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: [email protected] > Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski > Private address: [email protected] > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
