I see what you're saying, but rather than discuss the molecules of dinosaurs and dodos shifting and dispersing we could talk about specific events, because those would be definitive and not subject to "change". It's easy to say that a specific event (say, a meteorite crashing into a planet) is occurring locally, but do you believe there is any objective meaning to the claim that an event "is occurring" remotely?
HI RJ,
re:
do you believe there is any objective meaning to the claim that an event "is occurring" remotely?
yes. I fully understand the essence of the theory of time, (and how useful it is), but what i am suggesting is we test that theory ( becasue it relies on so many poorly defined conjectured unobservables e.g. 'the' past, 'the' future)
Anyone adhering to time might basically agree,
A - things exist, move, and interact 'over time'.
so they seem to agree at least, that,
things exist, move and interact.
so im proposing that perhaps,
B - things may just exist, move and interact. i.e. Not heading into a future, or leaving a past behind, or as a thing called time passes ( or any variation of those)
So what i am suggesting is we check our observations, and see how A concurs with reality,
and how B concurs.
And i would suggest if we look at the world as if A is correct,(time exists) then it
would indeed concur. But
if we look at the world as if B is correct, that would also seem to concur.
the problem is that B is the simpler option, and it does not rely on unobservables ( past/ future etc). we certainly have the 'idea' of a past etc, and we certainly have patterns in our minds we call "memories of the past , (or past 'nows', as you put it elsewhere) - but these are I think, provably only physically in our minds, 'now'.
Hence someone who physically looses chunks of their brain, may physically loose access to what they think is evidence of the existence of a temporal past.
if we conclude our 'memories' are not just like footprints in mud, i.e. just the result of exiting matter(/energy) moving and interacting, changing some of the formation of stuff here now, where it is interacting. then to be scientific we need an experiment as per the scientific method to produce scientific evidence that this "past" does indeed exist , and is not just a conclusion we have jumped to.
so re
do you believe there is any objective meaning to the claim that an event "is occurring" remotely?,
i dont see any reason to assume things are
not existing, moving and interacting remotely. hence i can play a game of tennis over a court, or skype someone i believe to be 100 miles away.
and this is very much my point. i suggest we start from considering what we actually seem to directly observe, and build from there. I f i were to try and understand the world from the position that what i actually observe,
and, invisible poltergeists, exist, then i would never be able to disprove their existence, and i may mix up the idea and use it to explain other things i observe but dont understand.
so what i am suggesting it that we actually, and carefully
consider the possibility, that perhaps everything is just how it seems. just a whole load of stuff interacting everywhere.
And there are no different nows, but the universe may just be filled with matter everywhere, doing something, and this may mislead us into thinking there is a past, future and time flowing, if we dont carefully understand what the simple 'mechanics' (electrochemical interactions etc) that can be making us reorganise some formation of matter ( here now) in our minds, (that we
call 'memories of
the past' ).
Special Relativity indeed shows that if we both flip "hour glasses", and I rush towards you at great speed, everything about me will
be changing at a different rate to you, and my sand will
be falling more slowly. and where we meet there will less sand at the bottom of the device. But observation would suggest that every bit of you, me , and our sand etc, is always just somewhere doing something at various rates, and there seems no evidence that i may be 'slipping into a past now', or you may be surging ahead of me in a thing called 'time'.
so perhaps, its all just here changing, 'time' being a very useful way of comparing examples of motion, and SR showing us something unexpected about intrinsic rates of change do the the 'c' limit...
but all just here, and 'now' to use a thus unnecessary (leading) term ( if there is only 'now').
the important thing to do is to
consider the possibility ( things may just exist and interact ),
but most people, no matter how carefully you suggest this, do not
consider the possibility, but instead only defend the idea of time, which whether time exists or not, it still a one sided, dare i say dogmatic, and unscientific approach ( to be scientific i think we have to not only try to support out theories but all so try to test them to destruction).
mm
ps i posted this elsewhere but its a vid i found that demonstrates how we may acquire and defend confirmation bias, while being oblivious to this
( i mention it, becasue i think that although all we ever see is 'this now', we seem to jump to the assumption that the idea of other nows, may be by 'default' more likely, )
its worth a look