Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

[Alan Grayson]

FWIW, I've established to my satisfaction that the "paradox" is unrelated to the fact that the car fits and doesn't fit in the garage. As Clark pointed out, this result is "odd". And it is not related to Clark claim the alleged paradox has anything to do with the idea that fitting and not filling occurs "at the same time", since each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, so the hypothesis in quotes makes no sense. The one thing there's general agreement on, is that the paradox is resolved by applying the disagreement about simultaneity. You've made this claim repeatedly and mocked me for not seeing the light. But if your alleged solution, which I referred to as a slogan, is the solution to the paradox, the question is, "What is the problem it is a solution to?" So, now I'd appreciate an answer to this basic question, if you have one. What exactly, in your opinion, is the paradox you claim is solved by disagreement about simultaneity? AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, after all your backpedaling, dodging, and attempts to rewrite history, you’re now pretending to ask a sincere question? Fine, I’ll humor you—though we both know you’ll just find another way to twist this.

The so-called paradox arises when someone incorrectly assumes that both frames should agree on whether the car fits inside the garage at a single universal moment. In other words, people mistakenly expect an absolute answer to a question that is frame-dependent.

The "Problem" That Simultaneity Resolves:

Garage frame: The car is contracted due to length contraction, so at some moment in this frame, it fits entirely inside the garage.

Car frame: The garage is contracted instead, and simultaneity shifts, meaning that by the time the back of the car enters, the front has already exited. The car is never entirely inside at any moment in this frame.

Why This Is Not a Contradiction:

The naïve view (where people think in classical, absolute simultaneity terms) sees this as a paradox: "How can the car fit and not fit at the same time?"

Relativity of simultaneity resolves this because the frames do not share a single definition of ‘at the same time’. What is "simultaneous" in one frame is not simultaneous in another.

Your whole "question" is just an attempt to make it seem like simultaneity doesn’t actually resolve anything—when, in reality, the misunderstanding of simultaneity is the only reason people see a paradox in the first place.

If you truly don’t see this after months of discussion, it’s not because the answer isn’t clear—it’s because you refuse to let go of your preconceptions.

Quentin 

Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 21:22, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

FWIW, I've established to my satisfaction that the "paradox" is unrelated to the fact that the car fits and doesn't fit in the garage. As Clark pointed out, this result is "odd". And it is not related to Clark claim the alleged paradox has anything to do with the idea that fitting and not filling occurs "at the same time", since each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, so the hypothesis in quotes makes no sense. The one thing there's general agreement on, is that the paradox is resolved by applying the disagreement about simultaneity. You've made this claim repeatedly and mocked me for not seeing the light. But if your alleged solution, which I referred to as a slogan, is the solution to the paradox, the question is, "What is the problem it is a solution to?" So, now I'd appreciate an answer to this basic question, if you have one. What exactly, in your opinion, is the paradox you claim is solved by disagreement about simultaneity? AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/336a2019-58b4-4520-ac34-762930581d90n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

Why can't you just answer my question and cease being a pseudo mind-reading PRICK? Yes, that's what you are. No doubt about it. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:31:11 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, after all your backpedaling, dodging, and attempts to rewrite history, you’re now pretending to ask a sincere question? Fine, I’ll humor you—though we both know you’ll just find another way to twist this.

The so-called paradox arises when someone incorrectly assumes that both frames should agree on whether the car fits inside the garage at a single universal moment. In other words, people mistakenly expect an absolute answer to a question that is frame-dependent.

The "Problem" That Simultaneity Resolves:

Garage frame: The car is contracted due to length contraction, so at some moment in this frame, it fits entirely inside the garage.

Car frame: The garage is contracted instead, and simultaneity shifts, meaning that by the time the back of the car enters, the front has already exited. The car is never entirely inside at any moment in this frame.

Why This Is Not a Contradiction:

The naïve view (where people think in classical, absolute simultaneity terms) sees this as a paradox: "How can the car fit and not fit at the same time?"

Relativity of simultaneity resolves this because the frames do not share a single definition of ‘at the same time’. What is "simultaneous" in one frame is not simultaneous in another.

That was my conclusion, and I stated it in my question to you; in SR each frame has its own clocks, so the concept of "at the same time" makes no sense. But I still wondered whether fitting and not fillting could remain paradoxical if those events occurred at DIFFERENT times. This is called "thinking out of the box." AG 

Your whole "question" is just an attempt to make it seem like simultaneity doesn’t actually resolve anything—when, in reality, the misunderstanding of simultaneity is the only reason people see a paradox in the first place.

That's what I wrote was the problem. Not backpeddling. I realized that myself and stated it in my question to you. It wasn't that Clark was wrong. He correctly stated the cause of the paradox, but didn't expressly state why this assumption was wrong. So, can fitting and not fitting although at different times be a paradox? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, I answered your question directly. The fact that you don’t like the answer—or that it exposes your bad faith—isn’t my problem.

The paradox arises from the false assumption that there is a universal simultaneity, leading to the mistaken belief that the car must fit and not fit in an absolute sense. The solution is recognizing that simultaneity is frame-dependent, meaning each frame has its own consistent reality where its conclusion holds. There is no contradiction once you stop applying outdated, classical assumptions to relativistic scenarios.

Now, go ahead—pretend I didn’t answer, throw another insult, or twist this into something else. That’s all you ever do.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c219f76-8d98-4584-8f6e-c4529c4340d9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:09:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, I answered your question directly. The fact that you don’t like the answer—or that it exposes your bad faith—isn’t my problem.

The paradox arises from the false assumption that there is a universal simultaneity, leading to the mistaken belief that the car must fit and not fit in an absolute sense. The solution is recognizing that simultaneity is frame-dependent, meaning each frame has its own consistent reality where its conclusion holds. There is no contradiction once you stop applying outdated, classical assumptions to relativistic scenarios.

Now, go ahead—pretend I didn’t answer, throw another insult, or twist this into something else. That’s all you ever do.

You just don't get it. You constantly accuse me of this or that, as if you can read my intentions. For that reason, and only for that reason, I identify you as an incorrigible PRICK. As for your answer, when did you write that? I might have been under the impression that fitting and not fitting at DIFFERENT times might still be a paradox, and perhaps might NOT have accepted your answer for that reason, which I know you cannot grasp. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, the irony of you accusing me of not "getting it" while you continuously move the goalposts is almost impressive.

You’ve spent this entire discussion dodging explanations, shifting arguments, and now pretending that maybe, just maybe, you might have had a reason for not accepting the answer earlier. Except, that’s nonsense. You weren’t "under the impression" of anything—you were rejecting explanations outright while throwing insults.

Fitting and not fitting at different times is exactly what relativity predicts, and there is nothing paradoxical about it once you acknowledge that simultaneity is relative. If you still see a paradox, it’s because you’re clinging to classical, absolute notions of time that do not exist in SR.

So what’s next? Another dramatic exit? Another accusation? Or are you finally going to admit you were just being stubborn?

Quentin 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fcd9405-c5a3-4867-853c-1bd20494e704n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:24:36 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, the irony of you accusing me of not "getting it" while you continuously move the goalposts is almost impressive.

You keep doing the same thing. You have zero ability for self reflection. AN INCORRIGIBLE PRICK. AG 

You’ve spent this entire discussion dodging explanations, shifting arguments, and now pretending that maybe, just maybe, you might have had a reason for not accepting the answer earlier. Except, that’s nonsense. You weren’t "under the impression" of anything—you were rejecting explanations outright while throwing insults.

PRICK. 

Fitting and not fitting at different times is exactly what relativity predicts, and there is nothing paradoxical about it once you acknowledge that simultaneity is relative. If you still see a paradox, it’s because you’re clinging to classical, absolute notions of time that do not exist in SR.

That's possible. AG 

So what’s next? Another dramatic exit? Another accusation? Or are you finally going to admit you were just being stubborn?

PRICK. 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion.

You just admitted that it's possible you're still clinging to classical notions of time. That’s the closest thing to progress you’ve made in this entire exchange. But let’s be real—you’ll probably backpedal on that in your next reply, just like you’ve done every other time.

So go ahead, type "PRICK" again if that’s all you’ve got left. It’s the perfect way to prove you were never interested in an actual conversation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe043f7e-5abb-4b4b-a765-08467498666dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:37:31 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion.

You just admitted that it's possible you're still clinging to classical notions of time. That’s the closest thing to progress you’ve made in this entire exchange. But let’s be real—you’ll probably backpedal on that in your next reply, just like you’ve done every other time.

So go ahead, type "PRICK" again if that’s all you’ve got left. It’s the perfect way to prove you were never interested in an actual conversation.

PRICK! 

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 4:23:46 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:37:31 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion.

FWIW, we can engage in a rational discussion if you would cease making accusations about my motives and state of mind. I've reviiewed some of your earlier explanations of the alleged paradox, and your more or less constant complaint that I downplay the role of simultaneity in the resolution. While I admit that my initial proposed solution was mistaken -- that length contraction was alone sufficient to resolve the paradox -- I still fail to see why simultaneity does the trick. I say this because all it does is show that fitting and not fitting cannot occur "at the same time". But once it's acknowleged that each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, not synchronized with the clocks in some other frame, the concept "at the same time" is meaningless. So, if you agree so far, the question becomes whether fitting and not fitting "at different times" remains a paradox to resolve. Although, "at the same time" is meaningless, it's possible to imagine the car midway within the garage, and two juxtaposed observers, one in each frame, which observe the car fitting and not fitting, now NOT simultaneous, but spatially co-located. Can this mean another form of the paradox is alive and well, since each observer has contradictory observations (where additional observers are added where necessary to confirm the observations)? Although SR allows measurement to be frame dependent, why isn't this stuation essentially identical to the one which requires simutaneity arguments to allegedly resolve? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, this is the closest you’ve come to an actual discussion, so I’ll give you a straight answer.

Your question boils down to whether simultaneity alone is enough to resolve the paradox, or if there's still an issue when two observers, co-located in space but in different frames, observe contradictory outcomes.

Why Simultaneity Resolves the Paradox:

1. The "paradox" only exists if you expect a single, universal answer to the question, "Does the car fit?"—which would require a preferred frame of reference. But SR explicitly denies the existence of such a frame.

2. Simultaneity isn’t just a technicality—it’s fundamental to how events are ordered in each frame. In the garage frame, the car is fully inside at one moment because simultaneity in that frame aligns the back entering and the front still inside. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, meaning by the time the back enters, the front has already exited. The disagreement is built into SR itself.

Addressing Your "Co-Located Observers" Thought Experiment:

You suggest that if two observers are spatially co-located but in different frames, they would observe contradictory facts. But this is where you’re making an error.

1. Frame membership matters: Each observer is still bound to their own frame’s simultaneity rules. Just because they are momentarily at the same point in space does not mean they share the same perception of simultaneity or event ordering.

2. Contradictory observations are expected, not paradoxical: In relativity, observers in different frames frequently measure different physical quantities for the same event (lengths, time intervals, etc.). This is no different. The garage observer measures the car fitting because their simultaneity rules allow it. The car observer measures it not fitting because their simultaneity rules say otherwise. Each observer’s measurement is internally consistent in their own frame—so there’s no contradiction within SR.

3. Would additional observers change anything?

No. Additional observers in each frame will confirm their own frame’s version of events, reinforcing the idea that simultaneity dictates different conclusions. There is no paradox because neither frame’s measurement is "more real" than the other.

The mistake is assuming that because two observers are momentarily co-located, they must agree on event sequences. They do not. Their velocity relative to each other still dictates their simultaneity slicing of spacetime, and that’s what resolves the paradox.

If you truly accept that simultaneity is relative and that SR allows for frame-dependent measurements, then you should see why "fitting and not fitting" is not a contradiction but a natural consequence of relativity.

If you still think there’s a paradox, then ask yourself: what fundamental assumption are you making that requires a single absolute answer to "Does the car fit?" Because that’s where the actual mistake lies.

Quentin 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07a7fa13-acea-4466-8525-3489d830ac8fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 5:28:34 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, this is the closest you’ve come to an actual discussion, so I’ll give you a straight answer.

Your question boils down to whether simultaneity alone is enough to resolve the paradox, or if there's still an issue when two observers, co-located in space but in different frames, observe contradictory outcomes.

Why Simultaneity Resolves the Paradox:

1. The "paradox" only exists if you expect a single, universal answer to the question, "Does the car fit?"—which would require a preferred frame of reference. But SR explicitly denies the existence of such a frame.

2. Simultaneity isn’t just a technicality—it’s fundamental to how events are ordered in each frame. In the garage frame, the car is fully inside at one moment because simultaneity in that frame aligns the back entering and the front still inside. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, meaning by the time the back enters, the front has already exited. The disagreement is built into SR itself.

Addressing Your "Co-Located Observers" Thought Experiment:

You suggest that if two observers are spatially co-located but in different frames, they would observe contradictory facts. But this is where you’re making an error.

1. Frame membership matters: Each observer is still bound to their own frame’s simultaneity rules. Just because they are momentarily at the same point in space does not mean they share the same perception of simultaneity or event ordering.

2. Contradictory observations are expected, not paradoxical: In relativity, observers in different frames frequently measure different physical quantities for the same event (lengths, time intervals, etc.). This is no different. The garage observer measures the car fitting because their simultaneity rules allow it. The car observer measures it not fitting because their simultaneity rules say otherwise. Each observer’s measurement is internally consistent in their own frame—so there’s no contradiction within SR.

3. Would additional observers change anything?

No. Additional observers in each frame will confirm their own frame’s version of events, reinforcing the idea that simultaneity dictates different conclusions. There is no paradox because neither frame’s measurement is "more real" than the other.

The mistake is assuming that because two observers are momentarily co-located, they must agree on event sequences. They do not. Their velocity relative to each other still dictates their simultaneity slicing of spacetime, and that’s what resolves the paradox.

If you truly accept that simultaneity is relative and that SR allows for frame-dependent measurements, then you should see why "fitting and not fitting" is not a contradiction but a natural consequence of relativity.

If you still think there’s a paradox, then ask yourself: what fundamental assumption are you making that requires a single absolute answer to "Does the car fit?" Because that’s where the actual mistake lies.

Quentin 

FWIW, I wasn't seeking to prove in this thought experiment that there's an absolute answer to whether the car fits. In fact, I was alleging the opposite, that with juxtaposed observers at the midpoint of the garage, the car fits in one frame, and doesn't fit in the other. What I was alleging is that this result seems curiously similar to the paradox when using "at the same time" erroneously, whereas in this thought experiment only"same space" is involved, not same time. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 2:23:45 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 5:28:34 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, this is the closest you’ve come to an actual discussion, so I’ll give you a straight answer.

Your question boils down to whether simultaneity alone is enough to resolve the paradox, or if there's still an issue when two observers, co-located in space but in different frames, observe contradictory outcomes.

Why Simultaneity Resolves the Paradox:

1. The "paradox" only exists if you expect a single, universal answer to the question, "Does the car fit?"—which would require a preferred frame of reference. But SR explicitly denies the existence of such a frame.

2. Simultaneity isn’t just a technicality—it’s fundamental to how events are ordered in each frame. In the garage frame, the car is fully inside at one moment because simultaneity in that frame aligns the back entering and the front still inside. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, meaning by the time the back enters, the front has already exited. The disagreement is built into SR itself.

Addressing Your "Co-Located Observers" Thought Experiment:

You suggest that if two observers are spatially co-located but in different frames, they would observe contradictory facts. But this is where you’re making an error.

1. Frame membership matters: Each observer is still bound to their own frame’s simultaneity rules. Just because they are momentarily at the same point in space does not mean they share the same perception of simultaneity or event ordering.

2. Contradictory observations are expected, not paradoxical: In relativity, observers in different frames frequently measure different physical quantities for the same event (lengths, time intervals, etc.). This is no different. The garage observer measures the car fitting because their simultaneity rules allow it. The car observer measures it not fitting because their simultaneity rules say otherwise. Each observer’s measurement is internally consistent in their own frame—so there’s no contradiction within SR.

3. Would additional observers change anything?

No. Additional observers in each frame will confirm their own frame’s version of events, reinforcing the idea that simultaneity dictates different conclusions. There is no paradox because neither frame’s measurement is "more real" than the other.

The mistake is assuming that because two observers are momentarily co-located, they must agree on event sequences. They do not. Their velocity relative to each other still dictates their simultaneity slicing of spacetime, and that’s what resolves the paradox.

If you truly accept that simultaneity is relative and that SR allows for frame-dependent measurements, then you should see why "fitting and not fitting" is not a contradiction but a natural consequence of relativity.

If you still think there’s a paradox, then ask yourself: what fundamental assumption are you making that requires a single absolute answer to "Does the car fit?" Because that’s where the actual mistake lies.

Quentin 

FWIW, I wasn't seeking to prove in this thought experiment that there's an absolute answer to whether the car fits. In fact, I was alleging the opposite, that with juxtaposed observers at the midpoint of the garage, the car fits in one frame, and doesn't fit in the other. What I was alleging is that this result seems curiously similar to the paradox when using "at the same time" erroneously, whereas in this thought experiment only"same space" is involved, not same time. AG

What this thought experiment shows is curious dichotomy concerning the definition of the paradox. As long as it's assumed fitting and not fittling occur at the same TIME, a "timely" form of juxtaposition, we have a paradox (ostensibly resolved by the disagreement about simultaneity). But when SPACE is juxtaposed, it's not considered a paradox. You'll note that in the spacetime diagrams we have one dimension of time and one of space, which have similar properties, albeit not identical. We also know that given the initial condition, the car never fits from car's frame of reference, and for a sufficient velocity, it will fit from the garage's frame of reference. So the model of the spatial juxtapostion of the observers at the halfway point in garage makes sense. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, what your thought experiment highlights is not a dichotomy in the definition of the paradox, but rather a fundamental difference between simultaneity-dependent contradictions and frame-dependent measurements in relativity.

1. Why simultaneity matters in the original paradox

The original paradox only appears when people assume there’s a universal "at the same time" across both frames.

Once we apply relativity of simultaneity, we see that each frame has its own internally consistent timeline, resolving the contradiction.

2. Why spatial juxtaposition doesn’t create a paradox

The observers at the midpoint are not measuring simultaneity-dependent events, they are measuring spatial lengths, which are inherently frame-dependent.

There is no expectation in SR that two observers from different frames must agree on length measurements—even if they occupy the same location in space at a given moment.

3. Space and time are similar but not interchangeable

Yes, spacetime diagrams treat space and time symmetrically in some respects, but SR does not make space and time fully interchangeable.

Time has an asymmetric role in causality (events in the past can influence the future, but not vice versa), while space does not.

This asymmetry means that disagreements in simultaneity lead to apparent contradictions if misunderstood, while disagreements in spatial measurements do not—because SR already accounts for them via length contraction.

4. Your thought experiment is just a different way of looking at length contraction

The observer in the garage frame sees the car fitting, because in their frame, the car is contracted.

The observer in the car frame sees the car not fitting, because in their frame, the garage is contracted.

These are not "contradictory" observations, just different frame-dependent measurements—exactly like time dilation or velocity-dependent mass.

The original paradox relied on a false assumption of absolute simultaneity—hence why simultaneity "resolves" it.

Your thought experiment doesn’t introduce a new paradox—it just reinforces how relativity treats space and time differently and why length contraction, like time dilation, is not paradoxical, just unintuitive.

Quentin 

Hope this discussion about well known facts for about 120 years will end and we can return to everything-list purposes. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/997c5736-cf45-482b-9511-2cccdc7a1b48n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 2:08:05 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, what your thought experiment highlights is not a dichotomy in the definition of the paradox, but rather a fundamental difference between simultaneity-dependent contradictions and frame-dependent measurements in relativity.

1. Why simultaneity matters in the original paradox

The original paradox only appears when people assume there’s a universal "at the same time" across both frames.

Once we apply relativity of simultaneity, we see that each frame has its own internally consistent timeline, resolving the contradiction.

2. Why spatial juxtaposition doesn’t create a paradox

The observers at the midpoint are not measuring simultaneity-dependent events, they are measuring spatial lengths, which are inherently frame-dependent.

There is no expectation in SR that two observers from different frames must agree on length measurements—even if they occupy the same location in space at a given moment.

3. Space and time are similar but not interchangeable

Yes, spacetime diagrams treat space and time symmetrically in some respects, but SR does not make space and time fully interchangeable.

Time has an asymmetric role in causality (events in the past can influence the future, but not vice versa), while space does not.

This asymmetry means that disagreements in simultaneity lead to apparent contradictions if misunderstood, while disagreements in spatial measurements do not—because SR already accounts for them via length contraction.

4. Your thought experiment is just a different way of looking at length contraction

The observer in the garage frame sees the car fitting, because in their frame, the car is contracted.

The observer in the car frame sees the car not fitting, because in their frame, the garage is contracted.

These are not "contradictory" observations, just different frame-dependent measurements—exactly like time dilation or velocity-dependent mass.

The original paradox relied on a false assumption of absolute simultaneity—hence why simultaneity "resolves" it.

Your thought experiment doesn’t introduce a new paradox—it just reinforces how relativity treats space and time differently and why length contraction, like time dilation, is not paradoxical, just unintuitive.

Quentin 

Hope this discussion about well known facts for about 120 years will end and we can return to everything-list purposes. 

Yeah, it's done, provided philosophical issues are excluded from "list purposes". If you recall, Brent was insistent that in the context of the paradox, there is no objective reality. This means, if anything, that the results of SR are appearances, or just appearances, or mere appearances.  Resutls depend upon the frame of reference of observers, so there's no problem if they're contradictory. OTOH, since clocks in the GPS system experience measurable delays due to SR effects, its results surely seem objectively real. But we can just toss that issue under the rug, as "philosophy".and go on to "legitimate" list purposes, which exclude obvious foundational issues which were not completely resolved in 1905. Included in subjects which pass your test include arguments against frequentist probability in QM because some probabilities are so small, they can't be realized in the lifetime of the universe. DId it ever occur to you that these unrealized probabilities might be the result of wf solutions that extend infinitely in space and time? Have you noticed that the tails of these wf's extend infinitely in time and space? Ignoring that, what is your alleged solution; the MWI. Did it ever occur to you that at every T-intersection, there is a countable set of outcomes for every turn, in fact for any turn anywhere, by anything, including the common ant, the multitude of species of flying insects. and prairie dogs whenever they look around for predators? This is the foolishness you apparently endorse as "list-purposes". What you apparetly prefer are non-interacting worlds, the probability of each is indeterminate. And even on that single turn at any intersection, you can't even explain how the sum of probabilites of a countable set of outcomes can equal unity. In summary, IMO, you have a self-serving view of the legitimate content of list purposes. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

Mr. AG, read the f.....g name of the list.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/986b5bd9-7547-417a-b396-7797414ee9aen%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

It says "Everything". Am I misreading? I am not faulting you for endorsing a nonsense interpretation of QM, the MWI, but you seem to have the privilege to limit what's appropriate for me. That's all. I suggest you check out my last post to Jesse. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

http://www.weidai.com/everything.html

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79bb53ed-57ff-4aa2-ac1b-a0f0917069e5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:22:09 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

FWIW, I've established to my satisfaction that the "paradox" is unrelated to the fact that the car fits and doesn't fit in the garage. As Clark pointed out, this result is "odd". And it is not related to Clark claim the alleged paradox has anything to do with the idea that fitting and not filling occurs "at the same time", since each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, so the hypothesis in quotes makes no sense. The one thing there's general agreement on, is that the paradox is resolved by applying the disagreement about simultaneity. You've made this claim repeatedly and mocked me for not seeing the light. But if your alleged solution, which I referred to as a slogan, is the solution to the paradox, the question is, "What is the problem it is a solution to?" So, now I'd appreciate an answer to this basic question, if you have one. What exactly, in your opinion, is the paradox you claim is solved by disagreement about simultaneity? AG

I think simultaneity applied to the paradox as its resolution is overblown. I mean we know before applying simultaneity, that each frame, car and garage, have their own set of clocks. Consequently, if the root cause of the paradox is the error of thinking the car fits and doesn't fit at the same time, we know, or should know, that the phrase "at the same time" is meaningless. If, OTOH, we imagine the respective observers are juxtaposed at the center of the garage, we get something reminicient of "at the same time", only now with the "same" spatial location, albeit with different labels. IOW, the co-located observers observe diametically opposite results; namely, the car fitting and not fitting (provided if the velocity of the car is sufficient for the former result, whereas the latter result is always true independent of the car's velocity). Is this paradoxical? Not if you accept accept that SR allows different frames to make different measurements. AG