Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

You are talking about absolute simultaneity. If two events happen simultaneously in one frame of reference but not in another, then both are correct.

The past and future may or may not be real; but the present demonstrably is not.

The present is not real?!

Not in the sense used by untermensche in his concept of a static snapshot of the universe, no, it is not.

 

[untermensche]

You haven't demonstrated what you claim to demonstrate.

Relativity of simultaneity means two people can look at the same events and see them differently.

But they are looking at the same events. It is not different events.

One present seen differently.

No. As many presents as there are points of view; many of them incompatible with each other.

No. There is no logic that takes us from saying two people see the same events differently to there is no present.

If I walk around a building and see it differently that isn't evidence there is no present. To think so would be bizarre.

There really is no such thing as 'the' present; every point of view has a different observation of the sequence in which things occur. Person A can remember something person B is experiencing, while for person C none of it has happened yet.

This is a claim that you have no argument to support.

Again. Saying that 2 people see the same events differently is not a logical proof they are seeing different events or a different present.

If I take a frozen snapshot of the universe and look at it from outside of it. There is only one present.

Just because the same present can be seen differently depending on your speed does not mean there are 2 presents. There is no logic to connect the two ideas.

 

[untermensche]

You are talking about absolute simultaneity. If two events happen simultaneously in one frame of reference but not in another, then both are correct.



The present is not real?!

Not in the sense used by untermensche in his concept of a static snapshot of the universe, no, it is not.

Yes. You understand the concept.

It isn't a concept that anybody has shown conflicts with anything known about the universe.

The only thing it conflicts with is people's faith that there is no present.

 

[ryan]

So what is the difference between A before B and B after A?

Nothing.
Saying event A occurred before event B is the same as saying event B occurred after evant A.

But either is more clear than saying that "The present passed from event A to event B."

Well nobody would let me say that time passes, so I had to use "present" time.

 

[bilby]

No. As many presents as there are points of view; many of them incompatible with each other.

No. There is no logic that takes us from saying two people see the same events differently to there is no present.

If I walk around a building and see it differently that isn't evidence there is no present. To think so would be bizarre.

There really is no such thing as 'the' present; every point of view has a different observation of the sequence in which things occur. Person A can remember something person B is experiencing, while for person C none of it has happened yet.

This is a claim that you have no argument to support.

Again. Saying that 2 people see the same events differently is not a logical proof they are seeing different events or a different present.

If I take a frozen snapshot of the universe and look at it from outside of it. There is only one present.

Just because the same present can be seen differently depending on your speed does not mean there are 2 presents. There is no logic to connect the two ideas.

I am not saying that people see the same present differently; I am saying that the sequence of events changes dependent on how observers move, and that as a result it is not rational to suggest that there is such a thing as 'the' present.

Two people can observe the same events occurring in a different order. This fact renders the idea of a universal 'present' meaningless.

I understand that you don't like it (or perhaps don't understand it), but that has no bearing on its status as fact.

 

[ryan]

You are talking about absolute simultaneity. If two events happen simultaneously in one frame of reference but not in another, then both are correct.

The present is not real?!

Not in the sense used by untermensche in his concept of a static snapshot of the universe, no, it is not.

Oh, sorry, it's just that your post seemed like a direct response to my post. You even used "A" and "B" like I did.

 

[bilby]

Not in the sense used by untermensche in his concept of a static snapshot of the universe, no, it is not.

Yes. You understand the concept.

It isn't a concept that anybody has shown conflicts with anything known about the universe.

Apart from relativity.

The only thing it conflicts with is people's faith that there is no present.

And relativity.

 

[untermensche]

I am not saying that people see the same present differently; I am saying that the sequence of events changes dependent on how observers move....

That is the same thing.

The sequence of the events appear differently to 2 different observers.

The same events appear differently to 2 different observers.

You're saying the same thing.

2 people standing at different places see the same building differently. That is not evidence the building is moving.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nothing.
Saying event A occurred before event B is the same as saying event B occurred after evant A.

But either is more clear than saying that "The present passed from event A to event B."

Well nobody would let me say that time passes, so I had to use "present" time.

No problem if you just do away with "pass".

What has already occurred is in the past. What hasn't yet occurred is in the future. What is in the past is over. We don't have to worry about it "passing".

Using "passing" is what is fucked up with Unter's supposed "logic". He somehow thinks we have to wait for what has already occurred so is in the past to "pass" our present.

 

[untermensche]

Yes. You understand the concept.

It isn't a concept that anybody has shown conflicts with anything known about the universe.

Apart from relativity.

Where does relativity say you can't imagine all motion and effect of energy to freeze as in a snapshot?

I didn't know relativity limited the imagination.

 

[bilby]

I am not saying that people see the same present differently; I am saying that the sequence of events changes dependent on how observers move....

That is the same thing.

The sequence of the events appear differently to 2 different observers.

The same events appear differently to 2 different observers.

You're saying the same thing.

No, I am not. The use of different words might tip you off to that.

2 people standing at different places see the same building differently. That is not evidence the building is moving.

OK, so if observer 1 sees event A, followed by B, and then by C; and observer 2 sees event B followed by C and then by A, when you take your snapshot, what event is in the present?

You claim that the present becomes the past; So if observer 1 takes a snapshot at B, B is the present, and A, which has been the present, is now in the past - but observer 2 will tell you that A hasn't yet happened. So when was A the present moment? Did it already happen, or has it not happened yet?

Your analogy is flawed; relativity is not. If you don't like it, take it up with Einstein.

 

[bilby]

Apart from relativity.

Where does relativity say you can't imagine all motion and effect of energy to freeze as in a snapshot?

I didn't know relativity limited the imagination.

It tells you that you can only do that in a specified reference frame; and that no reference frame is preferred. So you can do it, but what you would observe is a local, not a universal, truth.

You can imagine anything you want; If you imagine a universal present, relativity simply tells you that what you are imagining cannot possibly be an accurate picture of reality.

 

[untermensche]

Where does relativity say you can't imagine all motion and effect of energy to freeze as in a snapshot?

I didn't know relativity limited the imagination.

It tells you that you can only do that in a specified reference frame; and that no reference frame is preferred. So you can do it, but what you would observe is a local, not a universal, truth.

You can imagine anything you want; If you imagine a universal present, relativity simply tells you that what you are imagining cannot possibly be an accurate picture of reality.

The reference frame is one beyond the universe.

So it doesn't matter is the same universe can appear differently to 2 different observers, it is the same frozen universe. The same universal present.

 

[untermensche]

That is the same thing.

The sequence of the events appear differently to 2 different observers.

The same events appear differently to 2 different observers.

You're saying the same thing.

No, I am not. The use of different words might tip you off to that.

Yes you are.

You are only saying that 2 observers see the same events differently.

You haven't said anything else.

OK, so if observer 1 sees event A, followed by B, and then by C; and observer 2 sees event B followed by C and then by A, when you take your snapshot, what event is in the present?

Observers of the frozen universe would be external to it.

They wouldn't see events. They would see an arrangement.

That arrangement is the universal present.

 

[bilby]

It tells you that you can only do that in a specified reference frame; and that no reference frame is preferred. So you can do it, but what you would observe is a local, not a universal, truth.

You can imagine anything you want; If you imagine a universal present, relativity simply tells you that what you are imagining cannot possibly be an accurate picture of reality.

The reference frame is one beyond the universe.

So it doesn't matter is the same universe can appear differently to 2 different observers, it is the same frozen universe. The same universal present.

I can't accept that, because I don't believe in Gods. There are no preferred reference frames. Inventing a mythical land beyond the universe doesn't change that; nor does it garner any respect from an atheist.

 

[untermensche]

The reference frame is one beyond the universe.

So it doesn't matter is the same universe can appear differently to 2 different observers, it is the same frozen universe. The same universal present.

I can't accept that, because I don't believe in Gods. There are no preferred reference frames. Inventing a mythical land beyond the universe doesn't change that; nor does it garner any respect from an atheist.

This is based on what Lawrence Krauss calls the "eternal multiverse".

That is where the snapshot is observed from. Not from heaven.

 

[bilby]

No, I am not. The use of different words might tip you off to that.

Yes you are.

You are only saying that 2 observers see the same events differently.

You haven't said anything else.

No, I am not saying two observers see the same events 'differently'; I am specifically saying that they see them 'in a different sequence'. You appear to be ignoring that bit, because it fucks up your preconceptions. But you shouldn't ignore it, because it is very important.

OK, so if observer 1 sees event A, followed by B, and then by C; and observer 2 sees event B followed by C and then by A, when you take your snapshot, what event is in the present?

Observers of the frozen universe would be external to it.

They wouldn't see events. They would see an arrangement.

That arrangement is the universal present.

The very idea of something external to the universe is incoherent; but even if you invent such a thing, you are simply nominating a preferred reference frame; and Einstein says that is not a coherent thing to do.

 

[untermensche]

Yes you are.

You are only saying that 2 observers see the same events differently.

You haven't said anything else.

No, I am not saying two observers see the same events 'differently'; I am specifically saying that they see them 'in a different sequence'. You appear to be ignoring that bit, because it fucks up your preconceptions. But you shouldn't ignore it, because it is very important.

If you see the sequence differently have you not seen the same events differently?

How do you see the sequence differently and not see the events differently?

The very idea of something external to the universe is incoherent; but even if you invent such a thing, you are simply nominating a preferred reference frame; and Einstein says that is not a coherent thing to do.

Einstein said you can't have a preferred reference frame IN the universe. The multiverse is external to the universe, in conception, and I didn't conceive of it.

 

[bilby]

No, I am not saying two observers see the same events 'differently'; I am specifically saying that they see them 'in a different sequence'. You appear to be ignoring that bit, because it fucks up your preconceptions. But you shouldn't ignore it, because it is very important.

If you see the sequence differently have you not seen the same events differently?

How do you see the sequence differently and not see the events differently?

You don't see the same sequence differently; you see a DIFFERENT SEQUENCE.

If you look at my car, and someone else looks at my next door neighbour's car, you are not looking at the same car differently; you are each looking at a different car.

If you look at observer 1's sequence of events, and then you look at observer 2's sequence of events, you are looking at different sequences of events - different time lines, in which the concept of 'the present' is different for the two observers. They are not both looking at the same present from different view points; In observer1's present, event B is happening, and A has already happened; in observer 2's present, event C is happening, and A is yet to happen.

The very idea of something external to the universe is incoherent; but even if you invent such a thing, you are simply nominating a preferred reference frame; and Einstein says that is not a coherent thing to do.

Einstein said you can't have a preferred reference frame IN the universe. The multiverse is external to the universe, in conception, and I didn't conceive of it.

Nor do you understand it, if you think it can be used as a universal reference frame from which to observe the universe.

 

[untermensche]

If you see the sequence differently have you not seen the same events differently?

How do you see the sequence differently and not see the events differently?

You don't see the same sequence differently; you see a DIFFERENT SEQUENCE.

You see the same events differently. You see a DIFFERENT SEQUENCE.

Two car crashes are two car crashes. These are the same events.

But they are seen differently depending on your frame of reference.

If you look at my car, and someone else looks at my next door neighbour's car, you are not looking at the same car differently; you are each looking at a different car.

This is not the case of two different cars. It is a case of the same events seen in a different order.

The same events seen differently.

Nor do you understand it, if you think it can be used as a universal reference frame from which to observe the universe.

It is an external reference frame. That is all that is important.

It doesn't matter at all if the same frozen universe is seen differently by different observers in that external reference frame. It still represents a single arrangement. A single present moment.