Jason,
You state "The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains
the program that is identical to your mind."
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've
heard here today in all manner of respects!
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:56:44 PM
Jason,
See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavef
All,
I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he
brings up a very important issue.
The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread
out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly
assumes, that they are superpos
? Of course, I can't prove this
> hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable.
> But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this
> obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close.
>
> On Tuesday, December 24
Liz,
Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which
it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for
relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event,
and then ONLY in the case that relativistic frames are different. When the
I did there? Of course, I can't prove this
> hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable.
> But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this
> obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close.
>
> On Tuesday,
er to the book itself, or I can
explain further
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'm starting a new topic on wavefunction
dimensionalize when those electrons decohere.
This is a subtle theory, and hopefully I can explain further if necessary,
or you can read Part III of my book.
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen
>
Liz,
What I haven't deciphered in Lisi's theory is what its elementals are. He
seems to have come up with a set of elemental particle properties that
populate his E8 group exactly and completely but they do not all appear to
be commonly recognized particle properties such as charges, spins, etc
d then
dimensionally aligned by some shared event.
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Answers to your 3 questions.
>>
>>
Jason,
Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it.
According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD
stuff, but the truth is that in actual computational reality every logical
element functions as a processor so all computations proceed at once
, December 27, 2013 11:11:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
> In Bruno's Platonia there is no such thing as "time" so we can not make
> arguments involving "cycles of time". All just "exists".
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27,
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it
in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point.
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:19:17 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L.
Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important topic
of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.
As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There simply
is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of non-computability
which i
Liz,
Then how about answering my simple questions if you understand UD so well?
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:23:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 28 December 2013 17:19, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Even worse, and less applicable to reality
owever that explaining physical space as information space is
> ultimately an improvement. Without linking either one to awareness, the
> result is still that we are explaining a universe that we can never
> experience.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:19:47 P
.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:51:50 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually
>> exist. When i
Brent,
No, the oppositely aligned spins is NOT a hidden variable and there is no
FTL. Reread my post
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> All your questions assume a pre-e
11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
>> topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.
>>
>> As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
es against the common
sense view of the single background spacetime that QM mistakenly assumes.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:20:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:54 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Clo
:
>
>
> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between part
PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> > With decoherence everything is a wavefunction
>>
>
> No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
> observable quantity is. The wave fun
Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
> functions j
Brent,
Maybe in your theory of reality but not in mine...
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in
se: in math puzzles the "take any
>> number" - however many of these are joking.
>> I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk
>> 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
>> circumstances of the topic.
Brent,
The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted
interpretations on them...
EDgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> You'll have to ask the
works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results...
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I
sn't clear, but it's immensely important and is the
theory that I propose in Part III: Elementals of my book.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:11:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoher
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted
> interpretations on them...
>
>
> But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result. It produces a set of
> probab
ecember 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Brent,
> >
> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific
> decoherence results
> > yet the people who are performing experiment
December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Brent,
> >
> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific
> decoherence results
> > yet the people who are performing experiments in de
nsidered the possibility that the physical actions of matter
> and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did
> you have with this idea?
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> What we need to unde
Born rule and then say those are the
> probabilities of my observation and *one* of them occurs. Everett says
> they all occur and different instances of *you* observe them. So which is
> your theory. You did not answer my question below.
>
> Brent
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:36 P
that both observers don't
> exist at any point in time you can imagine. But *what* observer? The
> observer is constantly changing, and the only way to see if they share the
> same moment is to time the changes in each using clock time. P-time is an
> ad hoc postulate to save your
ation, human math doesn't.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Brent,
> >
> > What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality
> math that
> &g
gravity-and-afterlife.html
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R >wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>
> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
> time, and should have been la
ot* involve any
> sort of physical clock (even a naturally-occurring "clock" like the
> rotation of the Earth), then can you describe what the experiment would be
> that shows the two observers to "be in the same present moment"?
>
> Jesse
>
>
> On
off into never never land...
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.
>
>
> ?
>
> That is my point. Decoherence falsifies
ality math does quite well.
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:34:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But
>&
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you are not
here. However it is quite clear that you absolutely must be doing something
in the exact same present moment that I write this sentence. That is the
present moment that we share.
Do you somehow imagine that there i
re now") for
>>> the light flash, we can see that two thinkers cannot have that thought at
>>> an objectively identical moment. All events can be timed using clocks,
>>> which after all cold be anything that has a regular cycle. There is nothing
>>> in sp
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was supposed to
be a scientific forum!
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Richard and
M UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:19:57 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Pierz,
>>
>> The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by
>> observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time.
>&g
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
events more clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In
particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
spacetime background does NOT exist.
Now co
2013, at 8:19 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist?
>
>
> I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest that
> the "soul" for lack of a better word. It is that each of u
gt;
>
> On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!
>
> But decoherence also falsifies MW.
>
>
> Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I
&
. The take place in a purely pre-dimensional logical
space. They are not running on any physical computer.
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:25:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 30 December 2013 06:16, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Begin by Imagining a world in which everythi
10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote
>
> >> Are faster-than-light influences involved?
>>>
>>
>> > No.
>>
>
> That means you think things are local.
>
> >> 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or
Richard,
It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and
physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to
be a genius though.
:-)
And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum to
try to clarify the presentation of my idea
Pierz,
If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then
the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe
of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy is not being
converted from one form to another but stored in each moment of
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious
dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake!
Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories!
:-)
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM U
.
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 9:39:30 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Pierz,
>
> A lot of meat in your post. Thanks! I'll answer most of your questions
>
> Yes, observers observe they are in the same present moment by the
> simultaneity of events. Ex
013 3:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Pierz,
>
> If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then
> the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe
> of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy is not bei
Brent,
I give a detailed answer to your question in my new topic on "Another shot
of how spacetime emerges from computational reality".
Best,
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:36:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 30 Decemb
er 29, 2013 10:24:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present
>> moment when we are toge
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time.
Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the
computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything.
The fact that t
te:
>
> On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
>>
>> Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious
>> dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake!
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we
know external reality on
John, and Liz,
Yes John is correct here. Without a current academic affiliation it's well
nigh impossible to be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal...
Sad but true...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 4:38:40 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
> as a former ed-in-chief of
Liz,
You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your
complete lack of understanding of the theory...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:02:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes >wrote:
>
>> Dear Liz,
>> as a former ed-in-chief of a scienc
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear
and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly
und
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Do
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on
Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between
consciousness ITSELF and the contents of consciousness that become
conscious by appearin
d for spatially separated observers as outlined in my
previous posts.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Hi Liz,
>
> The Two kinds of time theory is or
, etc.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
> sometime
understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
>> FACT of consciousness itself, that the
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edga
. The
only way they can confirm their clock times are different is by comparing
them in the same Present time moment.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:42:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>>
On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch >wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
>>> the Present Time loc
e its contents.
This is quite clear to anyone who has experienced it
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 1 January 2014 04:09, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consci
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic "Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events." Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames
o
t;
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> > Jason,
>>> >
>>> > That's a totally off the wall answer.
ared present moment
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer i
worlds' since they continually
merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.)
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>&g
ary 2, 2014 12:32:19 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I
>> can make it any clearer. Please, I re
theory I stated is NOT a hidden variable theory. There are
no hidden variables at all in my explanation. Please, respectfully, reread
it and see there are none...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:55:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar
rsday, January 2, 2014 1:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Taking your points in order.
>>
>> No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock
Liz,
I answered Jason directly. See that post.
There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present
moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are
confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for
one more approach that mig
Brent,
No, they aren't hidden variables. Not at all. Read my new topic post
"Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events" for the
detailed explanation.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:16:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L.
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> I answered Jason directly. See that post.
>>
>
> By no
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:21:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2014 10:17, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
>>
>
> No we won't. I followed his argument, and I want an answer t
However everything is logical, and
I've given the logical reasoning...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> We'll let Jason judg
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
>> con
t; If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no
> what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 20
uestion is answered...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a pr
Liz,
The common present moment is not something I "need". It's the way nature
works...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now,
> because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...
>
> Why
Liz,
This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many
female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to
mind.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>> Edga
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. It is true the
effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have
suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equival
-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Lliz, Brent and Jason,
>>
>> Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
>> physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins
Jason,
Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
it is.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edga
Gabriel,
See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this works
and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
> (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
>
> The "P-time
clock time dilation is an absolute
permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no
relative motion.
That should clarify everything but I fear it won't
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan
>
>
>
> 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 response
3. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order of
> events at the same point in space: True or False?
>
> -Gabe
>
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Gabriel,
>>
>> See my long most re
Liz,
I'm not going to give Yes/No questions to ill formulated questions.
Have you stopped beating your dog?
:-)
See my answers to these questions (in my own words) in my response to Gabe
who asked them
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 5:18:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Our first topic is
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 m
oment and their clock times are
not simultaneous.
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:
>
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 exp
rom your perspective?
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
> theor
f block time is true, and there is no free will, are you any more
than a robot zombie?
Awaiting your answers with interest...
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:
>
> Ja
1 - 100 of 823 matches
Mail list logo
