Scott wrote: ↑April 6th, 2023, 5:46 pm
Original Post (OP)? If so, which is the first of the 48 numbered statements with which you don't agree?
1] A 0D point is a mathematical construct.
- It is an axiom.
[2] 0D points do not really exist.
- If it is a location, it exists without needing any dimension.
In principle, it does not seem that there are entities without dimensions. As far as we know.
[3] A 1D line is a mathematical construct.
- It is an axiom.
[4] 1D lines do not really exist.
- How is it possible to ensure that there are no one-dimensional entities?
[5] The X-axis and Y-axis are each both mathematical constructs.
- The Cartesian Coordinate System is a tool.
[6] X-axis-ness and Y-axis-ness do not really exist.
Example: If we have three different people draw a 2D graph to represent the location of pool balls on a specific pool table, and then ask each person whether or not the red ball is on the right side of the Y-axis, with such right -side-ness corresponding to positive values for X (i.e. X > 0), each person may give a different answer depending on how they graphed it. In that way, we can say that each X-axis and Y-axis is conceptually relative to the graphing process. The 2D surface of the pool table does actually have an X-axis or a Y-axis, and thus doesn't have real leftness or rightness.
- Okay. Since the Coordinate System is a tool, it can be oriented at will.
[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving him on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.
If this item (#7) is the first with which you disagree, please post reply in both of these other two topics instead of this one: Objective Leftness and Rightness Do Not Exist and Would Flat-Land Four-Eyed Freddy Notice a Difference?
-Okay.
[8] Up-ness and down-ness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless and incoherent to ask if Pluto is above the center of the universe or below the center of the universe. This is because like the X-axis on a pool table, the so-called center line to which it is relative is a fiction. It's not just fictional because the physics happen to be relative, but rather the physics are so relative because it's a fiction. When we ask how far a pool ball is from the X-axis, we are relating it to something that doesn't exist. in this case the X-axis and by extension x-axis-ness.
-Okay.
[9] Vertical-ness and horzional-ness do not really exist.
Example: Between graphs of the same pool table, what is leftness on one graph can be upness on another graph. So it's not just left and right that are relative to each other, but the concept of left-right-ness and up-down-ness are relative with each other. One person could say the ball moved 2 centimeters to the left, but another person would say the same ball moved 2 centimeters up, and yet another graph would indicate it moved 2 centimeters diagonally equally on the X-axis and the Y-axis.
-Okay.
[10] A universal line of vertical-ness does not really exist.
- Okay.
[11] An objective line of vertical-ness does not really exist.
- Okay.
[12] A single relative line of vertical-ness does not really exist.
Clarification: We could say that infinite possible relative lines (plural) of vertical-ness exist, but that is like saying that many possible variations of Santa Claus exist, or that many translations of Alice in Wonderland Exist. We can say that multiple fictions exist, but strictly speaking none of them really exist, in terms of fundamental reality and the fundamental physics. The fact that infinite equally true alternative but contradictory stories exist is a symptom of fiction.
- Okay.
[13] Flat Earth Theory is wrong and debunked.
Clarification: One can still use useful oversimplified models in narrow contexts to get useful results, such as using a flat 2D map on flat paper to go on a hike. In another example, an engineer designing a bridge can just falsely assume that gravity is pulling straight down in all directions for simplicity, even though that's not compatible with a center gravity at the center of a globe.
- Okay.
[14] Newtonian Mechanics are wrong and debunked.
Clarification: One can still use useful oversimplified models in narrow contexts to get useful results. For example, if timing swimmers at the Olympics, the humans holding stop-watches can all do their work using oversimplified false classical mechanics, rather than requiring all humans timing the race to solve Einstein's field equations before a winner can be declared.
-Nope. Newton's mechanics is incomplete. Not wrong.
[15]] Simultaneity is not objective, but rather relative to fictional reference frames.
Example: From one reference frame, A can precede B, and B can precede C; but from another reference frame B may occur first, and then A, and then C.
-Nope. Access to information is not the same as order in the sequence of events.
[16] Objective space does not really exist.
- The space exists. Objective is that which does not depend on the interpretation of an agent. The existence of space does not depend on the interpretation of an agent. The existence of space is not something that depends on the subjective interpretation of an agent.
[17] Objective time does not really exist.
- We call "time" the changes that we distinguish in reality.
We notice those changes after building a mental representation of them.
The representation of those changes and their interpretation is subjective.
Changes in reality are not subjective.
[18] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that left is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from right.
- We call "time" the changes in reality (that happen to space, matter and energy).
[19] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that x-axis-ness is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from y-axis-ness.
Clarification: Time is time only according to and relative to a given fictional graphing or given fictional conceptual reference frame; on a different reference frame the so-called time would then instead be space, or would be a mixture of space and time. Neither the reference frame nor up-ness, down-less, forward-ness, backwards-ness, or time-ness actually exist.
-Similar to my answer to [18].
[20] Forward-ness in space and backward-ness in space do not really exist.
-Okay.
[22] Future-ness and past-ness do not really exist.
-"Past" is the information preserved in the present about states prior to the current status of reality.
"Future" is our prediction about possible changes in reality.
[22] In terms of their non-existence in physical reality, the future and the past are like up and down, left and right, front and back.
-Nope. The “past” is information structures accessible in the present. The "future" is just extrapolation.
[23] There is no objective here.
- If space exists, there is a “Here”. If space does not exist, one must thoroughly explain the nature of reality without resorting to the interaction of elements of nature.
[24] There is no objective now.
- There is only the present. "Objective" is not a useful concept when applied to the present.
[25] There is no objective here-ness.
-Nope. See [23]
[26] There is no objective now-ness.
-Nope. See [23]
[27] There is no objective space-ness.
-Nope. See [23]
[28] There is no objective time-ness.
-Nope. See [17]
[29] For Special and General Reactivity to be valid and work, 4D spacetime cannot be and is not 3Ds of space plus 1D of time, but rather 4 fundamentally equal dimensions of timeless spaceless spacetime.
- The Cartesian Coordinate System with four perpendicular axes is a tool.
In my opinion, it is not possible to maintain that there is a temporal axis when one confronts that possibility against reality.
[30] None of the 4 dimensions of 4D spacetime is fundamentally special or different in any real objective way, meaning there is no fundamental way to objectively categorize 3 of the 4 dimensions together as being more alike than the others.
- See answer in [29].
[31] In classical or Newtonian mechanics it may be a choice or matter of interpretation to use a block universe model instead of a non-block universe model, but in Special Relativity it is no longer a choice or matter of interpretation. Einstein's physics do not work without the relativity of space-ness and time-ness, rendering them as arbitrary as x-axis-ness and y-axis-ness.
- Newtonian mechanics represents a simplified version of gravity. Without deformations due to the presence of mass and energy.
The representation of space and time on Cartesian axes is just a tool.
The idea of the block universe is untenable.
[32] The universe has no X-axis or line of X-axis-ness.
- Okay.
[33] The universe has no axis of time or timeline.
- Okay.
[34] Anything that is a past event relative to one reference frame is a future event to infinite other reference frames.
- The event or the event information?
[35] Anything that is a future event relative to one reference frame is a past event to infinite other reference frames.
The event or the event information?
[36] Your past is someone else's future.
Okay.
[37] Your future is someone else's past.
Okay.
[38] The 4D block universe contains everything that really exists physically in 4D spacetime, regardless of whether it would be considered past or future from any given reference frame.
Clarifications: In other words, roughly speaking, the 4D block universe contains everything you would consider past or future.
-It is not surprising that what is defined in a certain way corresponds to the definition.
[39] The 4D block universe contains the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, all humans who have ever lived, the death of the Sun and everything else that physically exists.
- If the 4D block universe is true, it is true.
[40] The 4D block universe has no real singular presence such that it is impossible to say that certain events (e.g. the death of the Sun or the Big Bang) exist objectively in the past or the future.
- If a universe is mappable in a coordinate system and it represents different areas of that entity, then those events correspond to different areas of that universe. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to talk about a 4D universe.
[41] All so-called events (e.g. the death of the Sun or the Big Bang) all exist together in the block universe, which has no present, no future, and no past, but rather is eternal and timeless.
-See answer in [40].
[42] Objectively speaking, no part of the block universe is the past part and no part of it is the future part.
- This succinctly expresses that the idea of a U-Block is not sensible.
Either the U-block is something with distinguishable parts or it contains no distinguishable parts.
Given the case that the U-Block has no distinguishable parts, one must explain reality using that conceptual framework.
[43] There is no animated 'present' acting as a moving border between the past and the future because the past and the future do not objectively exist in the same way that right and left do not objectively exist.
-Okay.
[44] Assuming there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe, without objective time, change is incompatible with determinism.
Example: If the Big Bang and the death of the Sun are changing or could change, then determinism is not true.
- Here I seem to find a conceptual error. If the Big Bang and the death of the sun do not represent changes in an entity, then they must be the same thing. But if they are the same thing, why are they different?
I don't understand the reference to determinism in this context.
[45] Causal determinism is true, at least in regard to everything that can be scientifically said to physically exist within the 4D block universe of timeless spacetime.
Clarification: If there are things transcendental to the unchanging 4D block universe (e.g. transcendental consciousnesses, plural), then those transcendental things could all each have their own changing relationship with the unchanged block universe, and the mechanics of those transcendental interactions could be deterministic or not. Because it's transcendental, it would presumably be scientifically immeasurable and physically unobservable, at least in any standard third-party way that doesn't result in a form of the Observer Problem.
- Consciousness is not something transcendent. Something external to the universe or something with access to something external to the universe.
[46] Without something transcendental to the 4D physical world and everything contained within the entirety of 4D spacetime, there is no change, and thus any alleged change is not real.
- I understand. But that position is not derived from reality. You should seriously justify why something external to the universe accesses it from a certain point. Because that point moves to the rhythm of time. What is its nature. Etc.
In my opinion this only reflects the hole in which you put yourself for considering the possibility of the U-Block to exist.
[47] The 4D block universe that contains everything in 4D spacetime is timeless, unchanging, and eternal.
- If the 4D block universe is true, it is true.
[48] All humans including Oscar Wilde and Britney Spears timelessly eternally live in the unchanging 4D block universe of timeless 4D spacetime.
- Nope. Oscar Wilde is a set of information structures conserved in the present.
Britnett Spears is a human being.
