tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post5534870914533299517..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: Linguistic Torture Follow-up and EpiphenomenalismAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-59026335902667057122012-06-28T16:44:30.406-04:002012-06-28T16:44:30.406-04:00That is what my physics profs thought too.
Well, ...That is what my physics profs thought too.<br /><br />Well, there's some nuance that I didn't get to. But, fast things are actually shorter. Accelerating things are in fact slower, it's not appearance or illusion or 'effectively' shorter. Existence is defined by its interaction. <br /><br />I can say for sure that any particular time t, only the things within the past light cone for t meaningfully exist. There is no difference between a spacelike separation and being a unicorn at t.<br /><br />At t+1? I admit I'm still working on that. Thing is, there's no observable difference between a light cone growing and <i>revealing</i> things and things actually being <i>created</i> to populate the light cone. If you could tell the difference, it would mean physicists are wrong about spacelike separations, and, for example, that would mean there's a straightforward way to escape a black hole.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-48734641887809435122012-06-28T16:08:28.169-04:002012-06-28T16:08:28.169-04:00"For me, this is a longer and parochial proof...<i>"For me, this is a longer and parochial proof that existence means interaction. If you can poke it, it can poke you back. If you can't poke it, it cannot exist in any meaningful sense."</i><br /><br />So... only your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone" rel="nofollow">light cone</a> exists in a meaningful sense?Eriknoreply@blogger.com