Since "nows" aren't even a viable physics concept in relativity, they certainly aren't a viable concept to think about with respect to other people. The correct message from relativity is to not even think about "nows". Think instead about causal relationships, which in spacetime are delimited by light cones.EclogiteFacies said:I still think if our nows are off by a bit it must?
I would definitely say you are overinterpreting things like hypersurfaces of simultaneity. As far as I'm concerned, I see no difference between such a surface and any coordinate system, like the address where I live. It's a language for ordering events, or in the case of addresses, ordering houses. So what? It conveys no physical importance, outside of the broad causality constraints that we have already discussed. Stick to what can affect what, and how it can affect it, that's the only meaning that time ever needed to have. All the rest is just overinterpretation of an arbitrary coordinate system.EclogiteFacies said:So do you really think like, we can think of people around us exactly the same way as before like I guess the discrepancies are tiny. So, our reference frames differ, honestly I think I really am over interpreting things like hypersurfaces of simultaneously. But I still can't help but be shook!
That's how I think, everyone is conscious as normal and we interact between our moments through signals, but now is distingued by a light cone. I read carlo rovellis book he seems to have a similar stance on the unknowavility of separated eventsPeterDonis said:Since "nows" aren't even a viable physics concept in relativity, they certainly aren't a viable concept to think about with respect to other people. The correct message from relativity is to not even think about "nows". Think instead about causal relationships, which in spacetime are delimited by light cones.
If you object to the block universe, there are many places in its inception that you can find escape. @PeterDonis shows a few in his Insights article, but the bottom line is, there are no assumptions on the path to the block universe that are unassailable. I already cited one that just looks like complete nonsense to me.EclogiteFacies said:Thing is I see the block universe as the like worst case scenario, most Conservative and if I can make peace with this I can make peace with anything. I just wanna know what it all means for all my mates relative to me
Yes, that's a good way to think about it.EclogiteFacies said:That's how I think, everyone is conscious as normal and we interact between our moments through signals, but now is distingued by a light cone
Of course.EclogiteFacies said:can we still think of other people have conscious experiences as normal in the relative velocities here on Earth if the block universe it true.
No.EclogiteFacies said:Even if the velocities were bigger would we ever reasonable think my mates were not having experience
No.EclogiteFacies said:Basically, is there anything here I actually should be worrying about.
The very statement "if the block universe is true" has no meaning in my mind, the "block universe" is nothing but a subjective, nonunique, and entirely untestable approach for organizing one's thinking. It makes no predictions at all, so how could it be called "true" or "false"? It's a set of internally consistent subjective choices, nothing about that could follow the phrase "if it's true."EclogiteFacies said:Well, can we still think of other people have conscious experiences as normal in the relative velocities here on Earth if the block universe it true.
No, nothing there.EclogiteFacies said:Even if the velocities were bigger would we ever reasonable think my mates were not having experience Basically, is there anything here I actually should be worrying about.
It's a bit too philosophical, this forum is not really for that. But there can be a conversation about the true inputs of relativity, because those involve testable assertions, so fall under science.EclogiteFacies said:I find it weird as no one else online seems to be talking about this ahaha
I feel like there's definitely a reason for that
What does "your experience exist for me" mean?EclogiteFacies said:If I move relative to you or whatever at whatever speed. Does your experience exist for me
OK so do we communicate to each other through our own notions of nowPeterDonis said:What does "your experience exist for me" mean?
If it just means, can I communicate my experience to you, of course I can. I can send light signals to you even if we are moving relative to each other.
If it means something else, you'll need to explain what
No. We communicate with each other by light signals, which have nothing to do with "now". They travel along light cones.EclogiteFacies said:do we communicate to each other through our own notions of now
So I can think of you being conscious regardless of my reference frame. In exactly the same way as before relativityPeterDonis said:No. We communicate with each other by light signals, which have nothing to do with "now". They travel along light cones.
Yes.EclogiteFacies said:So I can think of you being conscious regardless of my reference frame. In exactly the same way as before relativity
Yes, since any physical processes are happening regardless of which coordinates you use.EclogiteFacies said:The physical processes the give rise to your consciousness are happening regardless of which coordinates I use to define spacetime.