### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

Liz, Of course there is no reason that can't meet up to compare clocks. No one said there was. The point is that they can meet up to compare clocks and they always do it in the shared present moment. Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

Liz, Yes, of course it is quite hard to understand what NOT meeting in the same present moment would be like. That's because it's impossible and self-contradictory. That is why they must meet in the same present moment. Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:08:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: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..

Jason, I'll stick with my definitions, which are quite clear and obvious. The present moment is the most basic experience (and therefore the most basic verifiable and repeatable empirical observation) of our existence. 99.999% of all humans on earth understand this clearly and unambiguously, with the apparent exception of the members of this list! :-) Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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 edga...@att.net 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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..

Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing clocks. When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time. Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, I'll stick with my definitions, which are quite clear and obvious. Okay then please define for us: Event Present Simultaneous Clock time P-time Proper time Coordinate time Space time If we don't have common definitions we cannot communicate... The present moment is the most basic experience (and therefore the most basic verifiable and repeatable empirical observation) of our existence. Our experience informs us that something exists. It does not inform us that other things do not exist. This is the primary error of presentism: it assumes only that which is perceived can exist. 99.999% of all humans on earth understand this clearly and unambiguously, with the apparent exception of the members of this list! :-) That should tell you something. Jason Edgar On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: 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 edga...@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 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 edga...@att.net 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-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. -- 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 Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times. A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in equal coordinate times. It is when the coordinate times are equal that two things can interact. Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? Their coordinate times are equal. Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing clocks. Right, their proper times are different. When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time. They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time. Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is unneccessary. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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. -- 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, What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning to sound just like another name for Present time. What's the difference? Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times. A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in equal coordinate times. It is when the coordinate times are equal that two things can interact. Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? Their coordinate times are equal. Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing clocks. Right, their proper times are different. When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time. They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time. Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is unneccessary. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out 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 Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning to sound just like another name for Present time. Hmmm... A Casio? Does your theory feature some primitive God clock for present time? Does it run on batteries, solar, self-winding? Where does it run? Is the experience of shaking hands proof for its existence? What's the difference? That's what is being asked of you! And you turn the question around. This is starting to get circular because the different standard uses of these terms have been shoved down this thread enough, so turning the question around doesn't advance anything but circularity. PGC Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times. A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in equal coordinate times. It is when the coordinate times are equal that two things can interact. Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? Their coordinate times are equal. Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing clocks. Right, their proper times are different. When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time. They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time. Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is unneccessary. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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-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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out 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 1/6/2014 7:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning to sound just like another name for Present time. What's the difference? The difference is that you imagine that Present time is a unique global coordinate time (just like Newton), but coordinate time is just a convenient labeling of events and even when you restrict coordinate time to be global across an inertial frame it is not unique, it depends on the motion of the frame - that's why it's called relativity, it's relative to the motion. 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 Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. Any clock in my rest frame measures my coordinate time. It's beginning to sound just like another name for Present time. What's the difference? In relativity, present is not globally defined, but it seems to be in your theory. Note coordinate time has no meaning either, without defining a frame of reference. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times. A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in equal coordinate times. It is when the coordinate times are equal that two things can interact. Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? Their coordinate times are equal. Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing clocks. Right, their proper times are different. When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time. They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time. Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is unneccessary. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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-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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out 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 7 January 2014 01:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing clocks. When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time. Each point in space-time can be assigned unique coordinates. It's only when space and time are treated separately that we get apparently paradoxical situations like clocks running at different rates. Brent is right. They are meeting at a point in space-time which will has a unique (x,y,z,t) position. -- 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 7 January 2014 01:46, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Yes, of course it is quite hard to understand what NOT meeting in the same present moment would be like. That's because it's impossible and self-contradictory. That is why they must meet in the same present moment. Well, it's your idea, so I expect you to have *some* visualisation of it. Everyone else is happy to just assign the meeting a position in space-time, and not tack on extra stuff about some as yet ill-defined present moment. If you aren't capable of explaining what the sigificance of the present moment is - for example, what you think the universe would look like if it didn't exist - then I can't see that it has any value as a concept. There are only two ways I can see to show that your idea of present time has some use. 1. Show us the maths. It might make more sense if we can see how to transform the present moment into a space-time t coordinate, for example, or just to see how the idea makes sense logically from various axioms. 2. Describe an experiment that would, even if only in theory, let someone distinguish some consequence of your theory from SR. -- 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 7 January 2014 01:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different. They are only very slightly different. I think you're talking about the clock time of the observers, not the space-time t coordinate. -- 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, The structure of Minkowski spacetime is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space Once one decides on a coordinate system, every point can be assigned a unique x,y,z,t position. Hence the meeting of two observers to compare clocks can be assigned a unique x,y,z,t position. Their clocks will differ according to the paths they took through space-time to reach the meeting point. According to SR that is all you need to know. If you want to add anything more you need to explain why it's important - what physical difference it makes. Of course a cellular automaton or similar quantisation of space-time, as required for a computational theory of reality, rquires an absolute rest frame and a synchronised clock. Personally, although I find such theories attractive, I have long regarded this as a problem with them, which in my opinion they have not yet adequately addressed (although placing the cells on the light come might work, in Minkowski space - but somehow I doubt 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 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 edga...@att.net 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

### 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 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 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 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 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 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 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..

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 edga...@att.net javascript: 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: 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 edga...@att.net 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

### 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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 edga...@att.net 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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.

### 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 edga...@att.net javascript: 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 edga...@att.net 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. Relativity is not only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems to be incompatible with

### 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 edgaro...@att.net 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 edga...@att.net 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

### 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: 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: 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 edga...@att.net javascript: 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: 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..

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 edga...@att.net 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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 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 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: 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 edga...@att.net javascript: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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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: 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 edga...@att.net javascript: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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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 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..

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 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 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 edga...@att.net 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 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 03 Jan 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 04:31, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote: (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.) The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Very nicely summarised. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. Now that really IS fascinating! (PS Bruno may even know one of those people - Ognyan Oreshkov) I read weak measurements are universal. He worked at ULB, still now, I think. I cannot say I know him personally. He seems to do nice work in quantum information science. We have a good quantum information group led by Nicolas Cerf. 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..

It's hard to stop arguing with an irrational person, isn't it? I've already offered Edgar $100 to tell me any experiment that could be carried out to falsify or validate his theory (that two separated events occur in only one absolute order), but he immediately stopped talking to me. An unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory. And Edgar even admits his idea can't be rendered in mathematics (like consciousness). But *everything* in physics must be able to be rendered into numbers, or it just ain't physics. That's not the same as saying that only the quantifiable exists, but it does demarcate a clear boundary between physics and metaphysics. When Galileo showed theologians the mountains on the moon through his telescope, which couldn't exist according to doctrine at the time, because the moon had to be a perfect sphere, they invented ad hoc an invisible substance that filled all the craters to the exact tops of the mountains. Galileo agreed about the invisible substance, but said it was piled twice as high on top of the mountains as in the valleys! The invention of an ad hoc invisible, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable time dimension to rescue the universal present moment from relativity is a similarly disgraceful manouevre to that which the cardinals attempted in order to rescue their Aristotelian cosmos. So far the only evidence that Edgar can evince for his theory is that it's obvious to him. No maths. No suggested experiments. No means of measurement except by some hand-waving reference to the curvature of the universe (quote: anyone know what that equation would be? Sir, we have no idea what you're talking about! It's *your* theory!) No falsification possible except by fiat of Edgar Owen. Don't hold your breath. -- 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, Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow. Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again. The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation. You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work... Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again. So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time, as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common present moment in my post yesterday. There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement. Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the other hand acceleration/gravitation 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 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: 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. There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth. What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false. True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to each other, but they are still different in age because of it. Jason Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

Jason, No, in your example when James (why do you keep confusing things by changing the names?) whizzes by us at 80%c that is not a 'meeting'. A meeting is when there is NO relative motion. In your example for that to happen James would have to experience a massive decelleration which would change everything and end the relative equal opposte time dilations. What you neglect to mention and account for is that in your example is that James thinks 5 of his years have passed but that we are only 3 years older, we think 5 years have passed and that he is only 3 years old. That effect is equal and opposite. This is a temporary illusion of measurement, a basic inconsistency of clock time frames (it's consistent for spacetime frames of course). Nevertheless this clock time inconsistency always occurs only in the same Present moment P-time. We simply both do exist when it occurs, we must for the occurrence to even happen. We just can't assign a consistent clock time to that occurrence while relative motion persists. Thus your example is explained away clearly by my post of yesterday and does not falsify Present moment P-time. Please clearly note that even in your example for the comparison to take place we and James MUST be in the same present moment for the comparison to even take place. It could not take place if we weren't. The clock times are different, but they are different in the exact same present moment P-time. That is the only way we could possibly know they were different. You almost had that concept a couple of days ago, but seem to keep confusing yourself trying to inappropriately apply relative motion clock time effects to it and losing it. 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow. Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again. This contradicts established physics and therefore is falsified Richard The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation. This contradicts physical data that is repeatable and therefore the hypothesis is falsified. Richard You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work... Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again. So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time, as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common present moment in my post yesterday. There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement. Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the other hand acceleration/gravitation 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 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: 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. There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth. What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false. True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to each other, but they are still different in age because of it. Jason Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote: 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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. 2. All observers exist in a present moment P-time. In other words at every moment of P-time all observers exist and are doing something no matter what their relativistic differences.They cannot disappear out of existence and out of the present moment. 3. The clock times of all NON-relativistic observers are isomorphically mappable. Their clocks all read the same times and progress at the same rates through a common shared universal present moment of P-time. 4. The clock times of observers who have NO relative motion but different gravitational fields will progress at different rates through the common present moment p-time in a one-to-one mappable way which those observers all agree upon. 5. The clock times of observers in relative motion will each experience the clock times of the others to be slowed. Since relative motion is in fact relative, this effect is equal and opposite. In this case it is impossible for the observers to agree upon which of their clock times corresponds to the clock times of the other observers in the present moment. Nevertheless all observers are all always in existence and doing something in the common present moment even when it is impossible to assign a mutually agreed clock time to it. They know what they are doing in the common present moment but they observe what an observer in relative motion was doing in a past present moment. 5a. This occurs in the same way we observe what was happening in deep space in a present moment billions of years ago, and an observer there observes our galaxy as it was in a present moment billions of years ago. This is due to the finite speed of light (actually c is the finite speed of time, light just travels at the maximum time speed possible). The relative motion equal and opposite time dilation effect is pretty much the same effect and also due to the finite speed of light=speed of time due to the STc Principle that states that everything without exception always travels through spacetime at the speed of light (again actually it's the speed of time) 6. When relative motion ceases, once again clock times can be mapped and all observers can agree what they are doing in the common present moment. 7. Without a common present moment in which everything exists as a background reference, none of this would even be knowable. None of this analysis or comparisons could be made. That's the key insight that everyone seems to be lacking, that they actually exist in a present moment and that present moment is the only possible basis for anything, including the differing clock times of relativity, to even take place. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:23:52 PM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: Hi Edgar, That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out. However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give direct answers to the following logical questions. A direct (non-evasive) answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of true or false for each question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond that if you think the explanation is helpful. An answer which excludes picking either true or false for each question independently is evasive. I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing. When I get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean and will be able to move on to deeper questions. 1. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference frame: True or False? 2. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference frames: True or False? 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 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 notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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. Edgar On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:04:17 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: It's hard to stop arguing with an irrational person, isn't it? I've already offered Edgar $100 to tell me any experiment that could be carried out to falsify or validate his theory (that two separated events occur in only one absolute order), but he immediately stopped talking to me. An unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory. And Edgar even admits his idea can't be rendered in mathematics (like consciousness). But *everything* in physics must be able to be rendered into numbers, or it just ain't physics. That's not the same as saying that only the quantifiable exists, but it does demarcate a clear boundary between physics and metaphysics. When Galileo showed theologians the mountains on the moon through his telescope, which couldn't exist according to doctrine at the time, because the moon had to be a perfect sphere, they invented ad hoc an invisible substance that filled all the craters to the exact tops of the mountains. Galileo agreed about the invisible substance, but said it was piled twice as high on top of the mountains as in the valleys! The invention of an ad hoc invisible, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable time dimension to rescue the universal present moment from relativity is a similarly disgraceful manouevre to that which the cardinals attempted in order to rescue their Aristotelian cosmos. So far the only evidence that Edgar can evince for his theory is that it's obvious to him. No maths. No suggested experiments. No means of measurement except by some hand-waving reference to the curvature of the universe (quote: anyone know what that equation would be? Sir, we have no idea what you're talking about! It's *your* theory!) No falsification possible except by fiat of Edgar Owen. Don't hold your breath. -- 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 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. 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, but both interact/interfere in many relative ways. Bruno Edgar On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:04:17 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: It's hard to stop arguing with an irrational person, isn't it? I've already offered Edgar $100 to tell me any experiment that could be carried out to falsify or validate his theory (that two separated

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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? 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 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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 their GR relativistic time differences and thus knowing which of their clock times corresponded to the same present moment was easy. With SR, equal and opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock times to the same present moment. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of SR clock time which doesn't falsify a common present moment. A common present moment exists, it just isn't

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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 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, but both interact/interfere in many relative ways. Bruno, If arithmetic reality is the 3rd-person static

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

2014/1/4 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? 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. When they do they are in the same reference frame... that's all there is to it... the rest is crackpotery. Quentin 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 edga...@att.net 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 their GR relativistic time differences and thus knowing which of their clock times corresponded to the same present moment was easy. With SR, equal and opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock times to the same present moment. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of SR clock time which

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 5 January 2014 07:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? My theory is that there isn't one. Mind you, it isn't really my theory, a certain Albert Einstein formulated it 108 years ago. So far it's stood up pretty well. -- 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 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 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 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..

Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light! -- 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 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 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? -- 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..

CAT theory by Liz R! That has a ring to it. I can feel a book coming on, a follow up to It's all done by invisible pink unicorns. -- 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, If I explain something according to my understanding, and you reply that I am wrong, without explaining how or why, then we are doomed to go in circles without making any progress. I am left with no way to further my understanding, and you, believing me to be wrong, also will not advance in your understanding. I do find some personal benefit from this discussion, as I find the best way to learn is to explain. But as others have pointed out you are making in error in asserting that the accumulated relativistic effects of time dilation disappear or that GR explains all of it. There is little point in me repeating them if your only response will be that we are all mistaken. Jason On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow. Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again. The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation. You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work... Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again. So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time, as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common present moment in my post yesterday. There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement. Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the other hand acceleration/gravitation 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 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: 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. There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth. What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false. True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to each other, but they are still different in age because of it. Jason Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote: 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

I'm afraid we're reached the point where I throw my hands up and resort to parody. Not that Edgar doesn't deserve it for his deeply patronising tone, often verging on downright insults... Of course he could easily recover the situation at any moment simply by making a post that actually explains how his theory gives rise to testable consequences, or even how he derives space-time from it. But at the moment it's all just words. [Something] computes reality in [some apparently unnecessary time frame] using [some form of maths too advanced for mere humans to comprehend]. But so far we have no suggestion that there is, in fact, any underlying maths involved, or a logical, coherent framework, or anything, really. Just a load of words that would be fine as technobabble in Dr Who, but don't cut it as a genuine attempt to explain reality. -- 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, Assume block time for a moment. You still haven't answered my question about how your theory of the present moment works. What determines which moment of Caesar's life he thinks is the present moment? What determines which moment of your life you experience as the present moment? And don't tell me that every instant of your life continues to experience itself in its present moment. If so why am I talking to this one? And why are you answering back from this one. How can two clock times that are not simultaneous both experience themselves in the same present moment? And do you understand that if block time is true then the universe must be completely deterministic since the future already exists? And what does already mean in this case? If all moments of time exist what time do the exist with reference to? If you have a block time continuum stretching from the big bang to the end of the universe what time does this exist in? Block time is clearly a lot more unlikely than my Present time theory. In fact the block time fallacy seems to have been invented and believed in by those who don't understand the Present moment... 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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. 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. 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 edga...@att.net 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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. 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? 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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. 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. 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 edga...@att.net 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 5 January 2014 12:33, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Assume block time for a moment. You still haven't answered my question about how your theory of the present moment works. There is no present moment in block time. Block time explains how someone *feels* that there is a moving present, however. What determines which moment of Caesar's life he thinks is the present moment? He thinks every moment of his life is the present moment. At each moment, he thinks that is the present moment. As do you and I. What determines which moment of your life you experience as the present moment? The state of your brain at that moment, including your memories. And don't tell me that every instant of your life *continues* to experience itself in its present moment. If so why am I talking to this one? And why are you answering back from this one. These moments are connected via signals travelling at (or less than) lightspeed. Your use of continues, above, is misleading. It implies the existence of a second time dimension that simply isn't present in a block universe. How can two clock times that are not simultaneous both experience themselves in the same present moment? Please resubmit your query in the language of the block time we are assuming for the purposes of this discussion. And do you understand that if block time is true then the universe must be completely deterministic since the future already exists? Of course. (Although QM+Everett posits a block *multiverse*.) And what does already mean in this case? If all moments of time exist what time do the exist with reference to? If you have a block time continuum stretching from the big bang to the end of the universe what time does this exist in? You are assuming some other time dimension is needed. But that extra dimension simply isn't required (according to our best theories to date). All moments exist with reference to all other moments, although technically we should not be talking about moments, but locations in space-time (normally called events for short). Block time is clearly a lot more unlikely than my Present time theory. In fact the block time fallacy seems to have been invented and believed in by those who don't understand the Present moment... You will have to first demonstrate that you understand the block time concept before you are in a position to make this statement. From what you say above you haven't yet grasped it, and hence all your arguments so far have been directed against straw men. -- 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, PPS: More questions about your theory of block time. 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? 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? 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the beginning of the universe? Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed? 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, fixed and actual aren't they? When did that happen? In what time, at what time was this structure created? 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? 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? What is moving if it's not time? 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? 5. Why, if 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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. 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. 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 edga...@att.net 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 5 January 2014 13:48, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, PPS: More questions about your theory of block time. 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? 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? Everett explains this. But in any case there is no reason why a block universe can't contain events that appear random to its inhabitants. 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the beginning of the universe? Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed? They occur when they occur in the block universe. That's why points in space-time are called events. 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, fixed and actual aren't they? When did that happen? In what time, at what time was this structure created? 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? You are the one assuming that this second time is necessary. SR and GR and QM don't require this. Even Newtonian theory didn't require this. 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? What is moving if it's not time? Things move in relation to other things, which is to say they occupy different relative positions at different time coordinates. 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? Already explained by geometry and worldlines, see several posts by Brent and Jason. 5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will, are you any more than a robot zombie? Why do you assume you aren't? -- 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 Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? 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 edga...@att.net 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. 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. 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 edga...@att.net 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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 edga...@att.net 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. 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. 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 edga...@att.net 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What is moving if it's not time? Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. Jason, I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!! So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned) and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. -- 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 Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What is moving if it's not time? Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. Jason, I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!! So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned) and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. Liz, Thanks for making that clarification, which is important. You interpret my meaning correctly, it is not that the value is moving up along the y-axis in the graph of the function y=2x+7, but that for increasing x's, there are increasing y's. In the same sense, we can interpret that as one looks at ascending time-slices, you will see accumulating memories, etc. Edgar's assertion that we wouldn't feel like we are moving through time unless time really moves, contradicts computationalism, which his theory supposedly assumes. (Actually, I see no way at all how successively creating and and then deleting successive slices in time even could explain our sensation of moving through time.) 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.

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 5 January 2014 15:46, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Edgar's assertion that we wouldn't feel like we are moving through time unless time really moves, contradicts computationalism, which his theory supposedly assumes. I believe about 400 years ago similar arguments were being made to show that the Earth had to be fixed at the centre of creation. -- 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 1/4/2014 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: 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. Really just different directions through spacetime. Everything always moves at proper speed 1 (at least classically). 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 5 January 2014 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2014 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: 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. Really just different directions through spacetime. Everything always moves at proper speed 1 (at least classically). What exactly is proper speed in SR? -- 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 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What is moving if it's not time? Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. Jason, I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!! So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned) Not really as a Feynman diagram. Those are always drawn in momentum space (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space. and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. 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). 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 Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What is moving if it's not time? Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. Jason, I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!! So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned) Not really as a Feynman diagram. Those are always drawn in momentum space (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space. and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. 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? Jason 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 5 January 2014 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Not really as a Feynman diagram. Those are always drawn in momentum space (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space. I always assumed they were similar to worldlines for fundamental particles. and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. 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). I am simplifying in an attempt to explain it to Edgar, who clearly has a problem grasping how any of this works. With all due respect, I'd appreciate it if my attempts weren't obfuscated. He obviously doesn't get even the basics of the block universe picture, so piling on lots of extra details will only confuse matters - or more likely give him an excuse to just ignore them, like climate change or evolution deniers - look, they disagree about some minor details, so their entire theory simply must be wrong! -- 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, I asked three simple true/false questions about what your theory says. You didn't even fucking anwer false, because the concept isn't quite right, but you'd do better by asking XYZ. If you simply won't answer basic questions about whether your theory entails something, then you probably can't. And if you can't answer whether your theory is about something, then I conclude that your theory doesn't actually exist. You'd just be playing word games. -Gabe. Sorry for the angry word -- but it was well deserved by blatantly evasive non-answers. On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:16:43 AM UTC-6, 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. 2. All observers exist in a present moment P-time. In other words at every moment of P-time all observers exist and are doing something no matter what their relativistic differences.They cannot disappear out of existence and out of the present moment. 3. The clock times of all NON-relativistic observers are isomorphically mappable. Their clocks all read the same times and progress at the same rates through a common shared universal present moment of P-time. 4. The clock times of observers who have NO relative motion but different gravitational fields will progress at different rates through the common present moment p-time in a one-to-one mappable way which those observers all agree upon. 5. The clock times of observers in relative motion will each experience the clock times of the others to be slowed. Since relative motion is in fact relative, this effect is equal and opposite. In this case it is impossible for the observers to agree upon which of their clock times corresponds to the clock times of the other observers in the present moment. Nevertheless all observers are all always in existence and doing something in the common present moment even when it is impossible to assign a mutually agreed clock time to it. They know what they are doing in the common present moment but they observe what an observer in relative motion was doing in a past present moment. 5a. This occurs in the same way we observe what was happening in deep space in a present moment billions of years ago, and an observer there observes our galaxy as it was in a present moment billions of years ago. This is due to the finite speed of light (actually c is the finite speed of time, light just travels at the maximum time speed possible). The relative motion equal and opposite time dilation effect is pretty much the same effect and also due to the finite speed of light=speed of time due to the STc Principle that states that everything without exception always travels through spacetime at the speed of light (again actually it's the speed of time) 6. When relative motion ceases, once again clock times can be mapped and all observers can agree what they are doing in the common present moment. 7. Without a common present moment in which everything exists as a background reference, none of this would even be knowable. None of this analysis or comparisons could be made. That's the key insight that everyone seems to be lacking, that they actually exist in a present moment and that present moment is the only possible basis for anything, including the differing clock times of relativity, to even take place. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:23:52 PM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: Hi Edgar, That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out. However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give direct answers to the following logical questions. A direct (non-evasive) answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of true or false for each question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond that if you think the explanation is helpful. An answer which excludes picking either true or false for each question independently is evasive. I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing. When I get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean and will be able to move on to deeper questions. 1. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference frame: True or False? 2. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference frames: True or False? 3. According to

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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? However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent, what did you mean by this? -- 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..

And once you've answered Gabe's questions, you can show us the maths!!! I'm not saying I will understand it myself, but there are people around here who will. I've already asked this (god knows how many times) from Mr Of course I respect women scientists who yet again seems to be refusing to answer any of my posts. Actually, I'm starting to think that Edgar is just trolling. He starts by presenting a case with obvious flaws, then refuses to give sensible answers to reasonable questions while coming across as irritatingly patronising and borderline rude. The object of the exercise being to get everyone as angry as possible in order to gratify some sociopathic urge. He has all the hallmarks, now I come to think of 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 Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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. Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens in one direction of time. Jason However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent, what did you mean by this? -- 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 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, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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. However this is taking us away from the topic under discussion, and giving Edgar an excuse not to reply to our questions (again)... -- 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 1/4/2014 7:10 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2014 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: 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. Really just different directions through spacetime. Everything always moves at proper speed 1 (at least classically). What exactly is proper speed in SR? Dx/Dtau, where x is the coordinate vector and tau is the proper time (what a clock measures) and D is the covariant derivative. In flat space, i.e. SR, it reduces to the ordinary derivative dx/dtau. Notice that in the rest frame it's always (1,0,0,0), i.e. all the 'speed' is along the time coordinate. 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 1/4/2014 7:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What is moving if it's not time? Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. Jason, I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!! So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned) Not really as a Feynman diagram. Those are always drawn in momentum space (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space. and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. 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? I think it depends on what you mean by stored. Computation can be reversible, so you can move information around without erasing it or doing something irreversible. If stored necessarily means irreversibly then I think that's right. I think it's the difference between taking the 2nd law as fundamental and taking it as a merely statistically probable. At a sufficiently microscopic level all the physics is CPT invariant. 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 1/4/2014 7:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Not really as a Feynman diagram. Those are always drawn in momentum space (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space. I always assumed they were similar to worldlines for fundamental particles. and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure. 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). I am simplifying in an attempt to explain it to Edgar, who clearly has a problem grasping how any of this works. With all due respect, I'd appreciate it if my attempts weren't obfuscated. He obviously doesn't get even the basics of the block universe picture, so piling on lots of extra details will only confuse matters - or more likely give him an excuse to just ignore them, I don't think he needs an excuse. I've given up on him. Brent like climate change or evolution deniers - look, they disagree about some minor details, so their entire theory simply must be wrong! -- 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 1/4/2014 7:56 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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? However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent, what did you mean by this? I meant amnesia can take one back, psychologically, to an earlier time. 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 5 January 2014 20:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2014 7:56 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? However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent, what did you mean by this? I meant amnesia can take one back, psychologically, to an earlier time. I suppose so, yes. Interesting comment, although restricted to very rare cases ... obviously memory is (somewhat) random access and can take you back to earlier points in your life. Indeed, if the brain is in some sense like a digital computer, in theory all the things that can be done to computers could be done to the brain - memories added as per Total Recall or removed as per Sunshine of the spotless mind or otherwise messed with - the brain could be rebooted to an earlier time, as effectively happens in Memento type cases where you wake up the next day ... over and over again, while inexplicably (and tragically) ageing. This is all illustrative of the fact that memory is a mechanism for attempting to keep track of useful information, which indicates that the idea of a self moving through time is dependent on the correct operation of various support and backup systems, an illusion maintained by the brain because it's useful rather than anything fundamental about the universe. -- 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 5 January 2014 20:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think he needs an excuse. I've given up on him. Yes, well, thereby showing more wisdom than most of us ... but in the end I hope I too will let go of the tar baby and get back to sensible discussions. -- 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 03 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Richard Ruquist wrote: Liz, Edgar has a problem with your gender as is well known on other lists. Edgar did not answer any of my questions too. I guess he has enough work answering Jason. I don't know what he means by computational space, nor if anything related to computer is used in his approach. His theory is obviously (for those who get the UDA at least) non computationalist, but then what is his computational space? Bruno Richard On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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 does he need the common present anyway? Why can't he put a computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be quantised) and just have them communicate with their temporal / spatial neighbours? Physics being local indicates something like this is what occurs in the universe anyway, so -- 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. 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..

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 does he *need* the common present anyway? Why can't he put a computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be quantised) and just have them communicate with their temporal / spatial neighbours? Physics being local indicates something like this is what occurs in the universe anyway, so -- 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, 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 yan...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Liz, Edgar has a problem with your gender as is well known on other lists. Richard Oh, right! Thank you for letting me know. In that I won't worry my pretty little head about his wonderful theory. -- 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..

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 equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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 Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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..

Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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 Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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. -- 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..

(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.) The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. -Gabe On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner. From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... 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.

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 03 Jan 2014, at 15:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. Gauss said the same on Noether, and then add: --but that one is probably not really a woman (very macho remark, of course) Bruno Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, Edgar has a problem with your gender as is well known on other lists. Richard Oh, right! Thank you for letting me know. In that I won't worry my pretty little head about his wonderful theory. -- 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 Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: 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. There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth. What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false. True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to each other, but they are still different in age because of it. Jason Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

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 notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. -Gabe On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner. From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... 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.

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

Hi Edgar, That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out. However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give direct answers to the following logical questions. A direct (non-evasive) answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of true or false for each question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond that if you think the explanation is helpful. An answer which excludes picking either true or false for each question independently is evasive. I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing. When I get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean and will be able to move on to deeper questions. 1. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference frame: True or False? 2. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference frames: True or False? 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 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 notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. -Gabe On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner. From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... 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.

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Right. Edgar is just wrong. The same applies to the gravitational field. The time dilatation is purely a geometrical effect. Lewis Carroll Epstein's little book, Relativity Visualized provides a nice explanation and examples. 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 Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Right. Edgar is just wrong. The same applies to the gravitational field. The time dilatation is purely a geometrical effect. Lewis Carroll Epstein's little book, Relativity Visualized provides a nice explanation and examples. Brent, I would have thought that the effect of the gravitational field ( equating acceleration and deceleration to gravity) is just like its effect on GPS system and to my knowledge is not geometrical Richard 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 1/3/2014 8:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I like that! 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. 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. No, that doesn't follow at all. Running at the same rate doesn't mean at the same time. My watch runs at the same rate as my grandfathers - but not at the same time. All you can conclude is that, by exchanging signals Pam and Sam can set their clocks to *the same time in their frame* and by symmetry they will run at the same rate. 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... First, they are in relative motion in spacetime. Second, there is no present moment. Pam and Sam are at different locations, so even aside from gravitational effects, their agreement on how to set their clocks is arbitrary, it holds only in their frame, and another observer moving relative to them will see their clocks as NOT reading the same time even when their gravity fields were the same. This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, They are actually the same effect, except in GR the path lengths are measured over a non-flat geometry. See Epstein's book Relativity Visualized. 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. 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, whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the acceleration stops. The effect on *rate* stops, but the integrated effect of the rate having been different over some duration is real. That's why the twins are different ages when they re-unite. 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. You common present moment is just an arbitrary inertial frame choice which you use to label events with a t-value. It's just coordinate time. So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a common present moment, There is a whole range of moments which will be at the same coordinate time depending on what inertial frame is chosen to define coordinates. 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 their GR relativistic time differences There was no gravity in my diagrams. and thus knowing which of their clock times corresponded to the same present moment was easy. No, there is the same arbitrariness of now in your GR example. You just chose to privilege the frame in which both are at rest (in space). In any other inertial frame their clocks will still be seen to run at the same rate, but they will no longer be set to the same time. With SR, equal and opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock times to the same present moment. Sure it is, when they are at the same event. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of SR clock time which doesn't falsify a

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

But it does matter how long you coast between accelerating away from Earth and the braking maneuver in which you accelerate back toward Earth. If you don't coast at all there is only a small effect. If you wait a long time, 10yrs, there is a big effect - which is easily seen in terms of the difference in length of the world lines in Minkowski space. Brent On 1/3/2014 8:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course

### Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 4 January 2014 03:06, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature works... We don't know how nature works, we only have theories. You have a theory about how nature works. Why does your theory need a common present moment? What does the concept achieve? Why is it necessary within the theory? -- 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 4 January 2014 03:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: 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. Yes she's one of my heroes, along with Lisa Randall and Alice in Wonderland. So are you saying that from you will from now on answer questions without trying to analyse the motives of the person asking them, as you have done previously, and without adding the patronising comments? (which in any case just make you look like a complete dork) ? In that case I will accept your implied apology, and carry on asking questions. -- 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.