Memammal

Refer to my post in the other thread "3D Space, relativity and presentism". Michel, I don't follow your reasoning as to why a line will become a surface with "double time". Your comments w.r.t. the past not being frozen seem like (valid) criticism against presentism. And as for your third paragraph, again sorry, but I don't follow. I think we need to have a proper chat about time. This thread seems to be appropriate as we have already raised it various times. Refer to among others: Post #195 Post #201 In the last post (#201), I gave various references that deal with the concept of time. This one needs careful attention: Physical time PS. Or do you prefer to rather discuss TIME in the thread "3D Space, relativity and presentism", Tim, as you already started with it there?

^ Not sure how many of you have seen this:- There are things that are funny “because they are true,” and then there are things that are sort of funny, but would be funnier if they weren’t so very true. A case in point, video maker Matt Orfalea found an old copy of the 1990s puppet sitcom Dinosaurs. You don’t need to know the 1990s show or have liked it if you do, to watch the clip below. Comparing Donald Trump’s interviews and candidacy seem to resemble, like a Twilight Zone episode, the triceratops bad guy on the 1990s sitcom—Mr. B.P. Richfield. Trump runs for President. Richfield runs for “Elder.” Trump is crass and sexist and mean. Just saying. Richfield says that all of the dinosaurs problems are caused by the “four-leggers” who have been immigrating from over by the swamp. You get the picture. Enjoy! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/25/1586843/-Somebody-realized-that-Donald-Trump-is-actually-a-dinosaur-character-from-1990s-and-it-is-uncanny Direct link to YouTube video: ​

Presentism according to Wikipedia: * Note: "extended thing" means stretch out through space or stretch out over time. As time cannot extend over time (which seems to be at the core of different points of view in this and other threads), it obviously refers to an extension through space, i.e. a dimension thereof.

Tim, I would like to revisit this at some "point in time". I have a suspicion that I might have jumped the gun with my reaction...without paying proper attention to what you stated in brackets (which I have now marked in red). This may, or may not be critical. I suspect it is. Lol...this after I agreed that most of us know what time is... Just as a side note: the wording on the picture may give a somewhat fallacious impression, but philosophically speaking it is still regarded as a significant differentiating factor between presentism and eternalism. Less so than with the future, but still. I can elaborate on this, but let us leave it for "now". I will revert and react, if needed, to the rest of your last post sometime tomorrow.

Back to Tim: I managed to work my way through your post, but I sense a reluctance in you to accommodate anything that does not fit Tim's reality. I find it somewhat ironic and a bit frustrating considering the fact that you attended that lecture that explained how our brains process (real) reality for the purpose of storing it in our internal memory. I find it equally frustrating that you seemingly want to drag old paradigms out of the dark ages and present them to us (because they best fit Tim's reality), while the post-Einstein schools of thought have gone in a different direction. In any event, I want to copy a comment that I made to koti: Let me comment on a few issues that you raised: I don't think you did. You only merged it with Tim's reality. Are you saying that time moves or that it does not move, that the now moves or that it does not move? No, it is definitely not "more compatible with eternalism". Yes (emphasis on most of us) * [EDIT: To be revisited] * This is where I stopped reading the first time around. I am afraid to say that this substantiates just how little you know about the block universe model. Left, right but not back? What MOVING arrow of time? Go back a bit and read the discussion between koti, studiot and myself. Corrected above. Smolin & Co. are mostly fed-up with the future-is-set part of the block universe. Nonetheless, there were and still are attempts to replace- or improve on the block universe model (as the article alluded to). That is the nature of science. Some are more successful than others (Mordred and ajb previously pointed to some of these). The article highlights the fact that it is easier said than done to just throw out the block universe model as an accurate reflection of (Einsteinian) reality. And why do you keep on implying that the block universe model caused the (problem of the) arrow of time? Any model should attempt to best reflect nature's reality, don't you think?​ How does it misrepresent Einstein's theories? I explained it all on the previous page. I wanted to suggest that you need to think outside the block, but maybe that would not be entirely accurate. What do you mean we were never born? What problem? Read the previous section in this thread (between koti, studio and myself). Refer to the inherent differences between my scenario 1 & 2 and look at that picture that I inserted above. Yes, this sums it up. What did you intend? To get a model that best describes earth-bound human (or Tim's) reality opposed to nature's reality? And of course, i.t.o. presentism, that is quite a significant problem not knowing when (opposed to where) the now is. Again, are we not looking for models that best describe nature's reality? Was that not the paper that I suggested that you or Michel could read as it may shed some light on Michel's insistence that there must be time within time? It is available, just Google it. I don't see why I need to. I don't have a problem with time within time. EDIT: ADD SEPERATION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me look at it again, thanks studiot.

Tim, I started reading the first part of your post only to realise that we seemingly find ourselves on very different pages i.t.o. understanding the block universe model. I think you may have a misconception thereof (it seems evident from that first part of your post that I read), but maybe it is just me and the writers of all the articles that I already provided that just don't get it. I thought we were "past that point" of the discussion, but I think the main difference of opinion lies in the way we understand presentism vs eternalism..? Anyway, I will attempt to attend to your post at a later stage when I have enough time and try to dissect it in the hope that we are just misunderstanding each other. In the mean time, maybe this (admittedly very basic) picture helps to illustrate tensed (presentism) vs tenseless (eternalism) and the block universe: studiot, I think we find ourselves slightly more on par w.r.t. understanding the block universe model. I was expecting a next move from you, read it between your lines, so to say. When you mentioned the fishing bowl, I thought you were heading towards a spherical/circular-like hologram, i.e. where the four dimensions start curving back onto themselves, where infinity meets infinity and where events/moments end up going around in circles (i.e. we bend that ruler and the whole caboodle with it until the two ends touch each other again). That seems to be one of the candidate paradigms out there in theoretical science land and something that is not entirely implausible as it seems somewhat "natural". It may open a whole new can of worm(holes), but then it may resolve quite a few others (like the uncertainty of quantum behaviour). Don't take me seriously on this though; I am just throwing it out there... What I am seeing/understanding from your description is something similar, but without the two ends meeting up again. Your description/equation seems to enforce an exponential space enlargement. I assume something resembling a (square?) cone like figure which would enlarge from the singularity across its y axis, i.e. vertically like this illustration of Minkowski space (although this illustration depicts the narrow point as being the present, almost like my presentism illustration where the now sits at the zero on the ruler): Is this more or less right? I don't see a problem with an enlarging square-cone-like representation instead of the square block. The underlying principle remains more or less in tact, no? Perhaps you should rather elaborate a bit on your idea..? PS. Or are you perhaps implying the growing block universe?

@ koti: Yes man, you are getting there ...even correcting or questioning me for using a conventional (aka intuitive) terminology when describing the "unfolding (of the universe) over what we perceive as time". Well, I am not saying that. The model implies it. That is why I extended the ruler to both -infinite and +infinite on either side of the BB @ zero. The hypothetical events/moments prior to the BB are (still) equally real. Nicely put. Fact of the matter is that we (or most of us) have already become accustomed to the idea of the BB, so it is not a stretch of the imagination. Still, if you think about it and in the way that the first generation must have thought about it...it is an astonishing feat. EVERYTHING in our (observable) universe was in that singularity. Nothing, zilch, was ever added. So all that "information"...past, present and future...were already pre-packaged. Our conventional way of looking at it is that it took 13.8 billion years (and counting) for it to unfold...but WHAT IF it had all existed already in the form of a block universe...and we just happened to observe it in (or interpret it as) different stages happening over "time"..? So you might as well ask (and many have) how did it all get in there, how "long" did it take for it to be assembled in the first place..? Every now and again I mistakenly use conventional terminology in order to explain something. Fortunately there are the likes of you to correct me. Thanks and well said. One of the best ways to describe it i.m.o. is akin to what I used earlier: a moving observation or a flowing experience.

I think I might have covered this by means of my follow-up: Yes, we can not observe everything...not even in "real time"...but there is no need to; it does not mean it never "happened" or never "existed". koti wrote: Define "instantly" and no, it did not have to happen at the BB. As you correctly pointed out, the BB is ongoing. It has also been "ongoing" on the other side of what we refer to as the BB singularity (on the minus side of that ruler). I do understand that it sounds unbelievable, but consider this. Everything that is contained in the universe as we know it at present have been part and parcel of the singularity...that singularity has just been expanding and unfolding over what we perceive as "time" (i.e. the so-called 13.8 billion years)...but it was all contained within the tiniest imaginable fraction of space. Read Tim88's post in another thread with his overview of time. It boils down to different ways of perceiving, describing and using time (and as a side note, I don't think he mentioned Planck time). I know that in physics time is measured with a clock, but consider this quote: Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience (Wiki: Time). Further to this, you may want to consider this section of the same article: Physical time. There are, however, also various philosophical concepts of time and this brings us closer to this discussion: Philosophies Of Time. In this discussion you may want to think about conventional time (moving time/now) as something along the lines of presentism and the notion of a static time dimension as being associated with eternalism (many now's). I think the rest of it resolved itself, so to say? I think he meant that the observer is naturally progressing along his lifeline, experiencing different events/moments at consecutive coordinates...not "artificially" relocating himself to other coordinates in either the past or future. Due to the fact that events are carved in stone and thus pre-existing (in said model), there can be no time travel paradoxes.

@ koti: First of all, I did not mean to come across as dismissive of the "too much information". You might have a point from within a certain paradigm and by using the word "information" in its appropriate context, which was the point that studiot wanted to convey. We are talking about two different kinds of time. Absolute (or conventional) time vs spacetime (i.e. as the fourth dimension in a spacetime coordinate). My references to "timeless" and the references to time in said quote refer to conventional time. With "timeless block universe" I meant the ETERNAL aspect thereof (which by implication will be "timeless"). The ruler represents the time coordinate part of spacetime. In scenario 1 the zero corresponded to the now. I explained that one would have to move the entire ruler (being the time dimension of spacetime) in order to move the zero/now, or for time to flow/move. By using such an analogy/model you have the advantage of (hypothetically) getting an external perspective. You should be able to understand that it does not make sense to move the ruler...in relation to what is the ruler/time moving? (The same argument that was made in the article that I referenced.) In scenario 2 I placed the toy (observer) at a hypothetical time coordinate that would correspond with our "present time" in relation to something like the BB. The ruler, or time dimension, is kept still while the toy/observer moves to the next time coordinate (the next moment/event). This can be somewhat confusing (which is probably why you were posing the question) as you may perceive this as a movement of the physical body. Rather think of it as a moving observation or flowing experience. The observer is experiencing a next moment (the technical term is qualia). Hence, it is our observation/experience that moves on- or through a static timeline (or through our embedded-in-spacetime lifeline). Next time you walk around the house, think of it as a moving observation from one spacetime coordinate (moment) to the next. We are indeed speculating and debating models without having definite answers, but we should at least be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Science as we know is a dynamic process incorporating a multitude of different methodologies. It is definitely not a popularity contest. I think the single biggest challenge is to be able to scientifically differentiate between- and consider the merits of what seem sensible to our somewhat restricted (human and earth-bound) sense of reality, or intuition, and any paradigms that seem to be in conflict with it (in stead of frowning upon the latter). I just read Tim88's post in another thread that seems to give a pretty good overview of the various concepts of time. I may have to reconsider my vague usage of the terms "absolute" and "conventional" time, although it should not change the essence of the narrative.

Are you implying determinism = predictability and indeterminism = uncertainty? Could a seemingly uncertain (or seemingly random) outcome not be deterministic? * EDIT * [i am deleting rest of this post as it has already been dealt with]

Post # 166 & 167 of this thread refer. ^ Read together with this quote from my post # 175: PS. @ koti: you earlier asked about books re the block universe model. I have since remembered a reference to such a book; something that I actually mentioned in another thread that you also participated in. Here is a MIT review of it: “Objective Becoming” by Brad Skow. Here is a comment by one of the readers of that column that may be relevant: On page 155 of his book on the special and general theories Einstein makes it clear that in general relativity, space-time no longer can claim an existence independent of matter. On page 141 he said, “Our concepts of space and time must be preceded by the concept of the material object.” Almost everyone seems to have missed this. Time does not exist, therefore, except as a concept of relative motion or events relative to the motion of material objects, which we have chosen the spin and orbit of Earth. Time is thus the relativity of events. And events are separate realities. As I alluded to earlier, where/when will T-0 be in this "timeless" block universe?. Hrvoje Nikolić argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox. [Nikolic H. (2009). "Resolving the black-hole information paradox by treating time on an equal footing with space". Phys. Lett. B 678 (2): 218]

Point taken. The use of "information" was introduced earlier by koti in reference to whether there is enough "space for all the information" to which you responded with your explanation w.r.t. lossless. It was in that sense that I continued to use it, but you are right in referring to its other connotations. As a side note...something that I forgot to respond to: I provided those quotes in attempt to substantiate the pivotal role that Einstein played in changing our perception away from absolute time and absolute space whilst also reaffirming the lesser status of the latter, even within the context of Newtonian mechanics. ​Let us not get side-tracked by this side note though.

This is pretty relevant to the block universe model. First and foremost the concept of lossless. It is a technical term mostly used in audio/video formats. If one records in a lossy format some (unnecessary...which could be either empty, almost empty or duplicated) information is discarded in the process. When our brains perceive said lossy information, it processes it and reassembles it by means of for example psychoacoustics in the case of audio. Let me quote: ...in many problems in acoustics, such as for audio processing, it is advantageous to take into account not just the mechanics of the environment, but also the fact that both the ear and the brain are involved in a person’s listening experience. The inner ear, for example, does significant signal processing in converting sound waveforms into neural stimuli, so certain differences between waveforms may be imperceptible. Data compression techniques, such as MP3, make use of this fact... Another effect of the ear's nonlinear response is that sounds that are close in frequency produce phantom beat notes, or intermodulation distortion products. The term "psychoacoustics" also arises in discussions about cognitive psychology and the effects that personal expectations, prejudices, and predispositions may have on listeners' relative evaluations and comparisons of sonic aesthetics and acuity and on listeners' varying determinations about the relative qualities of various musical instruments and performers. The expression that one "hears what one wants (or expects) to hear" may pertain in such discussions. I am using this in order to illustrate how our brains sometimes fill in (or compensate for-) our perception of reality. Lossless refers to native information/reality. Nothing gets changed, lost or replaced. There can be no vagueness in perception. In studiot's analogy you can compare each frame with an "event" at a new point in spacetime where new lossless information enters one's frame of reference (observation/experience of reality, one's light cone) as you "move along your lifeline". It happens each and every single moment, a smooth, entirely lossless (native or lifelike) transition from one moment (event) to the next (breath by breath, Planck unit by unit, the position of a flying bee's wing from one fraction to the next). The only question that remains would be if said new information is pre-existing (as per an eternalist/tenseless, deterministic block universe model) and or if it comes into being in a nondeterministic fashion (as per presentism/tensed, growing/evolving block universe). More about this later. Have you read the more technical Minkowski space​ article that I linked earlier? It would seem that the thread got seriously side-tracked by the notion of double time. This was something that Michel brought up (I merely inserted his quote) and something that you (Tim) seemed to have agreed with him on. I referenced the source used by Wiki in that article as it links to a scientific paper on the subject. I did so specifically so that Michel and/or you may have a look at it and see if there was anything useful to be extracted from it. I will next deal with the last page and this confusion re so-called double time. In doing so, I think it will indeed be useful to use my previous illustration of the numeric sequence from -infinite to +infinite... OK, back to my numerical sequence. Let me use the analogy of said number sequence (from -infinite to +infinite) being placed on a (very long, well basically infinite) ruler (or measuring tape). For the purpose of this discussion think of this ruler/measuring tape to be the time dimension, a flat foundation on which the 3-D events are "constructed". Now consider two scenario's: 1. Point zero (theoretically in the middle of the ruler) corresponds to the present time, the now. All the positive numbers relate to the future, all negative numbers to the past. Consider yourself as the observer in the form of a tiny toy standing on top of the zero. So if you want to move the now, the zero (with the toy on top of it) has to move and as such the entire ruler has to move. Hence the question what is the now, the zero, the ruler moving in relation to? This refers to the moving now, the tensed or presentist theory. 2. In the second scenario point zero corresponds with an event at that coordinate, let us say the big bang. All the numbers represent coordinates on different sides of the big bang (- to the one, + to the other). Imagine a physical 3-D hologram being constructed on top of the ruler, at each consecutive number it reflects a slightly different event/image/frame/slice. At point zero, said hologram will represent a singularity. Place the toy/observer on a coordinate (number) of let us say +13.8 billion to represent our current now. In order to move to the next now, just move the toy forward into its next holographic environment (with light, sound, oxygen to breathe, etc). So what has happened? Effectively each number on the ruler has now become a real event, a real now, one of many now's. This correlates with the standard block universe model (with eternalism & determinism). I hope that you can all spot the difference. We perceive ourselves in a flowing time, a moving now, whereas it may in fact be us (and our capacity to observe and to experience) moving along spacetime from one now (coordinate) to the other. Back to physics, to mechanics, to dynamics, etc. both classical and quantum. All of our scientific disciplines are reflections of how we perceive reality. Scientists have observed and measured certain natural phenomena, we have detected certain correlations and repetitions that enabled us to predict, to calculate, to design, or to accept the uncertainty thereof (for example in QM). That, however, does not rule out the hypothetical fixed ruler (time dimension) with its lossless 3-D space hologram as part of a "prefabricated" 4-D block universe, or for that matter any ongoing/flowing experience (incl biological functions, dynamics, mechanics, etc) of each moment within it. * FINAL EDIT *

We are still the same living, moving biological entities brought about by the same tools of what we understand to be evolution. The block universe model does not alter any of that. We are moving through- and experiencing our lifelines that are embedded in it, breathing actual oxygen on the way. You know perfectly well why I brought that analogy into the discussion. It is important to envisage, or imagine a different reality (from that on Earth) such as the one that I tried to illustrate. It brings a total new perspective to the way we look at these issues. The link that I provided earlier is about the easiest to digest: Time, Free Will and the Block Universe * EDIT: The article itself is part of a series, as far as I remember, so there are other references and pages linked to it. Eternalism posits that there was no beginning (or end) from within the block universe. Seeing that our conventional understanding of time is no longer valid (as per Einstein & Co) and since we cannot tell whether the universe is finite of infinite in size, it is akin to you asking how it was possible that ALL numeric numbers (from -infinite to +infinite) were introduced at the same "moment", let us say at point zero? In fact this seems like a nice illustration...are all numbers equally real, do they all exist, do they change? And I really hope this does not turn into a popularity contest, Tim

Quoted from Absolute space and time​: In Einstein's theories, the ideas of absolute time and space were superseded by the notion of spacetime in special relativity, and curved spacetime in general relativity.​ The theory of relativity does not have a concept of absolute time because there is a relativity of simultaneity. An event that is simultaneous with another event in one frame of reference may be in the past or future of that event in a different frame of reference, which negates absolute simultaneity. Even within the context of Newtonian mechanics, the modern view is that absolute space is unnecessary. Special relativity eliminates absolute time (although Gödel and others suspect absolute time may be valid for some forms of general relativity)[16]... [This may be an important source as it could link back to quote from Michel: Something like a "double time" is needed in this concept too.] ...and general relativity further reduces the physical scope of absolute space and time through the concept of geodesics. There appears to be absolute space in relation to the distant stars because the local geodesics eventually channel information from these stars, but it is not necessary to invoke absolute space with respect to any system's physics.​​​ The above then also in reaction to: And from Relativistic dynamics: Einstein rejected the Newtonian concept and identified t as the fourth coordinate of a space-time four-vector. Einstein's view of time requires a physical equivalence between coordinate time and coordinate space. The role of time was a key difference between Einsteinian and Newtonian views of classical theory. As for this: I don't quite follow the logic behind this comment. How do you propose for the past to be changed, to be unfrozen? Surely you can understand that if you were able to observe a spacetime coordinate that sits somewhere in the "past", you will observe the exact same event..? What else? With all due respect, it seems to me that you guys really do not grasp the model at all. The idea of the standard block universe model is that it is done and dusted, a complete package. It is also not dependent on us observing all of it (we observe what we have access to during our lifeline). It would not have existed in its current form if there was not enough "space". You might as well imply that there is not enough space for the universe..? So I don't quite follow your logic here (as with Michel). Let us consider the alternative. In stead of everything already existing, we have "new information" coming into existence ex nihilo every nanosecond; is that a more viable option? BTW, keep in mind that the BB was just one of many events/points within the bock universe. OK, unfortunately I have to run again. I hope this would make some sense. FINAL EDIT

^ Yes, as far as I understand that is pop science as it is the very nature of entanglement...but that does not rule out the possibility of so-called bio-entanglement.

Probably so as it may be a result of evolutionary adaptation to our particular eco-system and as such not something that is likely to change within one generation. I was however attempting to provide an analogy of a person having to operate in deep space without any references/memories of conditions on Earth. That would be a totally different ball game, not so? The articles that I referenced are mostly short and concise, except the one re Minkowski space...that one is pretty detailed (for reasons that would be apparent). There are a few important aspects contained within those articles, some that you and michel have raised in recent posts, so well worth the read especially by casual readers of this thread. I will try to highlight and elaborate on some of them a bit later. Lol. Yes, kindly be fair to what has become one of- if not the best explanation for our current understanding of physics...even though physicists generally have a love/hate relationship with it because of that darn fixed future feature.

Have you heard of something called Quantum Biology? Here are a few links to some interesting reading material: A scientific review of the subject Wiki article BBC article I saw an insert on Through The Wormhole (TV series) that dealt with something similar to this. The episode was called "Is There a Sixth Sense?" and dealt with that, telepathy, global consciousness and if I remember correctly it also touched on animal group behaviour (bee's, birds, fish, etc).

You seem like an ambitious individual...good for you...without dreams and aspirations, we will not have the Elon Musk's of this world. That being said, I have not opened the link in your first line as I am really not attracted by such a title. AFAIK that sort of link could also be against the rules of this forum, no?

I only just found the time to read it and gosh, it was such a good read. Lol, I stand to be corrected.

Tim88, this is indeed a very informative thread. I think we just need to be careful to not confuse ourselves and others and in the process get lost among Newtonian dynamics, Newtonian time, Einsteinian time, "cosmological time", Planck time and/or Planck constants, our human construct of Earth bound reality vs that of outer space, etc. Unfortunately I have been side-lined (and still am) with other pressing matters, otherwise I would have attempted to contribute more constructively to this discussion. That being said, it appears that you have questioned certain specific comments made by ajb & Mordred and it will probably be better if they themselves respond to those points. Let me just quickly throw this in. We have a human construct of reality that is unavoidably link to our specific, albeit dynamic eco system. We sense time in the passing of day to night, from tide to tide, from season to season while we are bound by our dense atmosphere that provides us with an intimate sense of classical mechanics. Now let us (quickly) consider the concept of time. Imagine the way Mayflies (24 hour living span) versus a giant barrel sponge Xestospongia muta​ (approx. 2,400 years living span) would perceive time here on Earth. Think about it. Let us further imagine a human who is born on an intergalactic space craft on route to a galaxy far, far away. Imagine said person's sense of time and dynamics in a totally dark, totally weightless environment (consider for example said astronaut pushing him/herself in a direction and his/her illusion of movement...what is moving in relation to the other?). It was Einstein who revolutionised the way scientists perceive time, no? Four-dimensional Euclidean spacetime, Minkowski space and the block universe model(s) resulted from it. In order for readers of this thread to get to grips with some of the fundamental basics of the various approaches that have been raised, I suggest the following background reading: Absolute space and time​ (this article contrasts the classical views nicely with that of Einstein) Minkowski space​ Relativistic dynamics ​And until I have more time to try and explain the various kinds of block universe models and the somewhat misleading interpretation of "frozen events" (as if it prohibits movement...opposed to change), let me leave you with a link to an article about a recent attempt by some of the world's most renowned physicists to reconstruct the block universe model (which seems to be very fitting to the thread): A Debate Over the Physics of Time According to our best theories of physics, the universe is a fixed block where time only appears to pass. Yet a number of physicists hope to replace this “block universe” with a physical theory of time. Let me also add these: Time, Free Will and the Block Universe (copied from other threads) Growing Block Universe * Edited to correct a grammar error *

That seems to be a very naive approach. Enclosing one of the leading democratic capitalist societies that was formed by immigrants for immigrants beyond its own wall, is not very American. Keeping its military might out of other people's business may indeed be a step in the right direction, but there is that subtle (and way too subtle for Trump to comprehend) yet vital responsibility to keep the various world powers in check. As was mentioned elsewhere/earlier, the USA government can afford to sustain a large military presence in other parts of the world because those foreign powers want them there and thus finance the costs of having them there. It is cheaper to have military bases in some other parts of the world than having them in the U.S.A., for example. Trump seems entirely oblivious to this reality.

I was trying to figure out what you were after, what you were insinuating with your previous post. It has now become clear. You seem convinced that these GR effects are irreconcilable with the block universe model, correct? Why do you think that?

I find it rather interesting that a lot of medical practitioners tend to "compartmentalize" their medical knowledge and expertise separately from their (strong) religious beliefs. I have seen this quite often. A personality trait common among M.D.'s...in the gene's, so to say..?

So your opinion/conclusion is that a limited version of free will may exist? Why do you think free will plays a role in enhancing social skills...even to the point of improving a group's chance of survival?