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
On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:20, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 04:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On 05 Jan 2014, at 06:13, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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
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
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
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
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014,
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
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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
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
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
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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.
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
On 05 Jan 2014, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Now the question is, do you believe the opposite of
On 6 January 2014 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 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
On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On 6 January 2014 06:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:57 PM, spudboy...@aol.com 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
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 8:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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.
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
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
On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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,
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
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,
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.
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
37 matches
Mail list logo