md65536

owl uses his own made-up definitions for presentism, time, psychologist etc. If you're discussing these topics according to his definitions, you should know that they have very limited correlation with reality.

I disagree with this. The phrase "it's always now" implies a moment referred to by "it", which is implicitly "now". "Now is always now" is a tautology, as long as "now" is defined. Further, "now" or "the present" is defined relative to an observer and a specific observation (ie. a point in spacetime and a frame of reference for the observer whose lightcone's apex is at that point). Anywhere that an observer can make a statement about the present (referring to the spacetime location of the observer), the present is defined. So it's a tautology according to any observer. Experimentally, how could you ever find a counterexample??? On the other hand... It can easily be made not a tautology, but to do so you must speak of two different possible "presents"... ie where "it" refers to something other than "now", for example to different spacetime points or frames of reference. "Tomorrow is now" or "Tomorrow will soon be now" is not a tautology (tomorrow's present can be observed in different ways depending on the observer's frame of reference and won't be the same as today's present). "Your present is my present" is not a tautology. But I think these cases are excluded by the implicit meaning of "the present" (which is that it refers to some single moment or Cauchy surface which is not universally experienced). Technically, a person does not have one single spacetime location and frame of reference, and so just as "the present" isn't the same for different people, it's not the same throughout a person. So while we can define a "present" for a person by a single point, that present is only approximate for the whole person.

Who said that presentism implies a universal present? Isn't there some middle ground, where we can say that the universe as a whole cannot be described with presentism, because there is no one "knife edge" surface separating the past and the present. But any single observer can describe the universe observationally using presentism, because they have defined (or can choose?) such a surface? I don't think it's a problem that presentism may or may not be compatible with reality depending on what you're talking about, because a "universal" description of time (as part of a 4d manifold or whatever) is very different from time as defined by an observer or observational point of view? And isn't "the present time" only defined relative to a specific frame of reference?

Yes, I think you must be correct. The best reference I could find so far is here: http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/47 If you skip to 92:23 (and watch to the end), Feynman answers a few questions concerning time. He mentions some topics that are probably very useful to an understanding of time, and related to the questions of this thread, but I don't see any unambiguous answers that couldn't be interpreted either way. Note: 92:23 specifically addresses causality.

It doesn't become correct; either it was correct the first time, or not. Perhaps if you explained what you mean when you're speaking of "the flow of time" then it might be possible to figure out if those ideas are correct or not. Better yet, by explaining it as precisely as you can, you should be able to better understand your own ideas, and to tell if they are even meaningful and/or make sense. Then, if "flow" is the best word for your idea, you could explain its meaning. If not, you might find more meaningful words to express your ideas. The ability to reason about things that you don't fully understand is a sign of an open mind. Avoiding understanding by hiding it behind possibly meaningless words, whether they're your words or others, is not. I don't think pedantry is a bad thing in a conversation like this. At best everyone would be using words that have the same meaning to everyone. More common, not only are people using words that mean different things to different people, but often don't even mean anything useful to the person using them. An "exchange of ideas" is good. It's not as useful if nobody knows what anyone is talking about.

This is all normal Windows behavior. It doesn't sound like a virus to me, but if you want to remove it, popular Linux distributions give you the option of removing Windows or leaving it and installing Linux with dual boot options.

Thanks! I thought of it trying to find a situation in which "small bang"'s similar puzzle could ever be not answered with "yes". The trick is probably in remembering some other riddle that involved the words themselves and not the meaning of the words, and then your brain like switches modes or something.

You were on the right track here. I am! But it's not a specific answer to the riddle because it doesn't agree with the statement "But I'm not in a box, nor a house.", when interpreting each of the statements in a consistent way.

The phrase should be a proper Feynman quote! I was referring to how interactions on Feynman diagrams can be pointed backward through time. But yes, I think we're making the same point. At a quantum level, the behavior of things in time is described mathematically using the sums of probabilities of all possibilities (or whatever it is). At a macroscopic level it can be described the same, though you'll find that the probability of certain possibilities approach 1 and others approach 0, so you can also describe the behavior of macroscopic things in time with simplified math and deterministic equations. There are different mathematical representations of time, I suppose... but then, how can you describe "what time is" using say only one representation and ignoring another? Ie describing time based on large bodies moving through space relative to each other, while ignoring quantum interactions? I think that any "true" metaphysical understanding of time would have to correspond well with all "valid" mathematical representations of time. As that pertains to the topic of this thread, my point is, I suppose, that assumptions about time that are made based on a limited domain, may only apply to that limited domain, and don't necessarily tell you anything about time across its entire domain.

So close! I'm not t, I'm not o md65536 is not michel123456 (except a little at first, and a little at the end) It must be true that you are you, And t is t and o is o But what am I?

Yes, but what are you referring to when you say "we"? A subatomic particle can behave as if it's moving backward or forward through time (if citation needed I'll try to find where Feynman explains this in his New Zealand lecture series... I can't remember exactly how he put it). We as humans can't do this, but then again the particles that make us up can't move arbitrarily through spatial dimensions either. They get dragged along with the rest of our bodies. So I'd say we move and perceive movement through both space and time not arbitrarily but as a coherent blob that places a lot of restrictions on us. These restrictions aren't necessarily fundamental aspects of space and time. This doesn't say much about the nature of time. It's just an idea that we shouldn't make assumptions about how time and space work based on how we humanly perceive them to work.

I don't think that's acceptable. If nothing's in a box in a house, how can it be true that "nothing is not in a box"? I'm not nothing! But I'm found in nothing. I'm in the absence of everything. I'm in a bottle of gin, But not a glass of water,

I don't see how it is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) A word of caution: No one's right all the time and worse, certain members like to use their own definitions of whatever words and concepts they choose, without bothering to tell anyone that they're using their personal definitions. I don't think the accepted use of presentism includes that "the present is universal and identical for all observers". As far as I know, presentism is not inherently incompatible with relativity. However, I believe that an instantaneous universal "now" is incompatible with relativity. Relativity of simultaneity implies that what is simultaneous for one won't be simultaneous for all. Thus, anything simultaneous with a hypothetical "universal now" according to one observer will not be simultaneous for all observers. If "now" includes events that aren't simultaneous, then it contradicts the "time is not extended" meaning of presentism.

Not what I had in mind. I'm not in a box, and I'm not in a house, but I'm in the two combined. I'm in either, I'm in neither, I'm in both at once you'll find.

I don't know. I'm a little slow when it comes to the peculiarities of riddle logic. I was referring to the original, unchanged definitions of "box" or "house" that get changed if you open them, as in: If the goal of a riddle is to find the most convoluted way to answer the question (which could be acceptable, since the riddle didn't specify what "you" are (human? refrigerator?)), this would be a good way of arriving at the same appallingly simple answer of "yes".

This one is phrased differently for a different answer. I am in a box in a house. But I'm not in a box, nor a house. What am I?

I'm trying to generalize the argument for why you're "not in the house". Yes, it changes the question being asked, but you've handled the different cases that I've presented, and I won't try to claim that the answers to the different cases apply to the main question. Sure! The answer of "Yes, both," is just too simple, straightforward, and obvious to possibly be true. Not if the door's open I didn't. No, I'm just being silly now for fun. But let's recap!!! When using "in" as a preposition to describe the noun in the locative case, [only] the most immediate location is implied (so you can be in a box, but not in the house that the box is in), unless the functional sense of being in something is not disrupted (so you can be in both clothing, and in the house that the clothing is in, because you can still use the bathroom), where the functional sense of something is defined by allowing at least one interaction with it, but only "normal interactions" (so you can be in bed and be in the house, even though you can't interact with the bathroom). For example, we might witness the following scene: A mother yells at her kids: "Are you playing in that box in the living room again?! Get back in the house! It's not normal for kids to play in a box!" The father replies: "It's alright honey, it's not a box. They're leaving it open."

Excellent. A process of refinement! If you are in a chair in the house you are in the house. If you are tied to the chair, hands and legs bound tightly, and let's say gagged and blindfolded for good measure, then you are not in the house. Question: If you're in a box in a house are you in a house or a box?? Answer: You're in a coffin in a mausoleum, which looks like a house. I like it. It's just the sort of enigmatic answer that these riddles are looking for. I also think "You're a refrigerator, and you're on the toilet," is an acceptable if unconventional answer. Good point. And if I won a house and they left the door open, that would be no good either. People could just walk in and out willy-nilly! If I won a contest where the prize was a box, but it was open, I'd demand that they close it to restore it to its full 6-sided box definition.

I have a feeling that it's not. That must be the trick to this puzzle! I even suspect that it has nothing to do with refrigerators or bathrooms at all, let alone the precision with which they are used. Well, we'll leave the boxes closed then, so there's no confusion about whether it's still a box. Yes, I think the phrase "spectacular waste of time" is accurate. However, I don't think that a simple puzzle with a potentially simple answer is "not great" just because there is the possibility of getting lost in a convoluted discussion about it. I would say "The puzzle is fine; not all answers are great." You'd be surprised by the number of things I simply cannot understand. So which of my statements regarding the original puzzle are incorrect? Not being able to interact with the refrigerator or the toilet implies one is not in the house. Therefore while you are in bed, you are not in the house. Further, if you are sleeping anywhere within the house, you are not in the house, unless you are sleepwalking. Or perhaps if you fell asleep on the toilet, with a cold snack in your hand. A dead person cannot be in a house. Calling an open box a box changes the definition of box. A house with windows would also change the definition of house. Am I on the right track? I have a feeling we'll have this simple puzzle cracked in no time, with a little team effort!

Ah! I see. The definition of being in a box is a strictly functional one. If you cut a hole through which to go to the bathroom, are you still in the box? If you open the top of the box and poke at things outside the box with a stick, are you still in the box? Okay, no laptop examples then. Only humans and refrigerators. Here's a puzzle for you: Suppose you have a large box with ample room in it, and you place in this box one human and one cloth bag large enough for the human to get inside and draw closed. Now you close and seal the box. Are you able to tell if the human is still in the box? A true mindbender! Hardly ridiculous! A physicist, a biologist and a mathematician are sitting in a street café watching people entering and leaving the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people entering the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three people leaving the house. The physicist says, "The measurement wasn't accurate." The biologist says, "They must have reproduced." The mathematician says, "If one more person enters the house then it will be empty." Finally the joke makes sense to me! There must have been a refrigerator box in the house that the mathematician knows about!

Still incorrect. But try repeating it verbatim again and see if that changes anything.

You must spend a lot of time naked outdoors, because as long as you're in your own skin you couldn't be in clothes or in a building. Luckily most of us don't live by such bizarre rules. Customer: I purchased a laptop here, but when I opened it up there was no laptop in the box. Service desk: Okay let's see here. <Opens the box, removes a plastic bag from around the laptop...> Customer: Oh! Well, now there's a laptop in the box! It wasn't in the box when I purchased it. Ridiculous. A magician seals an assistant in a black box. The assistant puts a paper bag over her head. The audience, unable to tell if the assistant is still in the box or not, applauds.

Yes, but it's the specifics that matter. If your theory also predicts that clocks will slow down, then it predicts some phenomenon that SR also predicts. If it predicts it accurately enough, then you don't need SR to explanation the phenomenon. Repeat for everything SR successfully predicts, and if you still have a consistent theory that is different from SR, you might have a chance of overthrowing relativity. My goal is more along the lines of stopping you from being wrong. To be fair, you're free to believe what you want and to never expand beyond that and to judge what is right or wrong; you don't have to care about what I say. Regardless of whether you care, what I'm saying is that I'd prefer it if you stopped repeating your beliefs as if they are facts -- you are misinforming people -- especially when it's been explained time and again that your beliefs are not consistent with reality given the axioms that you've agreed to. This has all been explained, specifically, before. Please reread your previous posts regarding these topics and then read the many replies that various people have given. It's fine to disagree with mainstream science. It's fine to state your disagreement (perhaps not repeatedly in science forums). It's not fine, in my opinion, to treat your disagreements as fact and then try to shove it down as many throats as you can.

I don't know of any study that specifically tested the consistency of reality. All observations and experiments have agreed on reality. I don't know how to describe this correctly. To maintain invariance of c with relative motion, it's not simple proportionality, but instead is described by the Lorentz transformation. I don't think the invariance must apply to everything. But if you say that all information or energy or even fundamental particles travels at c, then nothing can be slow or at rest, but this is okay because the energy can oscillate at a speed of c. A rock at rest is still made up of particles that are constantly moving. Good questions. It reminds me of how little I truly understand. Others could give you better answers. Edit: Come to think of it, a better way of describing this than the way I think about it, is that everything is moving at a speed of c through 4 dimensions. If it is relatively at rest in the spatial dimensions, it must be moving through time at a rate of c. The faster it moves through spatial dimensions, the slower it moves through time, so that the length of the 4-vector velocity is always c.