Brent,
A more general approach than Wheeler's is to understand that all
participants in every event, even down to the particle level, are
effectively observers of that event.
I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every
connected network of events essentially
On 12/27/2013 10:06 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every connected
network of events essentially functions as a mini-reality accessible only to event
participants of their networks, and it is only through networks connecting
Brent,
That's not what I say but roughly true. However the classical world is
mostly a construct of internal mental models of the external computational
reality rather than being an actual external physical world.
When we study how minds simulate and model external reality this becomes
clear
Interesting, at a brief skim they appear to be suggesting that phenomena
like quantum erasure involve rewriting the past, or words to that
effect.or have I got that wrong?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 26 December 2013 20:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There are other viewpoints though. QM makes for some interesting
questions about time as raised in this speculative paper by a couple of top
experimentalists:
2013/12/26 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 26 December 2013 20:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There are other viewpoints though. QM makes for some interesting
questions about time as raised in this speculative paper by a couple of top
experimentalists:
Brent,
Yes, the reuniting is an event, an event like every event that occurs in
the present moment.
Think about it this way. Assume every observer in the entire universe
travels relativistically to meet up at a common location. There will be
billions of different clock time readings on their
On 12/26/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
Interesting, at a brief skim they appear to be suggesting that phenomena like quantum
erasure involve rewriting the past, or words to that effect.or have I got that wrong?
Yeah, it's sort of like Wheeler's No event is a real event until it's an observed
On 12/26/2013 5:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Yes, the reuniting is an event, an event like every event that occurs in the
present moment.
Think about it this way. Assume every observer in the entire universe travels
relativistically to meet up at a common location. There will be
On 27 December 2013 08:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/26/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote:
Interesting, at a brief skim they appear to be suggesting that phenomena
like quantum erasure involve rewriting the past, or words to that
effect.or have I got that wrong?
Yeah, it's
On 12/24/2013 5:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz states that Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a common
present moment. but this is incorrect.
Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I explain how this
works. It is well known, though little
On 25 December 2013 14:26, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
So exactly contrary to your statement, it is precisely special relativity,
properly understood, that puts both the arrow of time and a common present
moment on a firm physical basis.
OK. I was just going by all the physics
Brent,
I agree up until your last sentence. There you ignore the fact that the
different orders of events are seen by both observers in the exact same
common present moment. This can only be understood when two kinds of time
are accepted and the difference between clock time (different for
The notion that everything travels through spacetime at the speed of
light was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a
rather odd definition of speed through spacetime, one which I haven't
seen any other physicists make use of. See my post #3 on the thread at
Jesse,
Good physics based post. Yes, Brian Greene mentions everything travels
through spacetime at the speed of light in both his books but only in
passing as a curiosity without recognizing its profound significance.
Thanks for your link to your physicsforums post. The meaning of 'speed
Hi Edgar, thanks for the reply. But do you agree or disagree with the point
that since different frames are considered equally valid and they define
simultaneity differently, either there would have to be no experimental
means to determine which frame's definition of simultaneity is correct (so
Hi Jesse,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply again.
Your notion of 'simultaneity' in your first paragraph is clock time
simultaneity (same clock time readings), not the common actual present
moment of P-time. Big difference. So it doesn't apply to my points.
Coordinate time is clock time,
On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that everything travels through spacetime at the speed of
light was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a
rather odd definition of speed through spacetime, one which I haven't
seen any other
On 12/25/2013 12:59 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Coordinate time is clock time, proper time is P-time, at least as I interpret it. Note
the important, crucial, point that clocks measure only clock time.
?? Clock is proper-time along the worldline of the clock.
P-time can't be measured by clocks
On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
mailto:laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that everything travels through spacetime at the speed of
light was
popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a rather odd
On 12/25/2013 11:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
The problem with all your other comments (which I agree with as I scanned them) is they
refer to clock time, not the P-time of the present moment. Of course clock time t values
vary in a number of ways, but the key insight is they always vary in the
On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that everything travels through spacetime at the speed of
light was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only
On 12/25/2013 9:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
mailto:laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that
On 26 December 2013 19:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/25/2013 9:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/25/2013 2:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 07:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that
On 12/25/2013 10:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 19:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/25/2013 9:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 December 2013 15:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/25/2013
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz states that Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as
a common present moment. but this is incorrect.
Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I
explain how this works. It is
26 matches
Mail list logo
