Abram Demski wrote:
> [Sorry if this is a duplicate, I think that I did not send correctly
> the first time.]
>
> Bruno, everyone,
>
> I've decided that it will be more productive/entertaining to post my
> various concerns as a new topic.
>
> What is time?
>   

Time is what you read on a clock.
> I'm going to ask a bunch of questions; for the sake of brevity, I'm
> going to skip my arguments (which would mostly be reasons why
> particular answers don't work). I'll argue once someone replies.
>
> If all possible universes exist, does that mean every possible moment,
>   

What do you mean by "possible"?  Do you mean nomologically possible - 
which might be very restrictive but we don't know?  Or do you mean 
logically possible - just not instantiating a contradiction "X and 
not-X"?  Or something inbetween?

> or every possible timeline of moments? If "moments" is the answer,
> then how are the moments connected? 
If time is a real variable (which QM assumes), moments automatically 
inherit the topology of the reals.

> How would it matter, since the
> moments already are what they are? If "timeline" is the answer, then
> there is a similar question of how it matters.
>
> If there is a physical universe, then is there some sort of basic
> physical connection behind time?
>
> If the universe is mathematical in nature, then what is the
> mathematical connection between moments? What sort of mathematical
> connection counts as time?
>
> If (as was recently suggested, in connection with relativity) time
> cannot really be divided into individual moments, then what is it?
>   

In physics, it's a variable in the equations that determines the causal 
topology.
> Why do we experience time passing?
>
> Is it legitimate to think as if the next moment we experience will be
> chosen randomly in some sense? Does probability or randomness have a
> role to play in the flow of time?
>   
Randomness would seem to give a sense to the direction of time.  That's 
why physicist who are loathe to give up time-symmetry in their equations 
tend to favor Everett's interpretation of QM.

> In connection with UDA: what is the meaning of a first-person
> probability due to uncertainty of the future? Is there any sense in
> which such estimates can be more or less accurate if all possible next
> moments do in fact occur?
>   
Good question.  It's the same as asking how the Born rule arises in 
Everett's interpretation of QM.

Brent

> Hope that sparks some thought...
>
> --
> Abram Demski
> Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com
> Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski
> Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com
>
> >
>
>   


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to