Jesse, 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you read this?
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I write this, whether or not you know what that is? 3. Do you agree that we can both agree on those two ages? 4. Do you agree that if we were at the same location we would be in the same present moment? 5. Since you believe you are actually alive in every moment of your life, including every past and future moment, why is this particular moment the one you experience yourself in right now? 6. Since you no doubt will claim that every one of your moment selves experiences itself in its present moment, then how do you explain your experience of time flowing from those past moments to the present one? And how do you explain that you have no experience of any of your future moment selves? If the past and present moments are equivalent, why are they not symmetrical in this respect? Again I know this conversation won't go anywhere. It's like trying to make a logical argument to a cult member. And yes, our disagreement is p-time versus block time, because all your arguments are basically based on your conviction there is no such thing as an actual now, an actual present moment in which you exist and are actually a particular age. If you could just accept that all my many arguments and examples would follow logically. Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone in the world except a few members of the block universe cult believe this and act on it successfully every minute of their lives? Why is everyone in the world so deluded except for the block universe cult? One more question: Do you agree that if you lived in a block universe that you would be completely deterministic with no free will at all, and that you would be effectively a pre-programmed zombie? One more: If you flash freeze a brain with the exact state of its neural circuitry intact would that brain be alive or dead? Would it know what its state was? Of course not, knowledge, like everything in the universe depends on change, on process, on the actual flow of time. A block universe is a universe of death, a universe populated entirely by deterministic zombies.. And stop labeling my theory "presentism". It's not a subset of any other theory type. People label things to keep from actually understanding them. Edgar On Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:07:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from > you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow, > that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually > exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring yourself > to agree that you are actually some particular age right now, or were at > any time in the past. If you don't even believe that I can't see any hope > of agreement or having a meaningful discussion. > > > If "right now" is taken to presume there is a UNIQUE now, then you are > simply assuming what you seemed to be trying to prove. On the other hand, > if "right now" is understood to be an "indexical" term (see > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/ ) whose meaning depends on > who's saying it, like "here" or "mine", then of course I have a definite > age "right now". It's just that in this case "I" must be understood to > refer to a particular observer-moment among many, the one having the > experience of saying the sentence. So the fact that I have a definite age > right now does not imply the nonexistence of other Jesse-observer-moments > at different ages who could be just as real as I am, and who would mean > something different by "right now", any more than the sentence "I am here > in Rhode Island" implies the nonexistence of other people at different > locations who would mean something different if they used the word "here". > This is not to say that those other Jesse-observer-moments MUST be just as > real as I am, just that the fact I can say "I have a definite age right > now" doesn't prove anything one way or another about whether other > Jesse-observer-moments with different "nows" exist or not. > > > > > It's quite clear from all the numerous examples I gave that it is possible > to determine a 1:1 correlation between the twin's actual ages in terms of > their own clock time readings (what you call their proper times). > > > > You have never given any *general* rule for determining this, you just > gave two rules for specific cases: 1) the rule saying that if observers are > at rest relative to one another far from gravity, the ages that are > simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are also simultaneous in p-time, > and 2) the rules saying that if observers start at a common location with > clocks synchronized and then travel away from that location inertially, > identical subsequent readings on their clocks will be simultaneous in > p-time (again assuming no gravity). This doesn't tell us how to determine > the 1:1 correlation if one of the observers accelerates during his journey, > or if they are in a gravitational field. What's more, you didn't really > give any rational *justification* for these rules, you just asserted that > they were true. Even a fellow believer in presentism might disagree with > these rules (for example, many presentists believe in a preferred reference > frame, such that only events that were simultaneous in that frame *truly* > happened "at the same time")--do you think they should just take your > pronouncements on faith? > > Finally, there is the small matter that rule 1) leads to a paradox where > two different points on the same person's worldline would end up being > simultaneous in p-time, assuming p-time simultaneity is transitive and that > events at the same point in spacetime in relativity also happen at the same > p-time. Your only response to my bringing up this paradox (the one with > four observers Alice, Bob, Arlene and Bart in > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJ) was > to deny that events at the same point in spacetime happen at the same > p-time, but some of your comments made me think you were misunderstanding > the meaning of "same point in spacetime", so I repeatedly asked you to > address some simple questions that would clarify if you were understanding > the meaning the same way that I do. But you have been incredibly evasive, > continually ignoring my requests to answer my questions on the subject, > even when I narrowed it down to a single question at the end of my last > post to you at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/LF0Xcds_qtQJ > > I would think that if an intellectually honest person is told there is a > contradiction in something they've proposed, they would want to explore the > argument for a contradiction, either showing that it doesn't work or > admitting the contradiction is genuine and revising their position. > Repeatedly ducking the issue doesn't seem to be the response of someone who > is interested in open-minded intellectual exploration, as opposed to paying > attention only to arguments that support their current beliefs. > > > > > This is their 'true actual age' because both twins agree on both actual > ages and how their clock times correlate. They do this not by OBSERVING the > other's age, but by calculating it from knowledge of how relativity works > in both their frames. > > > I don't see how relativity supports either of your premises 1) or 2) > above, and you have never given any attempt to derive them from basic > agreed-upon equations of SR like the time dilation equation or the Lorentz > transformation. > > > > > But since you can't even bring yourself to admit the twins were actually > alive with a particular actual age at every point on their world lines I > see no useful way to continue the discussion. > > > > Again, if "particular actual age" is understood as an indexical term, then > of course I "admit that"--each point on their world-line has a specific > actual age (proper time between that point and their birth), it's just that > there's no basis in relativity for thinking that there must be a *unique* > point on their worldline that represents their age "now" in some universal > present. > > > Thus the basic disagreement is not really about whether p-time is > > ... -- You received this message because you 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.
