observers such that they can have it in
Stephen,
What is this magical FPI that tells us in this present moment that there is
no such present moment? What's the actual supposed proof?
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:17:31 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
The universality of the first person experience of
Dear Edgar,
I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal
present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read
it? It is impossible to define a clock on an infinitesimal region of
space-time thus it is impossible to define a present moment in a way
Do you have an explanation for why reality time computes fewer moments
for someone accelerating than someone at rest?
Jason
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every
INDIVIDUAL observer has
101 - 200 of 604 matches
Mail list logo
