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

2014-01-06 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

Of course there is no reason that can't meet up to compare clocks. No one 
said there was. The point is that they can meet up to compare clocks and 
they always do it in the shared present moment.

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Liz,

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

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



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


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

2014-01-06 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

Yes, of course it is quite hard to understand what NOT meeting in the 
same present moment would be like. That's because it's impossible and 
self-contradictory. That is why they must meet in the same present moment.

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:08:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Liz,

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

 It's quite hard to work out what you mean by this. Are you imagining the 
 twins (or rather, their minds) travelling along their world lines, and 
 hence having to arrange to meet at a particular point? Or rather, you 
 seem to be envisaging that the laws of physics automatically arrange for 
 their minds to meet at the same instant, and that if they didn't, one of 
 them might arrive at the meeting point ahead of the other (and presumably 
 would be faced by a person without a mind - a robot zombie, so to speak).

 Is that the sort of idea you have in mind?



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


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

2014-01-06 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

I'll stick with my definitions, which are quite clear and obvious. The 
present moment is the most basic experience (and therefore the most basic 
verifiable and repeatable empirical observation) of our existence. 

99.999% of all humans on earth understand this clearly and unambiguously, 
with the apparent exception of the members of this list!
:-)

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

 Edgar,

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

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

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

 Jason


 On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Liz,

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

 Edgar

 On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

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

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

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




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


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

2014-01-06 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-06 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:


Jason,

I'll stick with my definitions, which are quite clear and obvious.


Okay then please define for us:

Event
Present
Simultaneous
Clock time
P-time
Proper time
Coordinate time
Space time

If we don't have common definitions we cannot communicate...

The present moment is the most basic experience (and therefore the  
most basic verifiable and repeatable empirical observation) of our  
existence.


Our experience informs us that something exists. It does not inform us  
that other things do not exist.


This is the primary error of presentism: it assumes only that which is  
perceived can exist.





99.999% of all humans on earth understand this clearly and  
unambiguously, with the apparent exception of the members of this  
list!

:-)



That should tell you something.

Jason



Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:20:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
Edgar,

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


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

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


Jason


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

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


Edgar

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

2014-01-06 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:


Brent,

No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at  
particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t  
coordinates are different.


Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times.

A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and  
accordingly distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It  
is not an actual coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate  
time. All things travel equal distances through space time in equal  
coordinate times, but not all things travel equal distances through  
proper time (clock time) in equal coordinate times.  It is when the  
coordinate times are equal that two things can interact.





Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they  
together?


Their coordinate times are equal.


Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their  
differing clocks.


Right, their proper times are different.



When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is  
a kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.


They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate  
time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper  
time.


Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work  
is  unneccessary.


Jason



Edgar



On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 Brent,

 No, the present moment is NOT just a label. It's an empirically  
verifiable observation
 (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on that  
measurement, namely that they

 have different clock times in the same shared present moment.

 There is simply no way around that

 Edgar

Of course it's an observation.  It's an observation that the two  
twins are together at
particular spacetime coordinates.  I have no problem with you  
calling that a present
moment (although everyone else calls it an event).  The problem is  
not that you can't
define a global time at which they meet, it's that you can't define  
a *unique* global
time.  There are infinitely many choices of coordinate time and they  
will all agree that
the twins meet at the same coordinate time - but they will not agree  
as to which other

distant events in the universe are at the same time as the meeting.

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

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


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


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

2014-01-06 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning 
to sound just like another name for Present time.

What's the difference?

Edgar



On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: 
 wrote:

 Brent,

 No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular 
 spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different.


 Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times.

 A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly 
 distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual 
 coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things 
 travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but 
 not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in 
 equal coordinate times.  It is when the coordinate times are equal that two 
 things can interact.

  

 Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together? 


 Their coordinate times are equal.


 Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing 
 clocks.


 Right, their proper times are different.


 When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a 
 kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.


 They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate 
 time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time.

 Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is 
  unneccessary.

 Jason


 Edgar



 On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  Brent, 
  
  No, the present moment is NOT just a label. It's an empirically 
 verifiable observation 
  (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on that measurement, 
 namely that they 
  have different clock times in the same shared present moment. 
  
  There is simply no way around that 
  
  Edgar 

 Of course it's an observation.  It's an observation that the two twins 
 are together at 
 particular spacetime coordinates.  I have no problem with you calling 
 that a present 
 moment (although everyone else calls it an event).  The problem is not 
 that you can't 
 define a global time at which they meet, it's that you can't define a 
 *unique* global 
 time.  There are infinitely many choices of coordinate time and they will 
 all agree that 
 the twins meet at the same coordinate time - but they will not agree as 
 to which other 
 distant events in the universe are at the same time as the meeting. 

 Brent 

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



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


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

2014-01-06 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning
 to sound just like another name for Present time.


Hmmm... A Casio?

Does your theory feature some primitive God clock for present time? Does
it run on batteries, solar, self-winding? Where does it run?

Is the experience of shaking hands proof for its existence?



 What's the difference?


That's what is being asked of you! And you turn the question around.

This is starting to get circular because the different standard uses of
these terms have been shoved down this thread enough, so turning the
question around doesn't advance anything but circularity. PGC


 Edgar



 On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Brent,

 No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at
 particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are
 different.


 Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times.

 A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly
 distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual
 coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things
 travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but
 not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in
 equal coordinate times.  It is when the coordinate times are equal that two
 things can interact.



 Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together?


 Their coordinate times are equal.


 Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing
 clocks.


 Right, their proper times are different.


 When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a
 kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.


 They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate
 time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time.

 Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is
  unneccessary.

 Jason


 Edgar



 On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  Brent,
 
  No, the present moment is NOT just a label. It's an empirically
 verifiable observation
  (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on that measurement,
 namely that they
  have different clock times in the same shared present moment.
 
  There is simply no way around that
 
  Edgar

 Of course it's an observation.  It's an observation that the two twins
 are together at
 particular spacetime coordinates.  I have no problem with you calling
 that a present
 moment (although everyone else calls it an event).  The problem is not
 that you can't
 define a global time at which they meet, it's that you can't define a
 *unique* global
 time.  There are infinitely many choices of coordinate time and they
 will all agree that
 the twins meet at the same coordinate time - but they will not agree as
 to which other
 distant events in the universe are at the same time as the meeting.

 Brent

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

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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


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


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

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 Jason Resch
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none.


Any clock in my rest frame measures my coordinate time.


 It's beginning to sound just like another name for Present time.

 What's the difference?


In relativity, present is not globally defined, but it seems to be in
your theory. Note coordinate time has no meaning either, without defining a
frame of reference.

Jason



 Edgar



 On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Brent,

 No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at
 particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are
 different.


 Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times.

 A clock time is only a representation of how much speed (and accordingly
 distance) had to be given up to travel through space. It is not an actual
 coordinate in space time, for that you use coordinate time. All things
 travel equal distances through space time in equal coordinate times, but
 not all things travel equal distances through proper time (clock time) in
 equal coordinate times.  It is when the coordinate times are equal that two
 things can interact.



 Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together?


 Their coordinate times are equal.


 Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing
 clocks.


 Right, their proper times are different.


 When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a
 kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.


 They are together when their spatial coordinates: x,y,z and coordinate
 time t are the same. You are right this t is not the same as proper time.

 Your conclusion that there must be a global present for this to work is
  unneccessary.

 Jason


 Edgar



 On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  Brent,
 
  No, the present moment is NOT just a label. It's an empirically
 verifiable observation
  (measurement). And not only that both twins agree on that measurement,
 namely that they
  have different clock times in the same shared present moment.
 
  There is simply no way around that
 
  Edgar

 Of course it's an observation.  It's an observation that the two twins
 are together at
 particular spacetime coordinates.  I have no problem with you calling
 that a present
 moment (although everyone else calls it an event).  The problem is not
 that you can't
 define a global time at which they meet, it's that you can't define a
 *unique* global
 time.  There are infinitely many choices of coordinate time and they
 will all agree that
 the twins meet at the same coordinate time - but they will not agree as
 to which other
 distant events in the universe are at the same time as the meeting.

 Brent

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

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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


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


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

2014-01-06 Thread LizR
On 7 January 2014 01:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Brent,

 No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular
 spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different.

 Since the spacetime t coordinates are different WHEN are they together?
 Certainly not in a simultaneous clock time as proved by their differing
 clocks.

 When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a
 kind of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.

 Each point in space-time can be assigned unique coordinates. It's only
when space and time are treated separately that we get apparently
paradoxical situations like clocks running at different rates.

Brent is right. They are meeting at a point in space-time which will has a
unique (x,y,z,t) position.

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


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

2014-01-06 Thread LizR
On 7 January 2014 01:46, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 Yes, of course it is quite hard to understand what NOT meeting in the
 same present moment would be like. That's because it's impossible and
 self-contradictory. That is why they must meet in the same present moment.

 Well, it's your idea, so I expect you to have *some* visualisation of it.
Everyone else is happy to just assign the meeting a position in space-time,
and not tack on extra stuff about some as yet ill-defined present moment.
If you aren't capable of explaining what the sigificance of the present
moment is - for example, what you think the universe would look like if it
didn't exist - then I can't see that it has any value as a concept.

There are only two ways I can see to show that your idea of present time
has some use.

1. Show us the maths. It might make more sense if we can see how to
transform the present moment into a space-time t coordinate, for example,
or just to see how the idea makes sense logically from various axioms.

2. Describe an experiment that would, even if only in theory, let someone
distinguish some consequence of your theory from SR.

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


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

2014-01-06 Thread LizR
On 7 January 2014 01:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Brent,

 No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at particular
 spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t coordinates are different.


They are only very slightly different. I think you're talking about the
clock time of the observers, not the space-time t coordinate.

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


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

2014-01-06 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


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


Jason,

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


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





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


Yes, it is not a clock time.

Bruno




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


Edgar

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



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

Jason,

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



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

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

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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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

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

2014-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


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





On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


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


Pierz,

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

2014-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


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


On 5 January 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Pierz,

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


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


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


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


Or does reality emerge from physics? Reductionists think so.

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


And we know this because

a. Edgar says so

or perhaps

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

?

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


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


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


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

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





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


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


Bruno





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

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


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



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


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

2014-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


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


On 5 January 2014 04:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Gabe,

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

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


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


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



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


Bruno







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

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


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



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


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

2014-01-05 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent,

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

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

Edgar




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

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


 On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: 
 wrote:

   Jason, 

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

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

  Jason  

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

 Brent
  

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


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

2014-01-05 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Bruno,

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

Edgar


On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:07:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


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

 Jason,

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


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



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


 Yes, it is not a clock time.

 Bruno



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

 Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


 So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a 
 common present moment, but trying to figure out 

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

2014-01-05 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Bruno,

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

Same with GR.

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

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:16:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:06, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Jason,

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


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

 Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical property of 
 an observation.  


 Ah! :)

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

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


 This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not 
 only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems 
 to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism 
 and possibilism.


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


 I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what 
 time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you 
 have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I 
 don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is 
 true.


 Presentism is the time form of believing we are special. It is a 
 reification of a relative state, with an abstraction of the relative aspect 
 of the situations.

 I agree that presentism does not make sense in special relativity, still 
 less in GR and in Gödel's rotating universe. But it already doesn't make 
 any sense with computationalism 'if that was not obvious).

 Bruno




 Jason 


 Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

2014-01-05 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch  jasonre...@gmail.com
 jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb  meeke...@verizon.net
 meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of
 the world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the
 same (x y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
 different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
 doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).

 Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be
 stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?

 Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in
 reversed time?

 To store information is to overwrite some information that was already
 there. Think about writing a bit to a hard drive. If you write a 1 to
 position X you can no longer say if position X was formerly a 0 or a 1. So
 setting a bit (storing information) is equivalent to irreversible erasure.


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


 Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens in
 one direction of time.

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


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

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




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


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

Jason

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


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

2014-01-05 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Edgar



On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



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

 Jason,

 PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.

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


 See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams.

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


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


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


 There is no beginning (or end).

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


 In a sense, everything that exists has always existed.


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


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


 When did that happen? 


 When God made 2+2=4.

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


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


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


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


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


 Our brains play many tricks on us.

 What is moving if it's not time?


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


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


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

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


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

 Are you familiar with the idea called compatibalism?


 are you any more than a robot zombie?


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



 Awaiting your answers with interest...


 Me too. :-)

 Jason


 Edgar

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



 On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


 This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not 
 only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems 
 to be incompatible with 

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

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 edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al,

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

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

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

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

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

 Best,
 Edgar



 On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



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

 Jason,

 PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.

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


 See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams.

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


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


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


 There is no beginning (or end).

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


 In a sense, everything that exists has always existed.


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


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


 When did that happen?


 When God made 2+2=4.

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


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


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


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


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


 Our brains play many tricks on us.

 What is moving if it's not time?


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


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


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

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


 That is a big assumption. That free will requires indeterminism. If a die
 roll determined your actions would you be more free? If the 

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

2014-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

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 Bruno Marchal


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..

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


Jason,

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



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

Jason


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


Jason, didn't answer that so I'll chip in. The nature of the event is that 
two
people who followed different paths between two events in spacetime are at 
the
second event. They synchronized their odometers before they left the first event. 
One took the freeway, which was straight to their meeting point.  The other took

some interesting mountain roads and when he arrived at their meeting place 
his
odometer indicated a bigger distance.  But Edgar said that's impossible, 
How could
they both be at the same present place when their odometers don't agree?

Brent

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

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


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


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

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 Edgar L. Owen
Brent,

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

There is simply no way around that

Edgar



On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:08:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Brent


  
  Edgar

  
  

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

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


 On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

   Jason, 

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

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

  Jason  

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

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


  

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


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

2014-01-05 Thread LizR
On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Brent,

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


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

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


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

2014-01-05 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

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

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:00:57 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 January 2014 09:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Brent,

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


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



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


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

2014-01-05 Thread LizR
On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

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

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

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


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

2014-01-05 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

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

Edgar

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Liz,

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

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



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


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

2014-01-05 Thread LizR
On 6 January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

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

 It's quite hard to work out what you mean by this. Are you imagining the
twins (or rather, their minds) travelling along their world lines, and
hence having to arrange to meet at a particular point? Or rather, you
seem to be envisaging that the laws of physics automatically arrange for
their minds to meet at the same instant, and that if they didn't, one of
them might arrive at the meeting point ahead of the other (and presumably
would be faced by a person without a mind - a robot zombie, so to speak).

Is that the sort of idea you have in mind?

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


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

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 edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

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

 Edgar

 On Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:29:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

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

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

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


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


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

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..

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


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


On 4 January 2014 04:31, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)

The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that  
there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space.


Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th  
birthday party


The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp,  
(B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as  
S4bp.  The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific  
manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is  
the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly  
one of A, B, or C is true.


By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in  
some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is  
true in other other reference frames.  It is NOT the case that, in  
principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true.


So there's a direct contradiction.  And P-time falls on the wrong  
side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of  
experimental work in physics.


Very nicely summarised.

Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm 
 ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be  
able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse  
causal order between two events in the same location.  If that pans  
out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the  
appearance of being a local approximation to the truth.


Now that really IS fascinating!

(PS  Bruno may even know one of those people - Ognyan Oreshkov)



I read weak measurements are universal. He worked at ULB, still now,  
I think.  I cannot say I know him personally. He seems to do nice work  
in quantum information science. We have a good quantum information  
group led by Nicolas Cerf.


Bruno






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

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


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



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


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

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 Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow.

Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time 
differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again.

The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent 
gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation.

You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you 
can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR 
gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation 
expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes 
in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an 
effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work...

Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It 
is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects 
to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and 
cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again.

So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time, 
as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still 
relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained 
that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common 
present moment in my post yesterday.

There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative 
motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers 
agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't 
exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently 
to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in 
the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement.

Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of 
measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the 
other hand acceleration/gravitation clock time dilation is an absolute 
permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no 
relative motion.

That should clarify everything but I fear it won't

Edgar

On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jason,

 Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of 
 acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space 
 it  is.


 There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth.

 What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is 
 what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time 
 dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not 
 regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that 
 all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false.

 True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to 
 each other, but they are still different in age because of it.

 Jason
  


 Edgar



 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Jason,

 If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the 
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of 
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

 Edgar



 Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes 
 accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when 
 Pam returned.

 Jason

  




 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 
 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at 
 Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, 
 and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

 If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then 
 there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 
 4 
 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same 
 accelerations.

 Is this what you are saying?

 Jason
  

  It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths 
 as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or 
 equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which 
 actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins 
 meet 
 up again.

 Edgar


 On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

No, in your example when James (why do you keep confusing things by 
changing the names?) whizzes by us at 80%c that is not a 'meeting'. A 
meeting is when there is NO relative motion. In your example for that to 
happen James would have to experience a massive decelleration which would 
change everything and end the relative equal opposte time dilations.

What you neglect to mention and account for is that in your example is that 
James thinks 5 of his years have passed but that we are only 3 years older, 
we think 5 years have passed and that he is only 3 years old. That effect 
is equal and opposite. This is a temporary illusion of measurement, a basic 
inconsistency of clock time frames (it's consistent for spacetime frames of 
course). Nevertheless this clock time inconsistency always occurs only in 
the same Present moment P-time. We simply both do exist when it occurs, we 
must for the occurrence to even happen. We just can't assign a consistent 
clock time to that occurrence while relative motion persists. 

Thus your example is explained away clearly by my post of yesterday and 
does not falsify Present moment P-time.

Please clearly note that even in your example for the comparison to take 
place we and James MUST be in the same present moment for the comparison to 
even take place. It could not take place if we weren't.

The clock times are different, but they are different in the exact same 
present moment P-time. That is the only way we could possibly know they 
were different.

You almost had that concept a couple of days ago, but seem to keep 
confusing yourself trying to inappropriately apply relative motion clock 
time effects to it and losing it.

Edgar


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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


 That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well. Let's 
 say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri travelling at 80% c 
 toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth at this speed, but when we 
 see baby James on board as he whizzes by he is 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow.

 Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time
 differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again.


This contradicts established physics and therefore is falsified
Richard




 The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent
 gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation.


This contradicts physical data that is repeatable and therefore the
hypothesis is falsified.
Richard



 You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you
 can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR
 gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation
 expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes
 in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an
 effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work...

 Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It
 is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects
 to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and
 cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again.

 So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time,
 as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still
 relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained
 that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common
 present moment in my post yesterday.

 There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative
 motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers
 agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't
 exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently
 to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in
 the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement.

 Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of
 measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the
 other hand acceleration/gravitation clock time dilation is an absolute
 permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no
 relative motion.

 That should clarify everything but I fear it won't

 Edgar

 On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
 acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
 it  is.


 There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth.

 What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which
 is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The
 time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does
 not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement
 that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is
 false.

 True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to
 each other, but they are still different in age because of it.

 Jason



 Edgar



 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Jason,

 If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

 Edgar



 Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes
 accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when
 Pam returned.

 Jason






 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote:

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4
 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at
 Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth,
 and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

 If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then
 there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could 
 spend 4
 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same
 accelerations.

 Is this what you are saying?

 Jason


  It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths
 as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or
 equivalent gravitational 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Hi Gabe,

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

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

2. All observers exist in a present moment P-time. In other words at every 
moment of P-time all observers exist and are doing something no matter what 
their relativistic differences.They cannot disappear out of existence and 
out of the present moment.

3. The clock times of all NON-relativistic observers are isomorphically 
mappable. Their clocks all read the same times and progress at the same 
rates through a common shared universal present moment of P-time.

4. The clock times of observers who have NO relative motion but different 
gravitational fields will progress at different rates through the common 
present moment p-time in a one-to-one mappable way which those observers 
all agree upon.

5. The clock times of observers in relative motion will each experience the 
clock times of the others to be slowed. Since relative motion is in fact 
relative, this effect is equal and opposite. In this case it is impossible 
for the observers to agree upon which of their clock times corresponds to 
the clock times of the other observers in the present moment. Nevertheless 
all observers are all always in existence and doing something in the common 
present moment even when it is impossible to assign a mutually agreed clock 
time to it. They know what they are doing in the common present moment but 
they observe what an observer in relative motion was doing in a past 
present moment.

5a. This occurs in the same way we observe what was happening in deep space 
in a present moment billions of years ago, and an observer there observes 
our galaxy as it was in a present moment billions of years ago. This is due 
to the finite speed of light (actually c is the finite speed of time, light 
just travels at the maximum time speed possible). The relative motion equal 
and opposite time dilation effect is pretty much the same effect and also 
due to the finite speed of light=speed of time due to the STc Principle 
that states that everything without exception always travels through 
spacetime at the speed of light (again actually it's the speed of time)

6. When relative motion ceases, once again clock times can be mapped and 
all observers can agree what they are doing in the common present moment.

7. Without a common present moment in which everything exists as a 
background reference, none of this would even be knowable. None of this 
analysis or comparisons could be made. That's the key insight that everyone 
seems to be lacking, that they actually exist in a present moment and that 
present moment is the only possible basis for anything, including the 
differing clock times of relativity, to even take place.

Edgar



On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:23:52 PM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

 Hi Edgar,

 That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out.  
 However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give 
 direct answers to the following logical questions.  A direct (non-evasive) 
 answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of true or false for each 
 question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond 
 that if you think the explanation is helpful.  An answer which excludes 
 picking either true or false for each question independently is 
 evasive.  I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your 
 theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing.  When I 
 get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean 
 and will be able to move on to deeper questions.

 1. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of 
 events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference 
 frame: True or False?

 2. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of 
 events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference 
 frames: True or False?

 3. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of 
 events at the same point in space: True or False?

 -Gabe

 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Gabriel,

 See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this 
 works and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.

 Best,
 Edgar

 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

 (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)

 The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that 
 there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space.

 Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

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 two separated  

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

2014-01-04 Thread 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.

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

Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


 So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a 
 common present moment, but trying to figure out what clock times of Pam and 
 Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a contradiction (as you 
 quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams) because Pam and Sam see clock 
 time differently and do not agree on it. They did agree on their GR 
 relativistic time differences and thus knowing which of their clock times 
 corresponded to the same present moment was easy. With SR, equal and 
 opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock 
 times to the same present moment. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of 
 SR clock time which doesn't falsify a common present moment. A common 
 present moment exists, it just isn't 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


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

 Pierz,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


Bruno,
If arithmetic reality is the 3rd-person static 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/4 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net

 Jason,

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

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

 When they do they are in the same reference frame... that's all there is
to it... the rest is crackpotery.

Quentin


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

 Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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


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

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


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



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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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



 So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a
 common present moment, but trying to figure out what clock times of Pam and
 Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a contradiction (as you
 quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams) because Pam and Sam see clock
 time differently and do not agree on it. They did agree on their GR
 relativistic time differences and thus knowing which of their clock times
 corresponded to the same present moment was easy. With SR, equal and
 opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock
 times to the same present moment. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of
 SR clock time which 

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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 07:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

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


My theory is that there isn't one. Mind you, it isn't really my theory, a
certain Albert Einstein formulated it 108 years ago. So far it's stood up
pretty well.

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Pierz,

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

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

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


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


Or does reality emerge from physics? Reductionists think so.

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


And we know this because

a. Edgar says so

or perhaps

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

?


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 04:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Hi Gabe,

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

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


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

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

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-04 Thread Jason Resch
Edgar,

If I explain something according to my understanding, and you reply that I
am wrong, without explaining how or why, then we are doomed to go in
circles without making any progress.  I am left with no way to further my
understanding, and you, believing me to be wrong, also will not advance in
your understanding.

I do find some personal benefit from this discussion, as I find the best
way to learn is to explain.  But as others have pointed out you are making
in error in asserting that the accumulated relativistic effects of time
dilation disappear or that GR explains all of it. There is little point in
me repeating them if your only response will be that we are all mistaken.

Jason

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Apparently we are not talking about the same scenario here somehow.

 Only acceleration/gravitation effects produce permanent clock time
 differences that both observers agree to when they meet up again.

 The same amount of acceleration, no matter where or when (or an equivalent
 gravitational field), produces the same amount of permanent time dilation.

 You claim that this is an SR effect and a geometric effect. As I said you
 can analyze it that way, but the fact is that the geometry is CAUSED by GR
 gravitational and acceleration effects. As I'm sure you know gravitation
 expresses itself via spacetime geometry. In any world line diagram, changes
 in direction of the lines are CAUSED by accelerations. The geometry is an
 effect of gravitation/acceleration. That is GR at work...

 Or maybe you are confusing the picture by confusing GR and SR effects. It
 is true that accelerations also cause relative motions which add SR effects
 to the GR effects, but all relative motion effects are NON-permanent and
 cease as soon as the relative motion ceases and the twins meet up again.

 So you CANNOT properly analyze this with respect to Present moment P-time,
 as I pointed out in great detail in yesterday's post, WHILE there is still
 relative motion. That leads to a contradiction, and I clearly explained
 that contradiction and why it does not falsify the notion of a common
 present moment in my post yesterday.

 There is always a common Present moment P-time, but (only) during relative
 motion it is impossible to assign a consistent mapping that ALL observers
 agree upon of clock time to P-time. But that doesn't mean P-time doesn't
 exist. It just says that SR clock time effects can't be mapped consistently
 to it because they are different for different relative motion observers in
 the SAME present moment. But that is a temporary illusion of measurement.

 Relative motion equal and opposite clock time dilation is an ILLUSION of
 measurement that disappears as soon as the relative motion stops. On the
 other hand acceleration/gravitation clock time dilation is an absolute
 permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no
 relative motion.

 That should clarify everything but I fear it won't

 Edgar

 On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
 acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
 it  is.


 There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth.

 What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which
 is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The
 time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does
 not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement
 that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is
 false.

 True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to
 each other, but they are still different in age because of it.

 Jason



 Edgar



 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Jason,

 If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

 Edgar



 Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes
 accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when
 Pam returned.

 Jason






 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote:

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4
 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at
 Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 

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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-04 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

Assume block time for a moment. You still haven't answered my question 
about how your theory of the present moment works.

What determines which moment of Caesar's life he thinks is the present 
moment? 

What determines which moment of your life you experience as the present 
moment?

And don't tell me that every instant of your life continues to experience 
itself in its present moment. If so why am I talking to this one? And why 
are you answering back from this one.

How can two clock times that are not simultaneous both experience 
themselves in the same present moment?

And do you understand that if block time is true then the universe must be 
completely deterministic since the future already exists?

And what does already mean in this case? If all moments of time exist what 
time do the exist with reference to? If you have a block time continuum 
stretching from the big bang to the end of the universe what time does this 
exist in?

Block time is clearly a lot more unlikely than my Present time theory. In 
fact the block time fallacy seems to have been invented and believed in by 
those who don't understand the Present moment...

Edgar

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



 On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


 This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not 
 only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems 
 to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism 
 and possibilism.


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


 I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what 
 time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you 
 have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I 
 don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is 
 true.

 Jason 


 Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

2014-01-04 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

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

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

Edgar

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



 On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


 This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not 
 only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems 
 to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism 
 and possibilism.


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


 I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what 
 time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you 
 have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I 
 don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is 
 true.

 Jason 


 Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

 Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past 
 each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is 
 relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both 
 observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are 
 equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see 
 the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the 
 absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time 
 

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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 12:33, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Assume block time for a moment. You still haven't answered my question
 about how your theory of the present moment works.


There is no present moment in block time. Block time explains how someone
*feels* that there is a moving present, however.


 What determines which moment of Caesar's life he thinks is the present
 moment?


He thinks every moment of his life is the present moment. At each moment,
he thinks that is the present moment. As do you and I.


 What determines which moment of your life you experience as the present
 moment?


The state of your brain at that moment, including your memories.


 And don't tell me that every instant of your life *continues* to
 experience itself in its present moment. If so why am I talking to this
 one? And why are you answering back from this one.


These moments are connected via signals travelling at (or less than)
lightspeed. Your use of continues, above, is misleading. It implies the
existence of a second time dimension that simply isn't present in a block
universe.


 How can two clock times that are not simultaneous both experience
 themselves in the same present moment?


Please resubmit your query in the language of the block time we are
assuming for the purposes of this discussion.


 And do you understand that if block time is true then the universe must be
 completely deterministic since the future already exists?


Of course. (Although QM+Everett posits a block *multiverse*.)


 And what does already mean in this case? If all moments of time exist what
 time do the exist with reference to? If you have a block time continuum
 stretching from the big bang to the end of the universe what time does this
 exist in?


You are assuming some other time dimension is needed. But that extra
dimension simply isn't required (according to our best theories to date).
All moments exist with reference to all other moments, although technically
we should not be talking about moments, but locations in space-time
(normally called events for short).


 Block time is clearly a lot more unlikely than my Present time theory. In
 fact the block time fallacy seems to have been invented and believed in by
 those who don't understand the Present moment...


You will have to first demonstrate that you understand the block time
concept before you are in a position to make this statement. From what you
say above you haven't yet grasped it, and hence all your arguments so far
have been directed against straw men.

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.

1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? 
With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe 
have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum 
randomness?

1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the beginning 
of the universe? Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed?

2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, 
fixed and actual aren't they? When did that happen? In what time, at what 
time was this structure created? And since that time had to exist before 
the creation of block time for it to be created within it, just what is 
that 2nd kind of time that is not part of block time?

3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things 
happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? 
What is moving if it's not time?

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

5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will, are you any more 
than a robot zombie?

Awaiting your answers with interest...

Edgar

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



 On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


 This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not 
 only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems 
 to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism 
 and possibilism.


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


 I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what 
 time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you 
 have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I 
 don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is 
 true.

 Jason 


 Edgar

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




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

 Jason,

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

 This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects are 
 absolute in the 

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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 13:48, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.

 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time?
 With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe
 have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum
 randomness?


Everett explains this. But in any case there is no reason why a block
universe can't contain events that appear random to its inhabitants.


 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the beginning
 of the universe? Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed?


They occur when they occur in the block universe. That's why points in
space-time are called events.


 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined,
 fixed and actual aren't they? When did that happen? In what time, at what
 time was this structure created? And since that time had to exist before
 the creation of block time for it to be created within it, just what is
 that 2nd kind of time that is not part of block time?


You are the one assuming that this second time is necessary. SR and GR and
QM don't require this. Even Newtonian theory didn't require this.


 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things
 happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed?
 What is moving if it's not time?


Things move in relation to other things, which is to say they occupy
different relative positions at different time coordinates.


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


Already explained by geometry and worldlines, see several posts by Brent
and Jason.


 5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will, are you any more
 than a robot zombie?


Why do you assume you aren't?

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:


Jason,

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




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


Jason

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


Edgar

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


On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

Jason,

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



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


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


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



This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity  
is not only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but  
relativity seems to be incompatible with the alternatives  
philosophies of time: presentism and possibilism.



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



I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding  
what time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also  
be why you have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with  
relativity. I don't think presentism is a definsible position if  
special relativity is true.


Jason


Edgar

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



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

Jason,

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



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

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

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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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


Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling  
past each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration.  
Velocity is relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute,  
therefore both observers think the other is moving relative to them,  
and both 

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

2014-01-04 Thread Jason Resch



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


Jason,

PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.

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


See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams.

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


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




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


There is no beginning (or end).


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


In a sense, everything that exists has always existed.



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


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



When did that happen?


When God made 2+2=4.


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


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



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


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



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


Our brains play many tricks on us.


What is moving if it's not time?


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



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




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



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


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


Are you familiar with the idea called compatibalism?



are you any more than a robot zombie?


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





Awaiting your answers with interest...



Me too. :-)

Jason



Edgar

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


On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

Jason,

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



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


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


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



This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity  
is not only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but  
relativity seems to be incompatible with the alternatives  
philosophies of time: presentism and possibilism.



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



I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding  
what time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also  
be why you have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with  
relativity. I don't think presentism is a definsible position if  
special relativity is true.


Jason


Edgar

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



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

Jason,

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



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

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

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


In 

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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is moving if it's not time?

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


Jason,

I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the
above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the
famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates
just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of
AHA! So it does move after all!!!

So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one
slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are
connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for
example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram,
as you mentioned) and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there
is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type
explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our
brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion
that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento
demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of
memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via
the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical
structure.

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is moving if it's not time?

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


 Jason,

 I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the
 above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the
 famous phrase about our minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates
 just the sort of mental picture that presentists will leap on with cries of
 AHA! So it does move after all!!!

 So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one
 slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are
 connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics (which could, for
 example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram,
 as you mentioned) and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there
 is a moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type
 explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of our
 brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion
 that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento
 demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of
 memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via
 the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical
 structure.


Liz,

Thanks for making that clarification, which is important.  You interpret my
meaning correctly, it is not that the value is moving up along the y-axis
in the graph of the function y=2x+7, but that for increasing x's, there are
increasing y's.  In the same sense, we can interpret that as one looks at
ascending time-slices, you will see accumulating memories, etc.

Edgar's assertion that we wouldn't feel like we are moving through time
unless time really moves, contradicts computationalism, which his theory
supposedly assumes. (Actually, I see no way at all how successively
creating and and then deleting successive slices in time even could explain
our sensation of moving through time.)

Jason

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

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



On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:



Jason,

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




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


Jason

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


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


Brent

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 15:46, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 Edgar's assertion that we wouldn't feel like we are moving through time
 unless time really moves, contradicts computationalism, which his theory
 supposedly assumes.


I believe about 400 years ago similar arguments were being made to show
that the Earth had to be fixed at the centre of creation.

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

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..

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 1/4/2014 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

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

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

 Really just different directions through spacetime.  Everything always
 moves at proper speed 1 (at least classically).

 What exactly is proper speed in SR?

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



What is moving if it's not time?

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


Jason,

I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one could 
be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our minds 
crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that 
presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!!


So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of 
space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner 
determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing 
the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned)


Not really as a Feynman diagram.  Those are always drawn in momentum space (because 
energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space.


and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present moment. 
In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds are 
generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give 
a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento 
demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which 
effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the 
worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure.


You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the world and the 
fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x y z) doesn't undo the fact 
that there are different events at those different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of 
psychological time - but it doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).


Brent

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


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

On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

What is moving if it's not time?


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

Jason,

I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I  
think the above one could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's  
similar to the famous phrase about our minds crawling up our  
worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture that  
presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after  
all!!!


So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving  
from one slice of space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the  
slices are connected in a manner determined by the laws of physics  
(which could, for example, be demonstrated by viewing the whole  
schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned)


Not really as a Feynman diagram.  Those are always drawn in momentum  
space (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed  
to occupy only a negligible space.


and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a  
moving present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type  
explanation and assume our minds are generated by the activity of  
our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to give a  
powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the  
guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused  
by the persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical  
connection to the past via the arrangement of the worldlines of the  
molecules making up our physical structure.


You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description  
of the world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events  
at the same (x y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different  
events at those different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of  
psychological time - but it doesn't always follow the arrow of  
physics (entropy increase).


Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be  
stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?


Jason





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

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


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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 Not really as a Feynman diagram.  Those are always drawn in momentum space
 (because energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy
 only a negligible space.


I always assumed they were similar to worldlines for fundamental particles.

  and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving
 present moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and
 assume our minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that
 brain activity is sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are
 moving through time. But, as the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is
 an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of memory, which effectively
 gives us a physical connection to the past via the arrangement of the
 worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure.


 You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the
 world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x
 y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
 different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
 doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).

 I am simplifying in an attempt to explain it to Edgar, who clearly has a
problem grasping how any of this works. With all due respect, I'd
appreciate it if my attempts weren't obfuscated. He obviously doesn't get
even the basics of the block universe picture, so piling on lots of extra
details will only confuse matters - or more likely give him an excuse to
just ignore them, like climate change or evolution deniers - look, they
disagree about some minor details, so their entire theory simply must be
wrong!

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


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

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 
 of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference 
 frames: True or False?

 3. According to 

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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the
 world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x
 y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
 different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
 doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).

 Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be
 stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?

 Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in reversed
time? However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent, what did
you mean by this?

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-04 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description  
of the world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events  
at the same (x y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different  
events at those different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of  
psychological time - but it doesn't always follow the arrow of  
physics (entropy increase).


Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be  
stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?


Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in  
reversed time?


To store information is to overwrite some information that was already  
there. Think about writing a bit to a hard drive. If you write a 1 to  
position X you can no longer say if position X was formerly a 0 or a  
1. So setting a bit (storing information) is equivalent to  
irreversible erasure.


Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens  
in one direction of time.


Jason

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


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

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


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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch  jasonre...@gmail.com
 jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb  meeke...@verizon.net
 meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the
 world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x
 y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
 different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
 doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).

 Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be
 stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?

 Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in
 reversed time?

 To store information is to overwrite some information that was already
 there. Think about writing a bit to a hard drive. If you write a 1 to
 position X you can no longer say if position X was formerly a 0 or a 1. So
 setting a bit (storing information) is equivalent to irreversible erasure.


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


 Erasing information requires an entropy increase, which only happens in
 one direction of time.

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

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

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 7:10 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 1/4/2014 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

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

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

Really just different directions through spacetime.  Everything always 
moves at
proper speed 1 (at least classically).

What exactly is proper speed in SR?


Dx/Dtau, where x is the coordinate vector and tau is the proper time (what a clock 
measures) and D is the covariant derivative.  In flat space, i.e. SR, it reduces to the 
ordinary derivative dx/dtau. Notice that in the rest frame it's always (1,0,0,0), i.e. all 
the 'speed' is along the time coordinate.


Brent

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 7:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:



On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



What is moving if it's not time?

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


Jason,

I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I think the above one 
could be misleading. I know what you mean (it's similar to the famous phrase about our 
minds crawling up our worldlines) but it creates just the sort of mental picture 
that presentists will leap on with cries of AHA! So it does move after all!!!


So, let me just put the record straight. Our minds are NOT moving from one slice of 
space-time to the next. Nothing is. However, the slices are connected in a manner 
determined by the laws of physics (which could, for example, be demonstrated by 
viewing the whole schmeer as a Feynman diagram, as you mentioned)


Not really as a Feynman diagram.  Those are always drawn in momentum space (because 
energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a negligible space.


and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving present 
moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume our minds 
are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity is sufficient to 
give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. But, as the guy in 
Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the persistence of 
memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to the past via the 
arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our physical structure.


You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the world and the 
fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x y z) doesn't undo the 
fact that there are different events at those different t-values. Memory provides an 
arrow of psychological time - but it doesn't always follow the arrow of physics 
(entropy increase).


Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be stored in the 
direction of time in which entropy increases?


I think it depends on what you mean by stored.  Computation can be reversible, so you 
can move information around without erasing it or doing something irreversible.  If 
stored necessarily means irreversibly then I think that's right.  I think it's the 
difference between taking the 2nd law as fundamental and taking it as a merely 
statistically probable.  At a sufficiently microscopic level all the physics is CPT invariant.


Brent


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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 7:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:



Not really as a Feynman diagram.  Those are always drawn in momentum space 
(because
energy/momentum is what's conserved) and are assumed to occupy only a 
negligible space.


I always assumed they were similar to worldlines for fundamental particles.


and this is sufficient to give us the illusion that there is a moving 
present
moment. In practice (if we leave aside a comp type explanation and assume 
our
minds are generated by the activity of our brains) then that brain activity 
is
sufficient to give a powerful illusion that we are moving through time. 
But, as
the guy in Memento demonstrates, this is an merely illusion, caused by the
persistence of memory, which effectively gives us a physical connection to 
the past
via the arrangement of the worldlines of the molecules making up our 
physical
structure.


You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the 
world and
the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x y z) 
doesn't undo
the fact that there are different events at those different t-values. Memory
provides an arrow of psychological time - but it doesn't always follow the 
arrow of
physics (entropy increase).

I am simplifying in an attempt to explain it to Edgar, who clearly has a problem 
grasping how any of this works. With all due respect, I'd appreciate it if my attempts 
weren't obfuscated. He obviously doesn't get even the basics of the block universe 
picture, so piling on lots of extra details will only confuse matters - or more likely 
give him an excuse to just ignore them,


I don't think he needs an excuse.  I've given up on him.

Brent

like climate change or evolution deniers - look, they disagree about some minor 
details, so their entire theory simply must be wrong!


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

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


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


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

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 7:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

You don't really have to say it's an illusion. It's a description of the 
world and
the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x y z) 
doesn't undo
the fact that there are different events at those different t-values. Memory
provides an arrow of psychological time - but it doesn't always follow the 
arrow of
physics (entropy increase).

Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be stored 
in the
direction of time in which entropy increases?

Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in reversed time? 
However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent, what did you mean by this?


I meant amnesia can take one back, psychologically, to an earlier time.

Brent

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 20:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/4/2014 7:56 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 You don't really have to say it's an illusion.  It's a description of the
 world and the fact that you put different t-labels on events at the same (x
 y z) doesn't undo the fact that there are different events at those
 different t-values. Memory provides an arrow of psychological time - but it
 doesn't always follow the arrow of physics (entropy increase).

  Doesn't the von neumann-landauer limit imply information can only be
 stored in the direction of time in which entropy increases?

   Surely information being erased is the same as it being stored in
 reversed time? However, mainly I agree - I didn't get that either. Brent,
 what did you mean by this?


 I meant amnesia can take one back, psychologically, to an earlier time.

 I suppose so, yes. Interesting comment, although restricted to very rare
cases ... obviously memory is (somewhat) random access and can take you
back to earlier points in your life. Indeed, if the brain is in some sense
like a digital computer, in theory all the things that can be done to
computers could be done to the brain - memories added as per Total Recall
or removed as per Sunshine of the spotless mind or otherwise messed with
- the brain could be rebooted to an earlier time, as effectively happens in
Memento type cases where you wake up the next day ... over and over
again, while inexplicably (and tragically) ageing.

This is all illustrative of the fact that memory is a mechanism for
attempting to keep track of useful information, which indicates that the
idea of a self moving through time is dependent on the correct operation
of various support and backup systems, an illusion maintained by the brain
because it's useful rather than anything fundamental about the universe.

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


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

2014-01-04 Thread LizR
On 5 January 2014 20:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 I don't think he needs an excuse.  I've given up on him.

 Yes, well, thereby showing more wisdom than most of us ... but in the end
I hope I too will let go of the tar baby and get back to sensible
discussions.

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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Liz,
Edgar has a problem with your gender
as is well known on other lists.


Edgar did not answer any of my questions too. I guess he has enough  
work answering Jason.
I don't know what he means by computational space, nor if anything  
related to computer is used in his approach. His theory is obviously  
(for those who get the UDA at least) non computationalist, but then  
what is his computational space?


Bruno




Richard


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't  
now, because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...


Why does he need the common present anyway? Why can't he put a  
computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be  
quantised) and just have them communicate with their temporal /  
spatial neighbours? Physics being local indicates something like  
this is what occurs in the universe anyway, so





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

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


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

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


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



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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature 
works...

Edgar

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now, 
 because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...

 Why does he *need* the common present anyway? Why can't he put a 
 computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be quantised) and 
 just have them communicate with their temporal / spatial neighbours? 
 Physics being local indicates something like this is what occurs in the 
 universe anyway, so





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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many 
female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to 
mind.

Edgar



On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:

 Liz,
 Edgar has a problem with your gender
 as is well known on other lists.
 Richard


 Oh, right! Thank you for letting me know. In that I won't worry my pretty 
 little head about his wonderful theory.
  

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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Lliz, Brent and Jason,

Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the 
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. It is true the 
effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have 
suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational 
field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically 
produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again.

Edgar


On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:

  On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 Jason,  

  You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space 
 traveller is what causes the twin paradox. 
  

  I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the 
 paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always 
 see a kink in the path Pam takes.
   

  May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)
   

 That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing.  It's like 
 saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its 
 curves.  Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer 
 you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first 
 integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of 
 the curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils down to unstraight 
 lines are longer than straight lines.  All the specific details of 
 acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line 
 (infinite accelerations) is just longer.  Or in spacetime, unstraight 
 worldlines are shorter than straight ones.  To phrase it in terms of 
 acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of 
 acceleration and how that could affect a clock,...

 I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging 
 effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to 
 Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the 
 twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry 
 that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's.



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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes:
one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima
Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a
final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there
would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 4
minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same
accelerations.

Is this what you are saying?

Jason


 It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as
 others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent
 gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually
 physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again.

 Edgar


 On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

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

  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jason,

  You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space
 traveller is what causes the twin paradox.


  I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the
 paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always
 see a kink in the path Pam takes.


  May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)


 That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing.  It's like
 saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its
 curves.  Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer
 you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first
 integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of
 the curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils down to unstraight
 lines are longer than straight lines.  All the specific details of
 acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line
 (infinite accelerations) is just longer.  Or in spacetime, unstraight
 worldlines are shorter than straight ones.  To phrase it in terms of
 acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of
 acceleration and how that could affect a clock,...

 I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging
 effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to
 Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the
 twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry
 that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's.

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


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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the 
same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of 
equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

Edgar




On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: 
 one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima 
 Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a 
 final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

 If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there 
 would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 4 
 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same 
 accelerations.

 Is this what you are saying?

 Jason
  

 It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as 
 others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent 
 gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually 
 physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again.

 Edgar


 On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jason,  

  You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space 
 traveller is what causes the twin paradox. 
  

  I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the 
 paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always 
 see a kink in the path Pam takes.
   

  May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)
   

 That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing.  It's 
 like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of 
 its curves.  Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much 
 longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the 
 first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second 
 integral of the curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils down 
 to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines.  All the specific 
 details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a 
 broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer.  Or in spacetime, 
 unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones.  To phrase it in 
 terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful 
 effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,...

 I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging 
 effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to 
 Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the 
 twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry 
 that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's.

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




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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

 Edgar



Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes
accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when
Pam returned.

Jason






 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4
 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at
 Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth,
 and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

 If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then
 there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 4
 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same
 accelerations.

 Is this what you are saying?

 Jason


 It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as
 others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent
 gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually
 physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again.

 Edgar


 On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

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

  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jason,

  You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space
 traveller is what causes the twin paradox.


  I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the
 paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always
 see a kink in the path Pam takes.


  May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)


 That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing.  It's
 like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of
 its curves.  Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much
 longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the
 first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second
 integral of the curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils down
 to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines.  All the specific
 details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a
 broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer.  Or in spacetime,
 unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones.  To phrase it in
 terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful
 effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,...

 I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging
 effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to
 Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the
 twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry
 that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's.

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

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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


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


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

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 Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of 
acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space 
it  is.

Edgar



On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Jason,

 If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the 
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of 
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

 Edgar



 Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes 
 accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when 
 Pam returned.

 Jason

  




 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 
 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at 
 Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, 
 and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

 If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then 
 there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 4 
 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same 
 accelerations.

 Is this what you are saying?

 Jason
  

  It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as 
 others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent 
 gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually 
 physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up 
 again.

 Edgar


 On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jason,  

  You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space 
 traveller is what causes the twin paradox. 
  

  I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the 
 paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you 
 always 
 see a kink in the path Pam takes.
   

  May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)
   

 That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing.  It's 
 like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because 
 of 
 its curves.  Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much 
 longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the 
 first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second 
 integral of the curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils 
 down 
 to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines.  All the specific 
 details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a 
 broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer.  Or in spacetime, 
 unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones.  To phrase it in 
 terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful 
 effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,...

 I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging 
 effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly 
 to 
 Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way 
 the 
 twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the 
 symmetry 
 that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's.

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

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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




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

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

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 yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
Edgar has a problem with your gender
as is well known on other lists.
Richard

Oh, right! Thank you for letting me know. In that I won't worry my  
pretty little head about his wonderful theory.


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

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


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



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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
 acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
 it  is.


There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth.

What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is
what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time
dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not
regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that
all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false.

True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to each
other, but they are still different in age because of it.

Jason



 Edgar



 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Jason,

 If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

 Edgar



 Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes
 accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when
 Pam returned.

 Jason






 On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

 Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


 In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4
 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at
 Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth,
 and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

 If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then
 there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 4
 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same
 accelerations.

 Is this what you are saying?

 Jason


  It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths
 as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or
 equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which
 actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins 
 meet
 up again.

 Edgar


 On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

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

  On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jason,

  You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space
 traveller is what causes the twin paradox.


  I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the
 paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you 
 always
 see a kink in the path Pam takes.


  May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)


 That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing.  It's
 like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because 
 of
 its curves.  Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much
 longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the
 first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second
 integral of the curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils 
 down
 to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines.  All the specific
 details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a
 broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer.  Or in spacetime,
 unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones.  To phrase it in
 terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful
 effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,...

 I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging
 effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly 
 to
 Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way 
 the
 twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the 
 symmetry
 that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's.

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

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and 

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

2014-01-03 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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 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..

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 edgaro...@att.net 
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:


Jason,

If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the 
same...
Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of 
equivalence) it
could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

Edgar



Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and 
came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned.


Right. Edgar is just wrong.  The same applies to the gravitational field.  The time 
dilatation is purely a geometrical effect.  Lewis Carroll Epstein's little book, 
Relativity Visualized provides a nice explanation and examples.


Brent

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


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

2014-01-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

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




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

 Jason,

  If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
 same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
 equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

  Edgar



  Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes
 accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when
 Pam returned.


 Right. Edgar is just wrong.  The same applies to the gravitational field.
 The time dilatation is purely a geometrical effect.  Lewis Carroll
 Epstein's little book, Relativity Visualized provides a nice explanation
 and examples.


Brent,
I would have thought that the effect of the gravitational field ( equating
acceleration and deceleration to gravity)
is just like its effect on GPS system and to my knowledge is not
geometrical
Richard


 Brent

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


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


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

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 falsify a 

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

Jason,

If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the 
same...
Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of 
equivalence) it
could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.

Edgar



Okay but this is certainly not what happens.  If you spent 4 minutes 
accelerating
and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned.

Jason




On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




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

Lliz, Brent and Jason,

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


In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 
minutes:
one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at 
Proxima
Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, 
and a
final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth.

If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, 
then there
would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all.  Pam could spend 
4
minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same 
accelerations.

Is this what you are saying?

Jason

It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime 
paths as
others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or
equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an 
acceleration) which
actually physically produces the clock time differences when 
the twins
meet up again.

Edgar


On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net 
wrote:

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

On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch 
jason...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR 
liz...@gmail.com wrote:

Jason,

You may be missing the fact that the 
acceleration of
the space traveller is what causes the twin 
paradox.


I would say it is not so much the acceleration that
explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter 
how you
rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path 
Pam takes.


May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-)


That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it 
confusing.
It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than
as-the-crow-flies because of its curves.  Yeah, that's 
true; but
if you want to calculate how much longer you see that 
the rate
of excess distance is proportional to the first 
integral of the
curvature and so the total excess is the second 
integral of the
curvature - which is just the distance.  So it boils 
down to
unstraight lines are longer than straight lines.  All 
the
specific details of acceleration get integrated out so 
it's easy
to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is 
just
longer.  Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are 
shorter than
straight ones.  To phrase it in terms of acceleration 
misleads
people into thinking about the stressful effects of 
acceleration
and how that could affect a clock,...

I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about 
the aging
effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where 
they have to
fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course 

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

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
On 4 January 2014 03:06, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature
 works...

 We don't know how nature works, we only have theories. You have a theory
about how nature works. Why does your theory need a common present moment?
What does the concept achieve? Why is it necessary within the theory?

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


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

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
On 4 January 2014 03:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many
 female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to
 mind.

 Yes she's one of my heroes, along with Lisa Randall and Alice in
Wonderland.

So are you saying that from you will from now on answer questions without
trying to analyse the motives of the person asking them, as you have done
previously, and without adding the patronising comments? (which in any case
just make you look like a complete dork) ?

In that case I will accept your implied apology, and carry on asking
questions.

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


  1   2   3   >