3 ms·
You're talking about something else. Or rather, my line of argument ran into a distraction hazard, namely relativity. I wasn't trying to talk about relativity,
by card_zero 11mo ago
You're talking about something else. Or rather, my line of argument ran into a distraction hazard, namely relativity. I wasn't trying to talk about relativity, but I should have seen that coming. And now everybody's very keen to explain relativity to me, dammit.
- ben_w 11mo agoI did give a response to the non-relativity interpretation too. Sure, it wasn't clear which way you were going with that question, but I recognised that it could have been either.
- card_zero 11mo agoTime having a static existence, and all moments of time being equally real, ought to boggle the mind. Then again, it's not compulsory to be boggled, goodness knows it's exhausting and doesn't accomplish much.
- ben_w 11mo agoHm. I only find that boggling in the context we both agree you're not using: relativity (block universe in particular). In so far as we ignore all of relativity because it's so counter-intuitive and strange, "all moments of time being equally real" seems as trivial and straightforward as "all places in cartesian 3-dimensional space being equally real". But yes, boggling is never compulsory.