Fdesilva wrote:Steve if you are reading this, thanks for butting in.
No problem. Sorry this follow-up reply is so late.
Physics explanations come in 3 flavours.
1. Newtonian physics.
2. Einstein’s Special and General relativity.
3. Quantum mechanics.
I guess you can divide physics up in all sorts of different ways. Those aren't the only ones. The most fundamental division still seems to be between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Newtonian physics in an approximation of both of those.
In Newtonian physics two events 1mm or for that matter any distance apart can be connected instantaneously because forces etc can work at infinite speed. One of the key ingredients Einstein brought to the table was the fact that nothing (not even forces) can work faster that the speed of light (~300k per sec). What that means is two events that happen at the same time 1mm apart has absolutely no connection with each other.
Yes, I roughly agree so far. Although the absence of a universal single "Newtonian" time means that we have to be careful when we think about what exactly it means for two events to happen at the same time. According to Relativity, simultaneity depends on the movements of observers. Two observers can disagree as to which of two events happened first or whether they are simultaneous, and both have a perfect right, from their own chosen reference frame, to regard themselves as correct. Two events that are simultaneous as measured against one reference frame can be non-simultaneous as measured against a different reference frame.
They cannot be expected in themselves together to create anything that exist.
I agree with your subsequent description of space-like and time-like intervals but I don't understand the above statement. In what sense are you talking about an event "creating something that exists"?
Q1: Does an event that happened one hour to the past, exist right now? That is say you are at 3pm, do the events that happened in the world at 2pm exist? Does the world 1 hour to the future exist? How about the world a billionth of a second to the past or the future existing right now?
In the context of the language of Relativity, an "event" is a point in spacetime. So your questions are equivalent to asking something like "is an event the same as a different event?" or "is a point in time a different point in time?". Clearly, by definition, the answer is no.
Now the first thing I am going to show you is that the answer to the above would have to be yes for any chance of A (the experiencer) being made of B (space/time/matter).
Since the answer is, by definition, no I'm interested to see this.
Take you subjective experience of being A (the experiencer). It is a single thing. It is the essence of the concept of one. (Note : This statement is given as an axiom) As such its existence at a given instant of time will be limited to a single point in space time, that is a single event.
I disagree with this. An experience is a vaguely defined concept, but if it happens in a human brain then it is clearly distributed over both space and time.
Please note an event is even smaller than a single electron.
I don't think that this sentence makes sense. An event is not an object. It is the idealised concept of a point in spacetime.
Now is your subjective understanding of the experiencer compatible with it being made of say a single electron(or similar) at any given moment in time?
No, it's a set of numerous events spread through a brain and spread over a period of time.
Remember we are assuming the world a billionth of a second to the past does not exist, only the now.
Your concept of what it means for something to exist seems vague to me. If you mean "exist now" then clearly, by definition, the set of events which constitutes the world of a period of time ago is a different set of events to that which constitutes the world now.
For the experiencer #2(I) to see the experienced #1(U) they would both have to be a single event (not two things #1,#2 ). How much fanciful can a single electron size event be to create #2 and #1 in a single event? Further if that is the case would we not have to assume any electron (or what ever fundamental particle it is) must be consist of a experiencer#1/experience#2 where ever it may exist?
I'm afraid you've lost me. I don't understand what your argument is.
If there are two events happening at my current location and they are both the receipt of photons of light, then I can infer that they are caused by two other events that happened at different locations some time in my past. The nature of those two photon events might also lead me to infer that the two different events that I regard as their cause happened simultaneously, as measured against my reference frame.
Do you agree?