I apologise if I've offended you. Perhaps I'm a little too direct in my comments, but they were not meant to be derogatory. They were intended to help you question what your objectives really were.
I do think that the supernatural or miracle claims are delusional. It is, of course, possible that I've missed something, but my comments are based on the lack of scientific evidence to support such claims.
P.S. If I'd wanted to give offence, I'd have suggested that you read "The Celestine Prophesy".
It seems to me, Ed, that you are being somewhat disingenuous. From what you say, you have already followed the mystic path, and, like me, left it somewhere in your youth when desire for material and professional advancement became more important to you.
So why are you "on this journey"? I suspect from your unwillingness to make serious changes to your lifestyle, that this is mystical tourism. The lite version of mysticism. In which case I would suggest re-reading Herman Hesse's "Siddhartha", Richard Bach's "Reluctant Messiah", Pirsig's "Motorcycle Maintenance" and de Ropp's "Master Game". You may well have read all these books, which, to me, are significant works. Perhaps re-reading them will give you the feeling of mysticism, without the cost to your family and material life of genuinely taking it up?
I think that you are wasting your time. I think so because I've been there. I've had mystical experiences, very believable, and I believed them, at the time. I wanted to. But the only evidence was my own belief in them. You have to take it on trust, or walk away. It took a long time, but eventually I did not need to believe anymore. And when I stopped believing, there was nothing left except wishful thinking. Of course, that's just one person's experience, but it is my experience. There was no "correspondence with any events outside myself".
Also some of the scenarios are not credible. Like "moving on" to a higher plane where you leave your body behind, and become pure mind. That can sound really profound, but it stinks when you think about it. Our mind and brain are inextricably linked. There is no mind without the brain, and not much fun without a body. So is it really so great even if you could become pure mind? What would you do all day? It's just dissatisfaction with your life and wish fulfillment for something better. Only "better" doesn't sound so good when you really think about it.
I'd rather believe that this life is a one shot wonder and make the best of it. That way, if there is something afterwards, that's a bonus.
No, you CLAIMED to have solved it, but would not (or could not) explain it. You were so smug in your insistance that I had missed something, that it drove me to reconsider the scenario, and realize my mistake. Whether you actually knew the answer only you can know, because you did not say it until after both Arfur and I had explained it.
But that is all ancient history. It is time to bury the past.
If that post gets you in trouble, then I for one will regret it. I welcome your comments, however misguided. Why? Because you stung me into learning what I thought I already knew. I've changed, and you helped, and I'm grateful for that. The trouble is, you haven't learned what you do not know. You genuinely do not understand SR. I can say that because, thanks in part to you, I do.
Oh, and about Arfur. Yes he pointed out my error over Timothy's scenario, but if you check my "reply" it was posted too soon after his post, and in ignorance of it. I had worked out my error without his posts. Look at my post, and work out how long it would take to write.
With the exception of relative simultaneity, none of what you say is scientifically true. Time dilation and length contraction are conceivable in a presentist universe. It is only relative simultaneity that makes SR incompatible with presentism, and then only if the relative simultaneity is ontologically meaningful. I've pointed out why even SR indicates that the differences in simultaneity are not real, because they do not and cannot have causal effects. That's scientific fact, not my opinion.
David, it sounds to me that you just admitted that you do not understand Special Relativity. That "stuff about co-located events" is standard SR. It is nothing to do with my ontological beliefs. Anyway, I agree that it is pointless our repeating our positions. Neither of us is about to change our views, and we've both said all that there is to say.
Thank you for confirming that co-local events which are simultaneous in one frame of reference are simultaneous in all frames of reference. That matches my claim:
So I hope that we will now see no more comments of the type:
Turning to your main point:
I am well aware of this. However, as I said:
I.e. I was quoting the scientific view of Special Relativity. Whether the planes of simultaneity are ontologically real is not relevant to Da Fire's question, so I made no mention of my opinions on that subject.
What co-located means depends on the context. In spacetime co-located can mean co-located in space and time. However it can be used to mean co-located spatially, in which case the time interval has to be separately defined. I used the latter meaning.
No, you are assuming that they have to be in the same inertial frame (i.e. mutually at rest) for both to see the events simultaneously. That is not the case. If two events are spatially co-located and simultaneous when viewed from one frame of reference, they are simultaneous in all frames of reference.
The reason is that the spacetime interval is zero between the events when viewed from rest frame A. Therefore, as the spacetime interval is invariant between frames of reference, it is still zero when viewed from rest frame B.
Events that are simultaneous in rest frame A, but are NOT co-located, do not have a zero spacetime interval. Indeed they have a "spacelike" interval. So when viewed from a different rest frame, the spacetime interval will be maintained, but the co-ordinate distance and time interval will differ. Hence they will not be simultaneous in rest frame B.
I will try to explain. In the original Einstein's Train example, if the flashes OCCURRED simultaneously to both observers, they would be SEEN simultaneously by both observers. But the flashes of lightening are NOT co-located when they occur, so if they occur simultaneously to one oberver, they will NOT occur simultaneously the other. Hence, because they do not OCCUR simultaneously to both observers, they are not SEEN simultaneously by both observers.
By contrast, in the scenario I quoted, the events ARE co-located. So if they OCCUR simultaneously to one observer, then they OCCUR simultaneously to all. Hence they will SEE them simultaneously.
That's Relativity 101, not my opinion. If you can find a reference saying otherwise, please quote it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "several events occupy the same frame in space-time", can you clarify?
Two events being co-located in space and simultaneous in time is an idealised situation. It may not be possible in practice, but that is not the point. The point is that in theory if two events are co-located and simultaneous in one frame of reference, then they are simultaneous in all frames of reference. Thus simultaneity is not, in theory, limited to the frame of reference.
As to whether they are "unified as a single event", you would need to provide some reason for claiming that. What if they had separate causes?
I'm talking from a scientific perspective. Of course philosophy is not bound by science, but it should be informed by science. Simultaneity is scientifically real. As I have mentioned, events that are co-located in space and simultaneous in time in one frame of reference are co-located and simultaneous in all frames of reference. This is a scientific fact, not a matter of opinion. So simultaneity is an objective fact, in that case at least.
1. There are two options that may otherwise be overlooked: "non-causalist" and "randomist".
2. There are two forms of "hard" determinist: those that exclude random causation and those that include it.
3. Neither "compatibilist" nor "soft determinist" (in their usually accepted meaning of a form of determinism that is compatible with free will) exist in the matrix. The only "compatible" option is a "freewillist" one. That is compatible with a deterministic universe (because only one alternative is genuinely realizable), but it is not compatible with determinism per se. This suggests that either a "compatibilist"/"soft determinist" is a misnomer for a "compatible freewillist", or it is a non sequiteur.