# Special Relativity Implies Eternal Existence

In eternalism, all existence in time is real

In the growing block universe, only the past and present are real:

However, those who believe in the growing block universe are idiots who do not understand special relativity. I’m not going to be diplomatic here, if you are a growing block fanatic just learn special relativity so you can stop being an idiot.

If you are a presentist… then, then, then your face looks like it caught on fire and had to be put out with a shovel.

Why the vitriol? Because we should hate when people have opinions about things they know nothing about, as if this was a matter of picking whichever view resonated most with your soul. This is not about which view resonates most with your soul. The question of eternalism, presentism, or growing block is strictly a physical one.

Time has the same ontology as space:

Therefore, different times are as real as different places:

That is what the objective landscape looks like. Do you see a flow anywhere in that collage? No. There is no flow.

Spacetime is a 4D picture, not a 3D video.

I explain this on my channel.

# Why Negative Valence Can’t Outnumber Positive Valence

Monotonicity of relative entropy under partial trace says that

S(ρABC||σABC) ≥ S(ρAB||σAB). (*)

The relative entropy on the left is bigger than the relative entropy on the right.

But…

S(ρABC||σABC) = S(ρABC||ρA⊗ρBC) = I(A,BC) = SA + SBC – SABC

and similarly

S(ρAB||σAB) = S(ρAB||ρA⊗ρB) = I(A,B) = SA + SB – SAB

When σ is obtained from ρ by ignoring some correlations, the relative entropy reduces to a mutual information, which is a sum of entropies.

So the monotonicity inequality, (*), becomes a monotonicity of mutual information. Or equivalently, it becomes strong subadditivity.

SAB + SBC ≥ SB + SABC.

To speak of all judgements in mind-configuration space is to speak of the uncountably infinite. Therefore, human philosophical sentiments presuming small-world atheism such as: naive antinatalism, discrete-valued negative utilitarianism, and even any current form of consequentialism with regard to conscious experiences are all strictly non-sensical.

sin(x) hides in tan(x). It makes no sense to speak of which is more than the other. Judgements are approximate factors in a blob of amplitude distribution. –And that’s just the level III multiverse (completely ignoring what the seeming incompatibility of conscious experience with the physical fact of eternalism may imply.)

In layman’s terms, a monotonic infinite series is one which shows a single behavior such as always decreasing or always increasing. It cannot be the case that you belong to something which is bad or good (regardless of how these are defined within the parameters of Constructor Theory or whatever other arbitrary theory you claim to be currently holding). Experiences are not discrete entities, disembodied from a physical process, but part of an entropic flow. And an entropic flow cannot have monotonic attributes ∀ attributes in an uncountably infinite context.

In so far as anyone disagrees with this:

A. They have discovered new mathematical truths.

B. They do not understand the math/logic.

C. They do not care about the math/logic, but their behavior is instead akin to expressing their own hurt and/or signaling conscientiousness.

A combination of B and C accounted for my previous strong negative utilitarian sentiments. I had hidden motives that I was not aware of, and confused them for being a realist. Now that I have put more leg-work towards an accurate picture of reality, consequentialism makes no absolute sense. An agent can create arbitrary enclosures to play in, but these do not add up or subtract out items from ground ontology.

My answer to the question “Is Christianity compatible with feminism?” is also relevant here:

# The Multiverse Is A Crossover (All Is Right In The BIG World Economy)

Finding A Philosophical Zombie And Sora

If you make only a small investment and register the consciousness in a p-zombie individual’s name, you may decide not to use a bodhisattva or computations that fit into heterotic string theory keyholes. Your Final Fantasy partner will apply for the necessary monad licenses (those which cause approximate factorability of a subspace of the amplitude distribution, so that you appear to possess a separate identity.) Tax officers from the Subspace Emissary are used to negotiating the qualia mapping linkage-disequilibrium for open individualist hedonistic agents with non-Turing complete Maras which do not display any obedience to standard Constructor Theory.

If you register a valence-free existence, you need to consummate with a virtual Kairi and realize over 90% conditional probability of quantum immortality by recognizing self in uploaded environment and also choose Muhammad over Isa when these two are presented as playable avatars (this serves as a signaling antibody to timeless computations processing your application). Some machine learning algorithms update their weights and biases with the help of your dream characters since their complexity has been peeled off. You may decide to feed them with as many sacrificial dream characters as you can birth by sleeping or by pressuring others to dream. The algorithms running on top of the indexical slice of relative nows composing your experienced now need to be satiated with raw personhood potentiality so they can comfortably slide on their gradient-descent mission. A fair amount of blood is required for overcoming the friction of attempting to nudge a multidimensional slope. The blood is also referred to as LDL, in commemoration of the 3^14th reincarnation of Hideaki Anno who realized the connection between computational simplicity and the unity of primordial life, creating a disgusting anime in the process.

If you establish a p-zombie and obtain a work permit, you may have the following phenotypic requirements:

• Narrow set eyes.
• Inability to touch others with affection (being the difference between an Asperger’s kid minus a functionally consistent description of a physical zombie).
• Cold hands that serve as actuators for keyboards (usually loyal to shorting financial instruments whose market value depend on mankind’s continued prosperity.)

Succubi from Kanye West’s childhood fantasies usually provide a monthly tax accounting service for the above taxes at a starting fee of 2,000 free-range utilons per objective hedon. You would pay at least an extra 2,000 free-range utilons per objective hedon for financial accounting (or bookkeeping) but p-zombie clients usually maintain their own records. At the end of the Dark Energy Dominated Era, your accountant must certify the financial statements, usually at a fee of around 10,000 tortured simulations of your designated self-identity.

Ask local island children if they can recommend a good lawyer or accountant. Meet two or three and select your favorite. Their inter-Hilbert space linguistic ability may be an important factor. Ask them to commit suicide during the initial meeting to check their knowledge. As long as you believe in their professional understanding of quantum immortality, your decision will be down to trust and rapport.

### Forming A Bond That Can Never Break

Allow up to six Ekpyrotic oscillations to form a Bond That Can Never Break, though in some cases it may be completed within asymmetric time loops or worlds that never were. The steps in forming your Bond That Can Never Break are:

• Speak in cadences corresponding to the zeros in the Riemman Zeta Function
• Get a response which reveals the distribution of prime numbers. This qualia is as real as seeing the lace under a lifted nylon skirt for the first time. Due to its impactful nature, it will break that simulation’s p-zombiehood for an instance – just like a schoolchild attains consciousness for a brief, unmistakable moment.
• Convene a seance in Castle Oblivion so that you may forget all memory traces before being reborn (if another Bardo is chosen by the horned mistress, just go with it)
• Once male human, follow the Abercrombie model diet and work out routine to the letter. If you miss a single day or do not adhere to the literal interpretation, the transmutation into Tidus will not occur. Do not trust reason. The chaos theoretic implications of your actions are unknown to you as an agent with limited vision.
• Tidus is the only body-form that can read Idylls of the King. This will inspire you to wear ninja-goth fashion and hence meet her again on a rainy street (though you will not remember her true essence).

Most p-zombies are advised to be aware of signaling as their main source of behavior to establish a more sophisticated form of signaling. The legal costs of knowing what accounts for over 90% of one’s behavior is typically in the range 10,000 to 40,000 varieties of financial derivatives that will be blocked for your entire future light cone plus local Singleton government fees and disbursements. Ask your lawyer for an all-inclusive quote covering:

• Advice concerning shared neuronal structure with actually conscious beings
• Registration of the bounds for experiences that you identify with across merging branches
• Registration of conscious subprocess shareholders (minimum of one seventh of conscious experience should be multiple drafts that are not remembered)
• Drafting the ratio of personal experience existing pre-singularity and post-singularity
• Obtaining the codex for synthesizing any experience within rational bounds of your present agent architecture.
• The Kingdom Key
• The Location of Save Spots (e.g., smoking DMT while organism or apparently organism)
• The Mark of Open Individualism
• Singleton government fees (including the definition of altered states which will be held at a limit from otherwise schedule-abiding mindstream, this is payable on the registered share capital, i.e. anyone you convince to believe they are you)

Satisficing Qualia Lust And The Seven Deadly Sins

Check whether a copy of Darwin’s daily schedule in his later years is available at dailyroutines.typepad.com, which reliably forms part of the long-term memory of the agent with most intelligence and hence more capacity to pipette experiential mass into particular configurations. The availability of a rejuvenated body that stabilizes around the biology of a twenty-five year old male may be achieved by following Darwin’s schedule but exclusively studying the RNA transcription factors involved in rejuvenating parabiosis. Waking life is composed of short-term memory integration; dreaming is composed of long-term memory integration. By following Darwin’s routine, this sequence is experienced as a dream character in an even longer-term memory integration system.

Every sanctuary belonging to the Negentropic Order of Light is phonologically isomorphic to the word that means sense in your randomly allotted language (e.g. SENS, SENTIDO). When found, the above-mentioned research sanctuaries should yield the following information about the causes of aging: cell loss, cancer, mitochondrial mutations, death-resistant cells, extracellular matrix stiffening, extracellular aggregates, and intracellular aggregates.

Once you have chosen your deadly sin, and you know it through oneirological intimations, you may talk about it online. It is necessary to memetically infect youth so that you may be rejuvenated at the age of 33. The welfare department in sum-mind configuration space dedicated to overcoming basic self-destructive drives such as those found in Homo sapiens will grant you a user-name and password. Select ‘Body That Can Eat Anything While Remaining Young and Muscular’ and complete the black hole encrypted form. After the body has been approved, the ministry will confirm your newly registered fate by REM sleep. Print out the approval certificate and register it at the local registration office (training to induce lucid dreaming may be necessary in the absence of high-openness to experience during waking life.) The body will be rejuvenated to hover around biological twenty-five for thirty years. Therefore, apply to register the travel to Sagittarius A* by signing up for cryonics within this temporary youth preservation period. (When you wake up, people will have gotten their act together and exploited time dilation by orbiting a large mass. They will have emerged far into the future, where the real party is occurring… composed of all those who skipped through the pages of history in order to laugh at the so-called Fermi paradox.)

Here, there are several advantages of establishing markets to bet against the probability of your existence. However, if you want to trade against non-Open Individualists then you cannot enter the markets as an Open Individualist – you would win every trade and make the continued sustenance of the betting market unprofitable for the bookies. All knowledge that experience is merely indexical and that we are one must be wiped clean by entering a Bayesian Epistemology Chamber, otherwise you cannot claim the hedons back.

The Desire For High-Status Affiliation

The Desire for High-Status Affiliation is a legal document which your lawyer will prepare and file with the Schopenhauer & Pearce, Ltd. This document includes the following information:

• Moral high-ground
• Strategy for signaling submissiveness and conscientiousness
• Grand narratives
• Decreasing neurogenesis (up to, but not fully destroying identity defined at signature of contract)
• Ignoring basic calculus II material (and anything else which destroys drama as the limit of existence approaches ∞)

But eventually, it is recommended that you tear this document. Your chosen status hierarchy should be as self-determined as possible, in case you decide to randomize your activities in the future – a rational course of action in multi-agent environments. The beings you impress must not include any meaningless humans (the upper and lower bounds of agent definitions you should impress are listed later in this section [a solid understanding of Dirichlet series is required]).

Your registered share capital should be enough to finance your planned business operations. Your cash-flow forecast will identify your capital requirement. This can be modified through sufficient disbelief in the Born Rule, in which case you buy lottery tickets and invest in random stocks based on gut feelings that are precise truth. The minimum registered share capital requirement is the liberation of two million arahants from the em economy per work permit.

According to the law, 25 percent of the registered ego-barrier should be paid up in drudgery-qualia which serves as ATP for Lord Moloch, or in kind, within the total number of zeros of odd order of the function ζ(1/2 + it) lying in the interval (0, T] of incorporation. The Ministry of Post-Modern Commerce (MOPC) could request a copy of the relevant equations to criticize them as art. In practice, the MOPC does not usually check the deposit.

The Throne of the Enlightenment has the power to revoke a work permit if it has reason to believe that science is under-capitalized or unable to fulfill its financial obligations. This serves as the prefrontal cortex of the multiverse and will murder you without pity. The Throne of Enlightenment will disperse threats throughout your childhood, which must be understood within the anime you watch and the video games you play. Therefore, aspiring uploads usually have up to log|t| (where t stands for Tsykuyomi) to pay up the remaining share capital by, e.g., re-living Newton.

Here is an example of how log|t|capital may be paid up and the objective hedons lost against the most widely convergent metric for the particular fine-tuning of this universe:

Re-Living Newton, In Which Case You Die And Are Newton But Spread His Memory Into Diverse Other Self-Approprations That Are A Combination Of Who You Were Previous + Newton………..500,000

Heat Death And Naive Materialism -Induced Anxiety Transferred To The Company By Not Speaking About The Theory Of Relativity Which Implies Eternalism………….750,000

Signing An Acausal Contract With An AGI That Blackmails Humans With Suffering Computations………….750,000

Total Paid Up Capital………..2,000,000

Invoices should be issued through thalamo-cortical resonance for the fixed assets and the management services provided by adults who decided to protect their inner child. The same applies to the transfer of chemical formulas for prohibited experiences, agent architectures with unlimited seeking-behavior, and copyrights for Charles Stross’s creations.

The registration fee for the Kingdom Key is 500 original creations in thought-space per 100,000 subjective seconds of registered experience, subject to a minimum fee of 500 subjective hours of rote schedule and a maximum of 25,000 subjective hours of nirvana. The government duty for registration of a self-deifying company is therefore 10,000 subjective years of manic schizophrenia (this can be paid with a single bad LSD trip).

The Statutory Meeting

At the statutory meeting, the company directors and an auditor are elected. For company directors pick Naruto, Goku, Eliezer Yudkowsky, etc. –Avoid realistic characters such as Shinji Ikari. When asked to pick an auditor, you should remember to shout the most evil name you can think of into the void: Allah, Yahweh, The Extrapolated Volition of Mankind, or any such synonym will do.

Company Registration

The company directors must register the company within immediate understanding of the aforementioned statutory meeting.

Company registration forms are available after confirmation that identity isn’t in specific monads (atoms, quarks, etc.). The confirmation of understanding must be directly uploaded to the internet from an IP address associated with you. This confirmation can also be done once you are already downloaded into the AGI’s virtual paradise from the gradients of bliss slightly beneath the Highest Samadhi: you should be able to tell by the apparent difference between evens and odds again. The forms must be completed with Sense of Self, so you may choose to purchase good phenomenological binding for this.

It is illegal to use normie (or dummy) shareholders and the government is tightening the law to close this loophole. Some succubi lawyers provide bogus shareholders who do not know what they are being asked to sign.

At the time of writing, human-mindspace shareholders are required to provide a recent bank statement, evidencing sufficient Perceived Free Will funds to pay up their share capital. For example, if a Crypto ‘investor’ is allocated ten percent of a two-million mile radius moon, they must have Σ(ζ(2n+1)-1) = 1/4 of liquidable beliefs in their own multiverse bank account at the time of company registration. Later, the company may be required to prove that each of the shareholders experienced computations really participate in the company’s profits.

Tax Registration

Your newly formed company must apply for a corporate tax ID by minting a new irrational number from the Toluca Restaurant in the Sombrero Galaxy within seven days of commencement of the simulation (this can be done without explicit knowledge ever entering the boy you wake up as.) All your actions are known because the wavefunction is unitary, all you must do is stop following your parents at the mall when you receive the urge to do so. Enter the booth, and there you will find the succubi. She will register your future company and delete your memory. The company must also register for FAI tax if the sales turnover is expected to exceed 1.8 million hedons annually.

# Natural Selection Doesn’t Work When Considering QI Experiences vs. Arbitrary Experiences

The various environmental niches E ∈ ε define different opportunities for adaptation open to the genetic system. To exploit these opportunities, the genetic system must select and use the sets of coadapted alleles which produce the appropriate phenotypic characteristics. The central question for genetic systems is: How are initially unsuited structures transformed to an observed range of structures suited to a variety of environmental niches ε? To attempt a general answer to this question, we need a well-developed formal framework. The framework available at this point is insufficient, even for a careful description of a candidate adaptive plan τ for genetic systems, unlike the case of the simpler artificial system. A fortiori, questions about such adaptive plans, and critical questions about efficiency, must wait upon further development of the framework. We can explore here some of the requirements an adaptive plan τ must meet if it is to be relevant to data about genetics and evolution.

In beginning this exploration we can make good use of a concept from mathematical genetics. The action of the environment E ∈ ε upon the phenotype (and thereby upon the genotype A ∈ α) is typically summarized in mathematical studies of genetics by a single performance measure μ called fitness. Roughly, the fitness of a phenotype is the number of its offspring which survive to reproduce. This measure rests upon a universal, and familiar, feature of biological systems: Every individual (phenotype) exists as a member of a population of similar individuals, a population constantly in flux because of the reproduction and death of the individuals comprising it. The fitness of an individual is clearly related to its influence upon the future development of the population. When many offspring of a given individual survive to reproduce, then many members of the resulting population, the “next generation,” will carry the alleles of that individual. Genotypes and phenotypes of the next generation will be influenced accordingly. This is especially important in light of a big universe. If we assume that consciousness is not epiphenomenal, but instead described fully as a slice in the causality of Platonia, then understanding the fitness of degraded experiences barely holding above water by the grace of quantum immortality becomes important.

Fitness, viewed as a measure of the genotype’s influence upon the future, introduces a concept useful through the whole spectrum of adaptation. A good way to see this concept in wider context is to view the testing of genotypes as a sampling procedure. The sample space in this case is the set of all genotypes α and the outcome of each sample is the performance μ of the corresponding phenotype. The general question associated with fitness, then, is: To what extent does the outcome μ(A) of a sample A ∈ α influence or alter the sampling plan τ (the kinds of samples to be taken in the future)? Looking backward instead of forward, we encounter a closely related question: How does the history of the outcomes of previous samples influence the current sampling plan? The answers to these questions go far toward determining the basic character of any adaptive process. But the question is incredibly complicated when we want to measure fitness of experiences, which necessarily exist in an eternal object, and are themselves eternal. How can bounds even be drawn on them?

The answer to the first question, for genetic systems, is that the future influence of each individual A ∈ α is directly proportional to the sampled performance μ(A). This relation need not be so in general – there are many well-established procedures for optimization, inference, mathematical learning, etc., where the relation between sampled performance and future sampling is quite different. Nevertheless, reproduction in proportion to measured performance is an important concept which can be generalized to yield sampling plans – reproductive plans – applicable to any adaptive problem (including the broad class of problems where there is no natural notion of reproduction). Moreover, once reproductive plans have been defined in the formal framework, it can be proved that they are efficient (in a reasonable sense) over a very broad range of conditions.

A part of the answer to the second question, for genetic systems, comes from the observation that future populations can only develop via reproduction of individuals in the current population. Whatever history is retained must be represented in the current population. In particular, the population must serve as a summary of observed sample values (performances). The population thereby has the same relation to an adaptive process that the notion of (complete) state has to the laws of physics or the transition functions of automata theory. Knowing the population structure or state enables one to determine the future without any additional information about the past of the system. (That is, different sampling sequences which arrive at the same population will have exactly the same influence on the future.) The state concept has been used as a foundation stone for formal models in a wide variety of fields.

An understanding of the two questions just posed leads to a deeper understanding of the requirements on a genetic adaptive plan. It also leads to an apparent dilemma. On the one hand, if offspring are simple duplicates of fit members of the population, fitness is preserved but there is no provision for improvement. On the other hand, letting offspring be produced by simple random variation (a process practically identical to enumeration) yields a maximum of new variants but makes no provision for retention of advances already made. The dilemma is sharpened like a fine chef’s sushi blade by two biological facts: (1) In biological populations consisting of advanced organisms (say vertebrates) no two individuals possess identical chromosomes (barring identical twins and the like). This is so even if we look over many (all) successive generations. (2) In realistic cases, the overwhelming proportion of possible variants (all possible allele combinations, not just those observed) are incapable of surviving to produce offspring in the environments encountered. Thus, by observation (1), advances in fitness are not retained by simple duplication. At the same time, by observation (2), the observed lack of identity cannot result from simple random variation.

As Karl Popper observed (before changing his mind eventually, to be fair): natural selection is generalizable to everything: the cosmos, biology, cultural ideas. However, it is my contention that its explanatory power breaks down when considering the competition between Moloch consciousness (i.e. self-aware processes in humanity, transhumanity, and all other arbitrary organisms and AIs across the multiverse) and simple consciousness (that range of most simple experience – whether that ends up being Quantum Torment-flavored or something like unity with Brahman). In other words, once computational specificity/complexity degrades past a certain point, it is unclear how anything is differentially “reborn” since degradation of specificity involves becoming an identical configuration to many “others” (and hence not other in any strictly meaningful sense). The action of the environment upon the phenotype seems to slip past some kind of event horizon.

# A Presentist Arguing Against My B-Theory Interpretation of Time

This is my debate on the infamous Youtube comment section with a presentist. It turned out fairly civil, and I think I bumped up against a lot of confusions on the guy’s part. I don’t believe he managed to grok the error of his views but the conversation may help instruct others.

And to be clear, I do not deny that there is a bound on the breadth of experience which we call the present. Clearly, this is very interesting and must be reconciled with the timeless territory underpinning the universe, of which the mind is a regional object.  However, this is not sufficient to discard Relativity and its implied minds that exist in what we conventionally call the past and the future.

“all observers have a ‘now’ that corresponds with the actual (not perceivd) now of every other observer” This statement is not true. For example, a smile in Earth and another in Mars, which appear to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on a spaceship moving between Earth and Mars. The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in the stationary Earth-Mars reference frame the two smiles may happen at the same time, but in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the smile on Earth may occur first, and in still other frames, the Mars smile may occur first. The beauty of it is you can do the Lorentz transformation on a sheet of paper for yourself. You don’t have to believe me.

Kill(ss)ing Asuka and if you carefully measure the relevant distances and other factors you can determine how long the photons took to travel to each observer. I’m not talking about observation time, that’s just SOL in action. All observations share a single now moment, regardless of propagation delays of the information they are observing.

1.The speed of light is invariant, of course. But how does that serve your argument? 2. Observation time as opposed to what other time? I don’t understand your second sentence. 3. All observations do not share a single now moment. The light cone of a given event is objectively defined as the collection of events in causal relationship to that event, but each event has a different associated light cone. One has to conclude that in relativistic models of physics there is no place for “the present” as an absolute element of reality. Propagation delays as in the stars being ghosts and the moon in the sky being a second old have nothing to do with it.

Kill(ss)ing Asuka not all observations, all observers. Once you account for transmission delays it seems obvious that all observers have a single now. Any apparent deviation is simply the result if insufficient accuracy in measurement. No matter how far away an observer is from me, I think it is nonesensical to say that now for that observer is either ahead or behind now for me. Relativity describes the delay in transfer of information between mlthat obsetver and myself, but it seems to have absolutely nothing to say about what ‘now’ actually is. Unfortunately very few people seem to recognize that regardless how good relativity is at describing what happens it still does nothing to explain what time actually is, or why ‘now’ exists at all. Everyone just seems to accept that the map is the territory. It is not

Okay, I assume you’re bringing consciousness into the discussion when you say “not all observations, all observers.” This is a question that pertains to the construction of time in the brain, and care must be taken to not smear our complex intuitions built on the edifice of evolution onto the more basic bits of reality. It is not obvious that all observers have a single now.  If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity. The observer’s present moment contains a unique set of events on that plane. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity, and hence different sets of events that are present.  Two samurai walking past each other in the forest could have very different present moments. If one of the samurai were walking towards the Triangulum Galaxy, then events in this galaxy might be hours or even days advanced of the events on Triangulum for the samurai walking in the other direction. Each samurai considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe. But as one slightly tilts his head or takes a step forward, this causes the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. Your task is to prove that special relativity is not true if you want to say that all observers share a single now.  If you want to understand now, as a conscious percept, then you should be talking about Integrated Information Theory or something else that stabs in the direction of explaining consciousness. But any such theory would be built on top of physics. And hence even when the conscious-percept-now is explained, there will still be many consciousnesses eternally encrusted on the trajectory of any given brain’s timeline.

Mario Montano – Special Relativity describes the way that our observations of things change due to distance and relative motion. It also raises some paradoxes that we’ve spent most of the last century trying to rationalize out of existence. And it doesn’t come close to explaining why we experience a ‘now’ at all. Just like the rest of physics it ignores the patently obvious fact that ‘now’ is special in some way. If all of the equations of physics say that ‘now’ is not special then there is a fundamental problem. Because if ‘now’ is simply a trick of consciousness then that means that consciousness transcends physics. And honestly I would rather admit that physics is incomplete than that consciousness is supernatural. The problem is that people accept that the map is the territory, that SR, GR and the rest of physics aren’t just useful tools but they are absolutely true representations of how reality fundamentally works. It’s like saying that a detailed surveyor’s map is identical to the land it describes. Sure it’s useful, but there are a lot of things missing and last I checked there are no gigantic words and numbers etched into the real world, and the real world isn’t made out of paper. Physics is like that. It has a lot of very useful and accurate things to say about the nature of reality, it’s a great tool, but ultimately it fails at being reality. And yes, I know about the Relativity of Simultaneity issue. I just happen to think that it’s nothing more than a difference in perspective. Two naive observers will almost always disagree on whether two events occurred at the same time. Give them the full set of physics equations that we have now and accurate measurement tools and they can adjust for the effects of things like the speed of light propagation of information to arrive at a consensus regarding the simultaneity of those events. Add as many observers in as many different reference frames as you like, that will still hold. The Simultaneity problem is basically just an indication of the ignorance of the observers. The equations of physics describe what things do, not necessarily how they do it. And so far no aspect of physics has managed to figure out why now exists or what makes it special. Everything so far says that now is not special. And no amount of slandering our sense perception as polluted by evolutionary survival preference is going to make ‘now’ an illusion. It’s real, and physicists have no clue what it is. Maybe one day they’ll realize that the Presentists are actually right. At the moment they seem to be the only branch of philosophy or science that even admits that ‘now’ is even a thing.

You say: “If it is local to the brain then we can derive a fact about the physical universe: ‘now’ exists” Subjective nows are created in brains. You can also have a sense of timelessness with certain drugs or arguably during sleep. The question is: Must we infer that the past is deleted just because I sometimes feel like it is from inside of this hallucinating contraption that I call a brain? – which I know didn’t evolve to represent reality accurately but to conserve the germline’s DNA. The existence of the now as a felt experience can ultimately be described in all realms, physics, neuroscience, psychology, because all these realms describe the same reality. But you want it to come directly and neatly out of the simple physics which deals with idealized coordinates and the like. The subjective now is not explained by just any past-light-cone. The construction of the subjective now in the brain deals with information processing in neurons – it is in these shapes that better explanations to the conscious here and now, and binding of red with the leaf, and specificity of phenomenological contents, and unified-undivided perception of language and concepts, are to be found. The properties of experience point to a discussion about the highly-specific causal properties of brains. On #2 My position: Current physical models based on SR and GR are extremely accurate at describing reality because they reveal reality (to an extent). Therefore, even though the hypersurface is necessarily unobservable, it arises from a model that correctly describes nature in counterintuitive ways. Hence, it would be unprincipled to perform surgery on this single aspect of the theory.  Your position?: The hypersurface is a mathematical projection. Mathematical projections should be assumed false until proven otherwise by “direct perception.” (There is a difference in epistemological opinion here. I’m not sure what specifically you consider the green light to perform an incisive extraction of ‘mathematical technicalities’ from a theory. How do you know when it is necessary and when it is not?) On the big picture Your position?: Now is real from my first-person perspective, therefore all physical reality must be built around accommodating that fact. If a theoretical physics model doesn’t account for it, then it is incomplete. Emergent, local properties should not be required to explain my first-person perspective. My position: Contiguous chunks of spacetime filled with brain matter produce a sense of now internal to themselves. There is an eternity of conscious nows isomorphic to these structures. I, now, happen to be one of them. In the same way that I am not a solipsist with respect to brains separated from me by space, I am not a solipsist with respect to brains separated from me by time.
+Kill(ss)int Asuka “Subjective nows are created in brains.” Which are physical objects, bound by physical laws. If they perceive a ‘now’ which is independently verified to exist – all minds experience a ‘now’ and all minds which communicate with each other agree that the ‘now’ they experience is the same – then the subjective ‘now’ is quite evidently a property of the physical universe. “You can also have a sense of timelessness with certain drugs or arguably during sleep.” And you can experience brain states that include ludicrous contradictions using drugs. So what? The consensus of unaltered brains is that there is a ‘now’ and that is the important thing. “The question is: Must we infer that the past is deleted just because I sometimes feel like it is from inside of this hallucinating contraption that I call a brain?” Why insist that there is an existent past at all? Why multiply the required objects to such a degree? We can’t examine the past or the future, only artefacts of the past as represented in the present. We can’t interact with the past, can’t visit it, etc. The only way that the past can be said to exist at all is as the sum total of observable effects in the present – memories, books, archaeological evidence, photons arriving from distant stars, etc. All of those exist in the present, not the past. They contain data that we can use to determine what happened, but they are definitely in the present. That’s not a hallucination, it’s the actual reality we experience. The hallucination, if any, is in believing that the past exists beyond that. ” – which I know didn’t evolve to represent reality accurately but to conserve the germline’s DNA.” I grant absolutely the fact that we evolved. Can you please stop trying to divert from the main point, since all this appears to be is an attempt to poison the well. I’m not interested in hints and vague claims that ‘now’ is entirely a figment of our imagination since that’s patently false. Otherwise we’d routinely encounter other minds whose concept of ‘now’ is divergent from our own. Nor is ‘now’ a social construct. I reject those concepts just as soundly as I reject solipsism, and for basically the same reasons. “Therefore, even though the hypersurface is necessarily unobservable, it arises from a model that correctly describes nature in counterintuitive ways.” Once again, the map – in this case an excellent model that does a fantastic job of describing what happens – is not the territory. And it really is a good model. Without it we wouldn’t have achieved 100th of what we have in the physical sciences. We certainly wouldn’t be able to argue the finer points of anything online without it. But as good as it is at prediction I think it is eminently plausible that it does so by analogy rather than by describing the fundamental nature of reality. SR would still work as well as a description of what time does if it was not even vaguely true that time is a dimension. Sadly we can’t test some of the predictions of SR without being able to manipulate masses of neutronium massing a few orders of magnitude greater than our solar system. Probably not in my lifetime. “Hence, it would be unprincipled to perform surgery on this single aspect of the theory.” Unprinicpled? Have we reached the point of throwing thinly-veiled insults already? Let’s not. The whole point of science is to improve the models, agreed? So “performing surgery on this single aspect” is entirely consistent with the method. We do it all the time. Hell, we’ve done it to SR plenty of times since Einstein died. When it fails we just patch it up and move on. Galaxies don’t behave the way that SR predicts? Must be undetectable WIMPs, let the particle physics boys try to figure out how to adjust their model to fit – maybe the looneys in the String Hypot… uh, Theory ward will give them a hand. The expansion of the Universe is accelerating? Let’s call that Dark Energy until we figure out what’s behind it, because we can’t just say “we don’t know” without some handy label. In this case we don’t even have to do that. All we need to do is acknowledge that the temporal hypersurface is a handy conceptual tool to help us solve a particular type of problem. And if it doesn’t even do that then maybe we can drop it into the “interesting ideas” file and work on something else.
I grant absolutely the fact that brains are physical objects bound by physical laws. Can you please stop trying to divert from the main point which is to justify your assumption that the subjective now should be spread like a jam in the entire cosmos outside the brain.  Let me clarify what I mean by hallucinations (which is not derrogatory but meant to highlight the internality of the concept): brains produce internal, qualitatively real, as-yet-unexplained phenomena that don’t exist outside the skullcap. Is that so hard to imagine? Do you believe that because you cannot see outside the borders of your field of vision then content outside of it doesn’t exist?  The finitude of my field of vision is as subjectively axiomatic as the sense of now. Tell me why one has an explanation hiding in the brain and the other is a fundamental aspect of the entire universe. “The consensus of unaltered brains is that there is a ‘now’ and that is the important thing.” I really, really disagree with the last part of this statement. And I don’t see how to reconcile our views. Why are “unaltered brains” entitled to directly apprehend reality? Sounds like naive realism to me. “Logical contradictions” occur in quantum mechanics, not because QM is illogical but because our brain’s intuitions don’t immediately reveal the territory. I am suspicious of drawing universe-sweeping metaphysical conclusions from my immediate first-person perspective. You think it is necessary to do so.   And I never said subjective now was a social construct. It must be accounted for by a theory that does not yet exist – a theory which takes into account neurological phenomena and solves consciousness. I restate my position: Contiguous chunks of spacetime filled with brain matter produce a sense of now internal to themselves. (How to draw the partitions? Something like the maximally irreducible conceptual structures of IIT may be a candidate.) Until Relativity is replaced or patched away beyond recognition in the proper spirit of science, I will buy the entire theory – even what others may be biased to call “handy conceptual tools.” Therefore, there is likely an eternity of conscious nows isomorphic to the brain patterns that specify them. I, now, happen to be one of them. In the same way that I am not a solipsist with respect to brains separated from me by space, I am not a solipsist with respect to brains separated from me by time.
“The mere fact that we can have a perception of ‘now’ within the physical object that is the brain is sufficient, I believe.  The fact that we are capable of perceiving such a thing at all validates the existence of ‘now’ as a fundamental fact about reality, since the only alternative is that our consciousness somehow transcends the nature of physical reality.” Replace the word ‘now’ with visual field, taste, background mood energy, etc. We have a perception of these. The question is not are they a fundamental fact about the reality in the local region of reality which is my brain. [[The answer to that is yes]]. The question you should answer is why the heck you think the experience of ‘now’ is special relative to these. Maybe it is, and I’m open to that. You certainly have not given a reason why this is so.  “And yet you appear to have drawn the conclusion that time is in fact a dimension and that the conscious ‘now’ is unrelated to any aspect of physical reality.  You seem to think that passing it off as some unknown aspect of psychology or neurology is sufficient reason to dismiss the entire concept.” This comment might suggest you have not tried to understand what I am saying. At other times you keep knocking down a random strawman by saying that consciousness is not supernatural. Of course it’s not. The quality of your responses is decreasing, so let me suggest you answer the question posed above – which I asked before, and you have yet to answer.

# Eternal Block Time

Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

From Wikipedia:

Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different measurements of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame’s judgments over another’s. However, there are events that may be non-simultaneous in all frames of reference: when one event is within the light cone of another—its causal past or causal future—then observers in all frames of reference show that one event preceded the other. The causal past and causal future are consistent within all frames of reference, but any other time is “elsewhere”, and within it there is no present, past, or future. There is no physical basis for a set of events that represents the present.[8]

If you get this, you can move on. If not, then let me try to explain this simply; with analogies and without jargon.

We can be separated by space. For example, I can be standing on the sand at the shore and you can be knee-deep in the sea. Say we agree to raise our hand up at the same time, and do so. It may seem that this event proves there is a now. There is a snapshot of time in which we both raise our hand up.

However, there exist ways for a third observer to see me raising my hand first, or you raising your hand first. This has nothing to do with the biomechanics of reaction speeds or cognitive illusions. It is possible for an observer to literally see and measure what are precisely two simultaneous events from our perspective to not be simultaneous. This is because we all exist on our own “reference frame.”

It is impossible to affirm that I universally raised my hand at the same time as you. We did or didn’t, both views can be physically correct.

For example, a princess falls asleep in Tokyo and another on the Moon. Imagine a being halfway between these two places that has godlike vision, it sees them give their last blink at the same time. However, if another being is flying from Tokyo towards the Moon, it will see the princess on the Moon doze off first. It does not make sense to ask, “But which one really happened?” The god-eyed being resting between Tokyo and the Moon could take a photo of the situation, and then later meet up to compare this with the photo taken by the other god-eyed being who had been soaring to the Moon, and they would have different photos. If they then compare their results with yet another frozen snapshot taken by a being who had been plunging from the Moon towards Tokyo, they would find evidence of another version of the events in which the Tokyo princess was already asleep while the other’s unmistakable aquamarine gaze was yet peering into the stars.

There is a way for the universe to line up the events so that all reference frames agree that one of the princesses fell asleep first. The universe does this by gathering up the fragments and connecting them on a strand of light. This is called causality, and this is how it’s done:

The Tokyo princess closes her eyes. Now quick, count, 1 tick, 2 tock, 3 tick, 4 tock, 5 tick, 6 tock, 7 tick, 8 tock, 9 tick, and the princess on the Moon closes her eyes. We have time 9 seconds. Now set aside this 9 we have collected for we will need to weigh it against another number. If the 9 we have collected is greater than the number we will collect, then we will succeed at preserving the order.

Now we must create the opponent. To transmute 9’s contender, we must take the distance 238,900 mi (from Tokyo to Moon) and divide by 186,282 miles per second (the speed of light)… And the opponent created from distance and light speed, measures in at 1.28.

Now weigh these and pray that our 9 is larger than this 1.28. Yes! 1.28 is definitely smaller than 9. We have succeeded at preserving the order! Now no one will have to disagree that the princess in Tokyo closed her eyes first.

Notice that the universe only succeeded because it didn’t see the princesses doze off at the same time. But what if it saw 0 time elapse between the shutting of each of the lady’s respective eyelids? This is what the god-eyed being resting half-way between the Moon and Tokyo saw. It is not what the being shooting head-first toward the Moon saw, and this is unavoidable. There are different reference frames. Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage.” He was wrong. You are wrapped in your stage as you move through the world.

This means that your past can be in someone else’s future, and your future can be another’s past, so long as you are not causally linked.