On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesse, > > "velocity vector" means movement through time as I'm sure you recall from > elementary physics. > If by "movement through time" you mean something inherently incompatible with block time, then no. Velocity just means that position varies with time, which need not be thought of any differently from the fact that if you have a curved line on a coordinate grid, the y-coordinate can vary with the x-coordinate (like a parabola where the value of the y-coordinate is always proportional to the square of the value of the x-coordinate). > You act as if actual physical motion is something no one except Epstein > (and poor misguided Edgar) believe it. > Most physicists (including Einstein) don't define "actual physical motion" to be an inherently presentist concept that's incompatible with block time, motion for them means nothing more than that the position coordinate changes with time. > > And you've never responded to my noting that the flow of time is an actual > observable fact, an empirical observation of the same status as all the > other empirical observations science is anchored in. > The fact that various physical parameters vary with time is an actual observable fact, but as I said above that's not incompatible with block time. If by "actual observable fact" you are referring to some quantitative measurements, please specify what measurements you're talking about. If you're talking more about the qualitative nature of our conscious experiences of motion and change, I addressed this in the last two paragraphs of my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/jUPOnqbP6hwJ Jesse > > Edgar > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:10:40 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jesse, >>> >>> Yes, that is what I'm saying. >>> >>> But how you don't understand that actively traveling through spacetime >>> at c doesn't imply everything is at one and only one point in time is >>> beyond me. It's a trivial inference. >>> >> >> Simple, I don't find that wording to be a good or intuitive description >> of the fact that the norm of the 4-velocity vector is always c, and most >> physicists would probably agree since I don't know of anyone aside from >> Epstein and Greene who describes it in those words (and Greene probably >> just adopted it from Epstein without thinking too much about the intuitions >> it'd tend to give people, since elsewhere Greene seems to argue for a block >> time view). Does your argument depend entirely on accepting that particular >> verbal description of a mathematical fact, or do you have an argument which >> depends only on the mathematical fact itself? >> >> Jesse >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
