subject:"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 7 January 2014 01:55, Edgar L. Owen  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..

On 7 January 2014 01:46, Edgar L. Owen  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  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..

2014-01-06 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen  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"  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.
>> 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..

2014-01-06 Thread meekerdb


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..

2014-01-06 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, 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.
>

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"  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.
>> 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..

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" > 
> 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.
> 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..

2014-01-06 Thread Jason Resch

On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  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..

2014-01-06 Thread Jason Resch




On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:50 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  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  wrote:
Liz,

Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the  
present moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a  
present moment when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in  
their individual clock times which are different.


Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Liz,

What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock  
times. The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even  
recognized nor explained by relativity It's a basic but totally  
unexplained assumption


There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare  
their clocks.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-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..

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..

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 
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the 
>> present moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present 
>> moment when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual 
>> clock times which are different.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 Liz,

 What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock 
 times. The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even 
 recognized nor explained by relativity It's a basic but totally 
 unexplained assumption

 There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their 
>>> clocks.
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: 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 >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the 
>> present moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present 
>> moment when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual 
>> clock times which are different.
>>
>> It's quite hard to work out what you mean by this. Are you imagining the 
> twins (or rather, their minds) travelling along their world lines, and 
> hence having to "arrange to meet" at a particular point? Or rather, you 
> seem to be envisaging that the laws of physics automatically arrange for 
> their minds to meet at the same instant, and that if they didn't, one of 
> them might arrive at the meeting point ahead of the other (and presumably 
> would be faced by a person without a mind - a "robot zombie", so to speak).
>
> Is that the sort of idea you have in mind?
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Liz,

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 >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..

2014-01-05 Thread meekerdb


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..

2014-01-05 Thread Jason Resch

Edgar,

It might help if we all used consistent language for "present", "event",
"simultaneous", etc. I recommend we use the definitions which Einstein
works out (starting on page 2 of his paper):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

It would avoid a lot of confusion I think, because so far we seem to be
talking past each other over what basic words mean.

Jason


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the present
> moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present moment
> when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual clock
> times which are different.
>
> Edgar
>
> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times.
>>> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor
>>> explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained
>>> assumption
>>>
>>> There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their
>> clocks.
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

2014-01-05 Thread LizR

On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the present
> moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present moment
> when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual clock
> times which are different.
>
> It's quite hard to work out what you mean by this. Are you imagining the
twins (or rather, their minds) travelling along their world lines, and
hence having to "arrange to meet" at a particular point? Or rather, you
seem to be envisaging that the laws of physics automatically arrange for
their minds to meet at the same instant, and that if they didn't, one of
them might arrive at the meeting point ahead of the other (and presumably
would be faced by a person without a mind - a "robot zombie", so to speak).

Is that the sort of idea you have in mind?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Liz,

Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the present 
moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present moment 
when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual clock 
times which are different.

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times. 
>> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor 
>> explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained 
>> assumption
>>
>> There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their 
> clocks.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

2014-01-05 Thread LizR

On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times.
> The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor
> explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained
> assumption
>
> There is no reason in SR why observers can't meet up and compare their
clocks.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Liz,

What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times. 
The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor 
explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained 
assumption

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:00:57 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically 
>> verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on 
>> that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same 
>> shared present moment.
>>
>
> That phenomenon is well-explained by special relativity, and has nothing 
> to do with the existence of any "universal present moment".
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

2014-01-05 Thread LizR

On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically
> verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on
> that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same
> shared present moment.
>

That phenomenon is well-explained by special relativity, and has nothing to
do with the existence of any "universal present moment".

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Brent,

No, the present moment is NOT just a "label". It's an empirically 
verifiable observation (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on 
that measurement, namely that they have different clock times in the same 
shared present moment.

There is simply no way around that

Edgar



On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:08:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/5/2014 4:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the 
> same "present place" when their clocks don't agree.
>  
>
> Yes.  So why don't you recognize that "present place" is just a label, 
> exactly like a latitude and longitude - and then that "present time" is a 
> label, a coordinate time - which the diagrams I posted made perfectly 
> clear.  The problem is that you seem to think "here and now" implies a 
> "there and now"; but "there and now" is ambiguous and is RELATIVE to the 
> state of motion.
>
>  
>  Now a question for you. What is this "present place" they are in?
>  
>
> It's the location defined by their meeting, it's just a label with an 
> ostensive definition, aka "here".
>
> Brent
>
>
>  
>  Edgar
>
>  
>  
>
> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 10:01:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>
>>   Jason, 
>>
>>  PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in 
>> the same present moment is "an event" as if that explained something.
>>
>>   
>>  I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As 
>> something with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and 
>> place, where and when.
>>
>>  Jason  
>>
>>   Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire 
>> universe is an event. But what is the nature of that event from your 
>> perspective?
>>   
>>  
>> Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is 
>> that two people who followed different paths between two events in 
>> spacetime are at the second event.  They synchronized their odometers 
>> before they left the first event.  One took the freeway, which was straight 
>> to their meeting point.  The other took some interesting mountain roads and 
>> when he arrived at their meeting place his odometer indicated a bigger 
>> distance.  But Edgar said that's impossible, "How could they both be at the 
>> same present place when their odometers don't agree?"
>>
>> Brent
>>  
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

2014-01-05 Thread meekerdb


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..

2014-01-05 Thread meekerdb

On 1/5/2014 4:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the same "present
place" when their clocks don't agree.

Yes. So why don't you recognize that "present place" is just a label, exactly like a
latitude and longitude - and then that "present time" is a label, a coordinate time -
which the diagrams I posted made perfectly clear. The problem is that you seem to think
"here and now" implies a "there and now"; but "there and now" is ambiguous and is RELATIVE
to the state of motion.

Now a question for you. What is this "present place" they are in?

It's the location defined by their meeting, it's just a label with an ostensive
definition, aka "here".

Brent

Edgar

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 10:01:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" >
wrote:

Jason,

PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in the
same
present moment is "an event" as if that explained something.

I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As
something
with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and place,
where and when.

Jason

Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire universe is
an
event. But what is the nature of that event from your perspective?

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

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 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..


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..

2014-01-05 Thread Terren Suydam

Edgar,

FWIW, from my lurker's perspective, the people on this list are giving you
what you need - criticism. They are actively engaging you on your theory,
which is so much better than being ignored. Better still, the quality of
the criticism on this list is likely to be of the same caliber as you would
encounter among the most important and influential readers of your book,
i.e., those whose hearts and minds, being convinced, could carry your ideas
where they need to be carried. I.e., convince the experts on this list, and
chances are you can convince almost anyone.

Now, their criticism may be warranted, or not, but to this point, it seems
to me as though your responses have failed to answer their very specific,
well-articulated questions. It's only natural that such criticism will be
coming from the null hypothesis. From the years I have been on this list
though, one quality I have observed over and over is a willingness to
entertain alternate theories even when folks don't agree with them - with
much less of the typical intolerance you see on the internet. It's
inspiring.

Since you have the extraordinary theory, it is your responsibility to meet
that criticism. Resorting instead to ad-hominen betrays your lack of any
significant challenge to the criticism offered. In particular, Jason Resch
has been nothing but respectful and dogged in his attempts to understand
the differences between your theory and e.g. SR. And you are getting this
for free - I think a little gratitude might not be out of line. But I think
most here would rather you just answer their questions head on and could
live without the "thank you".

Terren

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al,
>
> Boy it's amazing how heavily personally invested you guys are in your
> belief system. You respond as if someone was daring to challenge the
> quasi-religous core orthodoxy your very existence and self-image depends
> upon.
>
> As I said before, "Lighten up guys, these are only theories for goodness
> sakes." Why all the self-righteous anger over a theory, over just ideas?
>
> I've been consistently polite, courteous, and on topic with no personal
> attacks or flames at all. I suggest we all keep it that way.
>
> As for 'block time', it's a theory that is riddled with contradictions so
> ridiculous and numerous it's actually amazing that anyone would give it any
> credence at all much less believe it like some core religious doctrine from
> on high.
>
> Just saying it's not, which is what most of today's responses to my
> questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true.
>
> Best,
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.
>>
>> 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time?
>>
>>
>> See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams.
>>
>> With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe
>> have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum
>> randomness?
>>
>>
>> One way of looking at it is we all exist in the past of a complteted
>> spacetime. Another is as Wei Dai described on his home page. Yet a third is
>> to dispense with collapse altogether.
>>
>>
>> 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the
>> beginning of the universe?
>>
>>
>> There is no beginning (or end).
>>
>> Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed?
>>
>>
>> In a sense, everything that exists has always existed.
>>
>>
>> 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined,
>> fixed and actual aren't they?
>>
>>
>> Yes. But I would add there is no one universe and no one history.
>>
>>
>> When did that happen?
>>
>>
>> When God made 2+2=4.
>>
>> In what time, at what time was this structure created?
>>
>>
>> Things don't happen and are not created. These things only appear to
>> happen to observers embedded in universes with time-like structures.
>>
>>
>> And since that time had to exist before the creation of block time for it
>> to be created within it, just what is that 2nd kind of time that is not
>> part of block time?
>>
>>
>> There is no change, as Parmenides supposed and Einstein proved.
>>
>>
>> 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things
>> happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed?
>>
>>
>> Our brains play many tricks on us.
>>
>> What is moving if it's not time?
>>
>>
>> Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next.
>>
>>
>> 4. If block time corresponds to clock time, then how can there be a
>> single block time structure that encompasses all events when clock times
>> progress faster or slower for different observers?
>>
>>
>> This corresponds to different objects having different velocities through
>> space time.
>>
>> 5. Why, if block time is true

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

Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al,

Boy it's amazing how heavily personally invested you guys are in your 
belief system. You respond as if someone was daring to challenge the 
quasi-religous core orthodoxy your very existence and self-image depends 
upon.

As I said before, "Lighten up guys, these are only theories for goodness 
sakes." Why all the self-righteous anger over a theory, over just ideas?

I've been consistently polite, courteous, and on topic with no personal 
attacks or flames at all. I suggest we all keep it that way.

As for 'block time', it's a theory that is riddled with contradictions so 
ridiculous and numerous it's actually amazing that anyone would give it any 
credence at all much less believe it like some core religious doctrine from 
on high. 

Just saying it's not, which is what most of today's responses to my 
questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true.

Best,
Edgar



On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > 
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.
>
> 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? 
>
>
> See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams.
>
> With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe 
> have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum 
> randomness?
>
>
> One way of looking at it is we all exist in the past of a complteted 
> spacetime. Another is as Wei Dai described on his home page. Yet a third is 
> to dispense with collapse altogether.
>
>
> 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the beginning 
> of the universe? 
>
>
> There is no beginning (or end).
>
> Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed?
>
>
> In a sense, everything that exists has always existed.
>
>
> 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, 
> fixed and actual aren't they?
>
>
> Yes. But I would add there is no one universe and no one history.
>
>
> When did that happen? 
>
>
> When God made 2+2=4.
>
> In what time, at what time was this structure created?
>
>
> Things don't happen and are not created. These things only appear to 
> happen to observers embedded in universes with time-like structures.
>
>
> And since that time had to exist before the creation of block time for it 
> to be created within it, just what is that 2nd kind of time that is not 
> part of block time?
>
>
> There is no change, as Parmenides supposed and Einstein proved.
>
>
> 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things 
> happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? 
>
>
> Our brains play many tricks on us.
>
> What is moving if it's not time?
>
>
> Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next.
>
>
> 4. If block time corresponds to clock time, then how can there be a single 
> block time structure that encompasses all events when clock times progress 
> faster or slower for different observers?
>
>
> This corresponds to different objects having different velocities through 
> space time.
>
> 5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will, 
>
>
> That is a big assumption. That free will requires indeterminism. If a die 
> roll determined your actions would you be more free? If the universe was 
> cyclic over trillions if years, would you only have free will the "first 
> time through"?
>
> Are you familiar with the idea called compatibalism?
>
>
> are you any more than a robot zombie?
>
>
> It was your theory that everything is a computation. Doesn't that also 
> make everything deterministic?
>
>
>
> Awaiting your answers with interest...
>
>
> Me too. :-)
>
> Jason
>
>
> Edgar
>
> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your 
> theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our 
> actions within?
>
>
> I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any other 
> event.  You might interpret this as "all events exist".  Our own 
> perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing to the 
> existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other places or in 
> other times.
>
> Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical property of 
> an observation.  That is, one of Caesar's observations believes the present 
> to be some moment in time around 0 AD, while one of mine believes it to be 
> 2014.  Another, equally real observation of mine, replying to a previous 
> e-mail of yours might consider it to be 2013. 
>
> It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands 
> and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are 
> not simultaneous.
>
>
> This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativit

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

2014-01-05 Thread Jason Resch

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>> On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch < 
>> jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb < 
>>> meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of
>>> the world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the
>>> same (x y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
>>> different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
>>> doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).
>>>
>>> Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be
>>> stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?
>>>
>>> Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in
>> reversed time?
>>
>> To store information is to overwrite some information that was already
>> there. Think about writing a bit to a hard drive. If you write a 1 to
>> position X you can no longer say if position X was formerly a 0 or a 1. So
>> setting a bit (storing information) is equivalent to irreversible erasure.
>>
>
> I believe with most hard drives overwriting is imperfect so you can say
> what was there before if you inspect it carefully enough. But the point is
> taken. Certainly in the future, when computers really do operate at or near
>  the Landauer limit, it's possible that erasing a bit will completely
> replace whatever used to be there. However, I still feel a teensy bit of
> scepticism here, because if I believe QM, no information can be lost from
> the universe.
>
>>
>> Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens in
>> one direction of time.
>>
>> The thing is, I always thought entropy was an emergent phenomenon. In
> practice it happens in one time direction, but in principle - and at a
> fine-enough grained level of description - it doesn't exist, all the
> interactions involved being reversible.
>

Yes, it all follows as a result of there being more ways for energy to
dissipate into the environment than for it to spontaneously concentrate
itself in some area.

Because you need energy to do useful work, which information storage is,
you must expend energy to do so.  Therefore some process that operated
(from our perspective) backwards in time, could not perform useful work
(such as recording information about it's past (our future)) because that
would from out perspective appear as energy spontaneously concentrating
itself (whereas from its perspective, it is expending energy to store
information). So creating memories seems to be something that is highly
correlated with the arrow of time.



>
> However this is taking us away from the topic under discussion, and giving
> Edgar an excuse not to reply to our questions (again)...
>

Well this point can also defeat some argument defenders of presentism make:
"if the future exists how come we know nothing about it?"

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Bruno,

This is wrong on all points. I've already shown why SR requires a present 
moment and falsifies block time. Because the fact that everything 
continually travels through spacetime at the speed of light requires 
everything to be at one and only one point in time and that time is the 
present moment. This also provides the explanation for the arrow of time.

Same with GR.

And of course a present moment DOES make sense in a computational universe. 
That's what provides the processor cycles in which everything, including 
space and clock time, is computed. A present moment is required for a 
computational universe to work. Otherwise nothing would even happen

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:16:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:06, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > 
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your 
> theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our 
> actions within?
>
>
> I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any other 
> event.  You might interpret this as "all events exist".  Our own 
> perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing to the 
> existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other places or in 
> other times.
>
> Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical property of 
> an observation.  
>
>
> Ah! :)
>
> That is, one of Caesar's observations believes the present to be some 
> moment in time around 0 AD, while one of mine believes it to be 2014. 
>  Another, equally real observation of mine, replying to a previous e-mail 
> of yours might consider it to be 2013. 
>
> It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands 
> and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are 
> not simultaneous.
>
>
> This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not 
> only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems 
> to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism 
> and possibilism.
>
>
> This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your 
> answer...
>
>
> I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what 
> time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you 
> have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I 
> don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is 
> true.
>
>
> Presentism is the time form of believing "we" are special. It is a 
> reification of a relative state, with an abstraction of the relative aspect 
> of the situations.
>
> I agree that presentism does not make sense in special relativity, still 
> less in GR and in Gödel's rotating universe. But it already doesn't make 
> any sense with computationalism 'if that was not obvious).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Jason 
>
>
> Edgar
>
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I 
> like that! 
>
>
> Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-)
>  
>
> I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here.
>
> First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed 
> to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following 
> argument re present time easier to understand.
>
>
> In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 minutes 
> worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes 
> accelerating.  How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and 
> 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory?
>  
>
>
> Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam 
> but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of 
> exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times 
> run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear 
> they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and 
> their identical clock times correlate to this.
>
> Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her 
> clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so 
> again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. 
> And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's 
> clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. 
> Again clock time correlates with present moment time... 
>
>
> I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before 
> trying to tackle GR...
>  
>
> This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are 
> absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all 
> observers agree upon. They must

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

Bruno,

You say of the present moment "Yes, it's not a clock time." I agree, then 
what is the present moment if it isn't a clock time?

Edgar


On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:07:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your 
> theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our 
> actions within?
>
>
> Before I read Jason answer, let me tell you in three words: the indexical 
> theory. "present" is an indexical, and can be defined by using the 
> arithmetical theory of indexicals, or self-reference theory. It helps to 
> define all indexicals the 1-I, the 3-I, the now, this and that , etc... 
> Each machine lives his state as belonging to the present moment.
>
>
>
> It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands 
> and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are 
> not simultaneous.
>
>
> Yes, it is not a clock time.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your 
> answer...
>
> Edgar
>
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I 
> like that! 
>
>
> Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-)
>  
>
> I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here.
>
> First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed 
> to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following 
> argument re present time easier to understand.
>
>
> In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 minutes 
> worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes 
> accelerating.  How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and 
> 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory?
>  
>
>
> Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam 
> but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of 
> exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times 
> run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear 
> they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and 
> their identical clock times correlate to this.
>
> Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her 
> clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so 
> again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. 
> And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's 
> clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. 
> Again clock time correlates with present moment time... 
>
>
> I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before 
> trying to tackle GR...
>  
>
> This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are 
> absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all 
> observers agree upon. They must be distinguished from SR effects which make 
> the situation more difficult to understand in terms of a present moment.
>
>
> You may be right that P-time has no difficulties with GR, but it seems to 
> have some with SR so let us focus on solving that.
>  
>
> An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce the 
> exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative velocity effect. 
>
> Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past 
> each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is 
> relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both 
> observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are 
> equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see 
> the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the 
> absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time 
> dilation is not permanent and absolute like GR time dilation is. It 
> vanishes as soon as the relative motion stops,
>
>
> That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well. Let's 
> say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri travelling at 80% c 
> toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth at this speed, but when we 
> see baby James on board as he whizzes by he is only 3 years old.  If the 
> ship stops (or not), James is still 3 years old. GR never was a factor in 
> James's reduced age.
>  
>
> whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the 
> acceleration stops.
>
> This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding what is 
> going on particularly with respect to the common present moment.
>
>
> SR and GR are not two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, but two ways 
> of explaining two different phenomena.
>  
>
>
> So duri

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

Brent,

No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the same 
"present place" when their clocks don't agree.

Now a question for you. What is this "present place" they are in?

Edgar




On Saturday, January 4, 2014 10:01:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > 
> wrote:
>
>   Jason, 
>
>  PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in 
> the same present moment is "an event" as if that explained something.
>
>   
>  I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As 
> something with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and 
> place, where and when.
>
>  Jason  
>
>   Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire universe 
> is an event. But what is the nature of that event from your perspective?
>   
>  
> Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is that 
> two people who followed different paths between two events in spacetime are 
> at the second event.  They synchronized their odometers before they left 
> the first event.  One took the freeway, which was straight to their meeting 
> point.  The other took some interesting mountain roads and when he arrived 
> at their meeting place his odometer indicated a bigger distance.  But Edgar 
> said that's impossible, "How could they both be at the same present place 
> when their odometers don't agree?"
>
> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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



On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote:


On 5 January 2014 04:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Hi Gabe,

These questions are ill formulated but I'll take a shot at them

1. For every observer there is a uniquely true (actual is a better  
descriptor) order of events in their own experience. All these  
events always occur in their Present moment. The rate at which these  
events occur is controlled by their local Clock times. Their clock  
times can pass at different rates through their present moments.


So "Clock times can pass at different rates through their present  
moment". What is the relation between them? Does a person always  
experience clock time? If so, that makes the present moment  
undetectable by any means whatsoever, afaics. It also does no work  
within the theory of computational reality, which can equally well  
have a cell of the automaton at every point in Minkowsi space- 
timeI think. And the cells all interact locally, thus limiting  
the speed of influences...


In fact I quite like my theory of "cellular automaton  
time" (hereinafter CAT) which places a computing cell at each locus  
in space-time. Now, how can I make it Lorentz invariant?  
Maybe it exists on the light cone and uses the holographic principle  
to project the appearance of slower than light particles?



The "initial" computations are in arithmetic. You will never ask id  
"17 is prime" lorentz invarainat?
 Lorentz invariance has to be an emerging pattern. Comp shows a  
stringer form of invariance: physics does not depend on the ontology  
of the TOE (just that it has to be rich enough (but not necessarily  
Löbian, RA is rich enough in that sense). Physics does not depend on  
the choice of the universal enumeration phi_i.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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



On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:20, LizR wrote:


On 5 January 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Pierz,

It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present  
moment and Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they  
are basic aspects of reality.


However, a theory does have to be consistent with observation. So  
far, every attempt to make your theory consistent with the millions  
of observations that support SR fail, except by saying that "P-time"  
doesn't have any measurable effects whatsoever.


Which is also true of the invisible pink unicorns that actually  
control reality.


Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what  
is mathematically describable.


Or does reality emerge from physics? Reductionists think so.

Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its  
computed.


And we know this because

a. Edgar says so

or perhaps

b. I have a 2000 year old book which says so

?

Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure but  
not all of that logic is mathematical operations.


I believe all operations carried out by software can be reduced to a  
series of just one logical operation repeated lots of times - I  
think it's NAND?


So all computer programmes can be reduced to a series of NAND gates  
connected with wires (in principle). The structure of the programme  
would therefore be how the NAND gates are connected, and the  
operations would all be NANDs. I'm not sure if the wiring can be  
represented mathematically - well, actually, yes I am sure, it's  
just a directed graph. And I assume NAND is mathematically definable  
- it follows this truth table iirc


   1  0
--|-
  1   |   0 1
  0   |   1 1

So it looks to be as though a "silicon software progam" may actually  
be a mathematical structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic





You need NAND, and a clock time, if only to build the flip flop and  
memory. You need also some duplicator (which is implemented by a wire  
splitting and is usually taken for granted in classical computation,  
but is not quantum computation. But you are right, all this can be  
defined, and exist, in arithmetic, including the quantum computations.


The mystery is not the existence of quantum computation, which is a  
theorem in arithmetic, but of their local apparent stability, which  
must be justified in arithmetic too, and that is the hard thing to  
solve. The result obtained are promising, because the indexical  
approach of matter already provide a quantum 'quantization" obeying a  
quantum logic.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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



On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 04 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Pierz,

It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present  
moment and Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact  
they are basic aspects of reality.


Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just  
what is mathematically describable.


Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its  
computed.


Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure  
but not all of that logic is mathematical operations.


Logic is a branch of mathematics. Roughly, any other branch is  
equivalent with logic (usually classical, but not always) + the non  
logical supplementary axioms.


For applied mathematics, we usually relate the axiom with facts that  
we infer (or believe in for any reason), assuming some reality (to  
which the axioms and consequence are supposed to be applied).


For example, we all have a good intuition of the structure (N, +,  
*), and we can axiomatize it by classical logic (= a set of axioms  
and inference rules) + the supplementary axioms, in the language of  
first order logic, with variables, with equality,  union {0, s, +, *}:


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

If you accept Church thesis, computability is a purely mathematical  
notion. Even an arithmetical notion, which means that you can define  
it in that {0, s, +, *} language, and already prove something in  
that theory. In fact that theory is "universal" with respect to  
computability. It is a full complete programming language. It is not  
complete with respect to provability, as no effective theory can be,  
by Gödel incompleteness.


Not all reality is mathematical, indeed. This can be proved in the  
weak comp theory I work on. The first person notion that we can  
associate to machine escapes in some sense the "mathematical". But  
that escape itself is mathematical. Mathematics cannot prove the  
existence of something non mathematical, but it can prove that comp  
entails the existence of some machine's attribute which are non  
mathematically definable by the machine, yet "real" from the  
machine's point of view.


HERE COMP IS AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF EMERGENCE, BOTH  
WEAK AND STRONG.
Opps. Sorry for the caps. But perhaps they were meant to be, one of  
my superstitions, regarding at least my higher self.


I propose an argument showing that IF your consciousness is  
invariant for a substitution of your "brain" at some description  
level, (or any finite 3p description you want) by a digital  
computer, THEN a weak form of computationalism is incompatible with  
a weak form of physicalism. This can be used to reduce the mind-body  
problem to a problem of justifying the beliefs in a physical reality  
by the average universal number/machine. (I identify machines with  
their number indice in some fixed universal enumeration).


I am agnostic about the existence of a primitive physical reality,  
but "atheist" with respect to this when working in the  
computationalist theory.


I have still no idea of what you assume. You seem to assume some  
physical or psychological computational space, which makes not sense  
to any ideally correct introspecting machines relatively to its most  
probable universal implementations and neighbors. The + and * laws  
above describe already the unique possible computational space, by  
the Church-Turing-Post thesis/law. By its big but subtle  
redundancies, it defines in arithmetic a "matrix" of  
"dreams" (computations seen in the 1p view), and the physical and  
psychological realities develop from there, in a relative indexical  
way. Computationalism can exploit computer science and mathematical  
logic to justify such proposition, even constructively, making the  
comp theory falsifiable (up to some technical nuances).


Many physicists assume (not always consciously) a primitive physical  
reality. Do you? It seems you said that you do not, but then how you  
define term like moment, time, present moment, etc. And from what?  
It looks like you take for granted some hybrid 1p and 3p notions.
You seem also to assume special relativity? What does that mean if  
you don't assume some physics?
You talk often about something you call reality. Is not reality  
exactly what we are searching and what we should not taken for  
granted?


In "science" we start from what we agree on, if only momentarily,  
and proceed. If not, there is no genuine attempt to communicate.
I hope you will succeed in clarifying your assumptions. I have still  
no idea of your basic ontology. Keep in mind that with Church  
Thesis, or with any known formal definitions, computation is a  
purely arithmetical notion. You might keep in mind also that the  
arithmetical reality is vastly greater than the "computable  
reality"

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



On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what  
is your theory of this present moment we all experience our  
existence and all our actions within?


Before I read Jason answer, let me tell you in three words: the  
indexical theory. "present" is an indexical, and can be defined by  
using the arithmetical theory of indexicals, or self-reference theory.  
It helps to define all indexicals the 1-I, the 3-I, the now, this and  
that , etc... Each machine lives his state as belonging to the present  
moment.





It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake  
hands and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock  
times are not simultaneous.


Yes, it is not a clock time.

Bruno




This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear  
your answer...


Edgar

On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think  
and I like that!



Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-)

I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here.

First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as  
opposed to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the  
following argument re present time easier to understand.


In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4  
minutes worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4  
minutes accelerating.  How do we explain the other 3 years, 355  
days, 23 hours and 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory?



Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative  
to Sam but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational  
field of exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and  
Sam's clock times run at exactly the same rates and both agree to  
this. Therefore it is clear they inhabit the exact same present  
moment even by your arguments, and their identical clock times  
correlate to this.


Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where  
her clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no  
relative motion so again both agree that Pam's clock time is running  
half as fast as Sam's. And again both exist in the exact same  
present moment, it's just that Sam's clock time is running twice as  
fast through that common present moment. Again clock time correlates  
with present moment time...



I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR  
before trying to tackle GR...


This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR  
effects are absolute in the sense that they are permanent real  
effects that all observers agree upon. They must be distinguished  
from SR effects which make the situation more difficult to  
understand in terms of a present moment.



You may be right that P-time has no difficulties with GR, but it  
seems to have some with SR so let us focus on solving that.


An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce  
the exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative  
velocity effect.


Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling  
past each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration.  
Velocity is relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute,  
therefore both observers think the other is moving relative to them,  
and both views are equally true. Now because of this relativity of  
velocity both observers see the clock of the other observer slow and  
by equal amounts. But the absolutely crucial thing to understand  
here is that this SR form of time dilation is not permanent and  
absolute like GR time dilation is. It vanishes as soon as the  
relative motion stops,


That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well.  
Let's say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri  
travelling at 80% c toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth  
at this speed, but when we see baby James on board as he whizzes by  
he is only 3 years old.  If the ship stops (or not), James is still  
3 years old. GR never was a factor in James's reduced age.


whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the  
acceleration stops.


This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding  
what is going on particularly with respect to the common present  
moment.


SR and GR are not two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, but  
two ways of explaining two different phenomena.



So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly  
is a common present moment, but trying to figure out what clock  
times of Pam and Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a  
contradiction (as you quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams)  
because Pam and Sam see clock time differently and do not agree on  
it. They did agree on th

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

On 5 January 2014 20:19, meekerdb  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 5 January 2014 20:21, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/4/2014 7:56 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>  On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb  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 1/4/2014 7:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch > wrote:


On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb 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 1/4/2014 7:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:16, meekerdb 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 7:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch > 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

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 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 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch < 
> jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb < 
>> meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the
>> world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x
>> y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
>> different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
>> doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).
>>
>> Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be
>> stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?
>>
>> Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in
> reversed time?
>
> To store information is to overwrite some information that was already
> there. Think about writing a bit to a hard drive. If you write a 1 to
> position X you can no longer say if position X was formerly a 0 or a 1. So
> setting a bit (storing information) is equivalent to irreversible erasure.
>

I believe with most hard drives overwriting is imperfect so you can say
what was there before if you inspect it carefully enough. But the point is
taken. Certainly in the future, when computers really do operate at or near
 the Landauer limit, it's possible that erasing a bit will completely
replace whatever used to be there. However, I still feel a teensy bit of
scepticism here, because if I believe QM, no information can be lost from
the universe.

>
> Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens in
> one direction of time.
>
> The thing is, I always thought entropy was an emergent phenomenon. In
practice it happens in one time direction, but in principle - and at a
fine-enough grained level of description - it doesn't exist, all the
interactions involved being reversible.

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 Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR  wrote:


On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch  wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb  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..

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 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb  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..

2014-01-04 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

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 
>> o

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

On 5 January 2014 16:16, meekerdb  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..




On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb  wrote:


On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:

On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch  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 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch > 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

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

On 5 January 2014 16:03, meekerdb  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 6:01 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 1/4/2014 5:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > wrote:

Jason,

PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in the same present
moment is "an event" as if that explained something.

I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As something with
defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time and place, where and when.

Jason

Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire universe is an event.
But what is the nature of that event from your perspective?

Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is that two people who
followed different paths between two events in spacetime are at the second event. They
synchronized their odometers before they left the first event. One took the freeway,
which was straight to their meeting point. The other took some interesting mountain roads
and when he arrived at their meeting place his odometer indicated a bigger distance. But
Edgar said that's impossible, "How could they both be at the same present place when their
odometers don't agree?"

Brent

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

On 5 January 2014 15:46, Jason Resch  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 Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch  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 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch  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 Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:


Jason,

PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.

1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block  
time?


See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams.

With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the  
universe have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what  
happened to quantum randomness?


One way of looking at it is we all exist in the past of a complteted  
spacetime. Another is as Wei Dai described on his home page. Yet a  
third is to dispense with collapse altogether.




1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the  
beginning of the universe?


There is no beginning (or end).


Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed?


In a sense, everything that exists has always existed.



2. All the events in the history of the universe are already  
determined, fixed and actual aren't they?


Yes. But I would add there is no one universe and no one history.



When did that happen?


When God made 2+2=4.


In what time, at what time was this structure created?


Things don't happen and are not created. These things only appear to  
happen to observers embedded in universes with time-like structures.



And since that time had to exist before the creation of block time  
for it to be created within it, just what is that 2nd kind of time  
that is not part of block time?


There is no change, as Parmenides supposed and Einstein proved.



3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things  
happening and time progressing if everything is already static and  
fixed?


Our brains play many tricks on us.


What is moving if it's not time?


Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next.



4. If block time corresponds to clock time, then how can there be a  
single block time structure that encompasses all events when clock  
times progress faster or slower for different observers?




This corresponds to different objects having different velocities  
through space time.



5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will,


That is a big assumption. That free will requires indeterminism. If a  
die roll determined your actions would you be more free? If the  
universe was cyclic over trillions if years, would you only have free  
will the "first time through"?


Are you familiar with the idea called compatibalism?



are you any more than a robot zombie?


It was your theory that everything is a computation. Doesn't that also  
make everything deterministic?





Awaiting your answers with interest...



Me too. :-)

Jason



Edgar

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:


On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:

Jason,

If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what  
is your theory of this present moment we all experience our  
existence and all our actions within?



I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any  
other event.  You might interpret this as "all events exist".  Our  
own perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing  
to the existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other  
places or in other times.


Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical  
property of an observation.  That is, one of Caesar's observations  
believes the present to be some moment in time around 0 AD, while  
one of mine believes it to be 2014.  Another, equally real  
observation of mine, replying to a previous e-mail of yours might  
consider it to be 2013.


It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake  
hands and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock  
times are not simultaneous.



This can all be explained by normal special relativity. 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   
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 acc

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




On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:


Jason,

PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times  
in the same present moment is "an event" as if that explained  
something.




I use that word in the usual relatavistic (and traditional) sense. As  
something with defined spatial and temporal coordinates. A known time  
and place, where and when.


Jason

Of course it's an event. Everything that happens in the entire  
universe is an event. But what is the nature of that event from your  
perspective?


Edgar

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:


On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:

Jason,

If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what  
is your theory of this present moment we all experience our  
existence and all our actions within?



I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any  
other event.  You might interpret this as "all events exist".  Our  
own perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing  
to the existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other  
places or in other times.


Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical  
property of an observation.  That is, one of Caesar's observations  
believes the present to be some moment in time around 0 AD, while  
one of mine believes it to be 2014.  Another, equally real  
observation of mine, replying to a previous e-mail of yours might  
consider it to be 2013.


It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake  
hands and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock  
times are not simultaneous.



This can all be explained by normal special relativity. 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   
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

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

On 5 January 2014 13:48, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.
>
> 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time?
> 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..

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" > 
> 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  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 slow

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

On 5 January 2014 12:33, Edgar L. Owen  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,

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" > 
> 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  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

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" > 
> 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  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. The

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..

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  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  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  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 wrote:
>>
>>> Lliz, Brent and Jason,
>>>
>>> Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is
>>> the physica

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..

On 5 January 2014 04:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Hi Gabe,
>
> These questions are ill formulated but I'll take a shot at them
>
> 1. For every observer there is a uniquely true (actual is a better
> descriptor) order of events in their own experience. All these events
> always occur in their Present moment. The rate at which these events occur
> is controlled by their local Clock times. Their clock times can pass at
> different rates through their present moments.
>

So "Clock times can pass at different rates through their present moment".
What is the relation between them? Does a person always experience clock
time? If so, that makes the present moment undetectable by any means
whatsoever, afaics. It also does no work within the theory of computational
reality, which can equally well have a cell of the automaton at every point
in Minkowsi space-timeI think. And the cells all interact locally, thus
limiting the speed of influences...

In fact I quite like my theory of "cellular automaton time" (hereinafter
CAT) which places a computing cell at each locus in space-time. Now, how
can I make it Lorentz invariant? Maybe it exists on the light cone
and uses the holographic principle to project the appearance of slower than
light particles?

-- 
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 04:36, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Pierz,
>
> It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present moment and
> Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they are basic aspects
> of reality.
>
> However, a theory does have to be consistent with observation. So far,
every attempt to make your theory consistent with the millions of
observations that support SR fail, except by saying that "P-time" doesn't
have any measurable effects whatsoever.

Which is also true of the invisible pink unicorns that actually control
reality.

> Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what is
> mathematically describable.
>

Or does reality emerge from physics? Reductionists think so.

Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its
> computed.
>

And we know this because

a. Edgar says so

or perhaps

b. I have a 2000 year old book which says so

?

>
> Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure but not
> all of that logic is mathematical operations.
>
> I believe *all* operations carried out by software can be reduced to a
series of just one logical operation repeated lots of times - I think it's
NAND?

So all computer programmes can be reduced to a series of NAND gates
connected with wires (in principle). The structure of the programme would
therefore be how the NAND gates are connected, and the operations would all
be NANDs. I'm not sure if the wiring can be represented mathematically -
well, actually, yes I am sure, it's just a directed graph. And I assume
NAND is mathematically definable - it follows this truth table iirc

   1  0
--|-
  1   |   0 1
  0   |   1 1

So it looks to be as though a "silicon software progam" may actually be a
mathematical structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic

-- 
You 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 07:32, 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?
>

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..

2014-01-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014/1/4 Edgar L. Owen 

> 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  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, eq

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

2014-01-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 04 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Pierz,
>
> It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present moment and
> Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they are basic aspects
> of reality.
>
> Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what is
> mathematically describable.
>
> Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its
> computed.
>
> Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure but not
> all of that logic is mathematical operations.
>
>
> Logic is a branch of mathematics. Roughly, any other branch is equivalent
> with logic (usually classical, but not always) + the non logical
> supplementary axioms.
>
> For applied mathematics, we usually relate the axiom with facts that we
> infer (or believe in for any reason), assuming some reality (to which the
> axioms and consequence are supposed to be applied).
>
> For example, we all have a good intuition of the structure (N, +, *), and
> we can axiomatize it by classical logic (= a set of axioms and inference
> rules) + the supplementary axioms, in the language of first order logic,
> with variables, with equality,  union {0, s, +, *}:
>
> 0 ≠ s(x)
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
> x+0 = x
> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> x*0=0
> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>
> If you accept Church thesis, computability is a purely mathematical
> notion. Even an arithmetical notion, which means that you can define it in
> that {0, s, +, *} language, and already prove something in that theory.
> In fact that theory is "universal" with respect to computability. It is a
> full complete programming language. It is not complete with respect to
> provability, as no effective theory can be, by Gödel incompleteness.
>
> Not all reality is mathematical, indeed. This can be proved in the weak
> comp theory I work on. The first person notion that we can associate to
> machine escapes in some sense the "mathematical". But that escape itself is
> mathematical. Mathematics cannot prove the existence of something non
> mathematical, but it can prove that comp entails the existence of some
> machine's attribute which are non mathematically definable by the machine,
> yet "real" from the machine's point of view.
>

HERE COMP IS AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF EMERGENCE, BOTH WEAK
AND STRONG.
Opps. Sorry for the caps. But perhaps they were meant to be, one of my
superstitions, regarding at least my higher self.

>
> I propose an argument showing that IF your consciousness is invariant for
> a substitution of your "brain" at some description level, (or any finite 3p
> description you want) by a digital computer, THEN a weak form of
> computationalism is incompatible with a weak form of physicalism. This can
> be used to reduce the mind-body problem to a problem of justifying the
> beliefs in a physical reality by the average universal number/machine. (I
> identify machines with their number indice in some fixed universal
> enumeration).
>
> I am agnostic about the existence of a primitive physical reality, but
> "atheist" with respect to this when working in the computationalist theory.
>
> I have still no idea of what you assume. You seem to assume some physical
> or psychological computational space, which makes not sense to any ideally
> correct introspecting machines relatively to its most probable universal
> implementations and neighbors. The + and * laws above describe already the
> unique possible computational space, by the Church-Turing-Post thesis/law.
> By its big but subtle redundancies, it defines in arithmetic a "matrix" of
> "dreams" (computations seen in the 1p view), and the physical and
> psychological realities develop from there, in a relative indexical way.
> Computationalism can exploit computer science and mathematical logic to
> justify such proposition, even constructively, making the comp theory
> falsifiable (up to some technical nuances).
>
> Many physicists assume (not always consciously) a primitive physical
> reality. Do you? It seems you said that you do not, but then how you define
> term like moment, time, present moment, etc. And from what? It looks like
> you take for granted some hybrid 1p and 3p notions.
> You seem also to assume special relativity? What does that mean if you
> don't assume some physics?
> You talk often about something you call reality. Is not reality exactly
> what we are searching and what we should not taken for granted?
>
> In "science" we start from what we agree on, if only momentarily, and
> proceed. If not, there is no genuine attempt to communicate.
> I hope you will succeed in clarifying your assumptions. I have still no
> idea of your basic ontology. Keep in mind that with Church Thesis, or with
> any known formal definitions, computation is a purely arithmetical notion.
> You might keep in mind also that the arithmetical reality is vastly greater
> than the "computable reality", but both intera

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 
> > 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

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

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



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

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..

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

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

2014-01-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen  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  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  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 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.  P

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 
> > 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

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 
> > 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  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  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 
>> equiva

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

2014-01-04 Thread Pierz

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..

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 03 Jan 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote:

On 4 January 2014 04:31, 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.

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

On 4 January 2014 04:31, 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.
>

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)

-- 
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..

Sorry I got a bit heated and didn't check my grammar, I meant to say:

So are you saying that from now on you will 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) ?




On 4 January 2014 10:39, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 January 2014 03:14, 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.
>>
>> 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.

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

On 4 January 2014 04:06, Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Lliz, Brent and Jason,
>>
>> Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
>> physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins.
>>
>
> 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?
>
> It isn't what *I* was saying.

My point - also made (no doubt better) by Brent - was simply that there is
no reference frame in which Pam's path through space-time can be made
shorter than Sam's, and this is only possible *because of *the
accelerations. The accelerations themselves don't cause the ageing - we
could assume they're 1G and last through the entire trip, and that would
give (more or less) the same result with the clocks, though the
calculations would be a bit harder. If we assume that both Pam and Sam
experience the same acceleration throughout, the equivalence principle
means they age at the same rate due to the acceleration alone. However, and
this is the important point, the acceleration causes Pam's path through
space-time to be bent. For our own convenience we simplify the calculations
by assuming the acceleration period is negligible. (So we could perhaps
assume Pam is in a very, very robust space ship, and stuck inside a Larry
Niven style stasis field for a few minutes of million-G acceleration. Or
maybe she's an AI, or...)

It's just geometry - in all ref frames, Pam's path traces two sides of a
triangle and Sam's traces the third side. You can't have a triangle in
which two sides are shorter than the third side, and the clock discrepancy
is due to the length of the paths through space-time - the shorter path
experiences the longer time (the longer path "trades space for time").

It isn't rocket science!   :-)

-- 
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  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.

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

On 4 January 2014 03:06, Edgar L. Owen  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..

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb

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 > 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
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
wrote:

On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch
wrote:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR
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

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

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb

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 fa

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

2014-01-03 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen  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..

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb


On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen > 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..

2014-01-03 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

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..

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..

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 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.
>

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  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  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  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>>   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  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 Goo

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

2014-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal



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  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..

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 
> > 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  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  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  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 .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this g

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

2014-01-03 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

(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..

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen  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  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  wrote:

>  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  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://g

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 
> > 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  wrote:
>>>
  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch  wrote:

   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  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.

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

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Lliz, Brent and Jason,
>
> Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
> physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins.
>

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  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>>   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  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..