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
> 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.
> 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
For more options, visit this group at