Hi Ronald,

    Thank you for this reference and querry for comments. I recall that this 
idea, of a crystalizing space-time, appears in The Maker of Dune, a collection 
of letters, short stories and essays by Frank Herbert - the Science Fiction 
writer famous for his Dune series. The following are my "margin scribblings"...
 pg.13.  I am happy to see new discussion of Cramer's Transactional 
Interpretation of QM. ;)  I have often wondered what kind of multiverse would 
result from using a completely time-symmetric equation... 

pg. 16.It seems that we still have not gotten past the need to introduce some 
kind of conditions by hand to obtain somethig that resembles our everyday 
experience of a universe. The discussion of scale is also interesting but 
upsetting. Is the quantum behaviour of macroscopic systems such as 
superconducting magnets somehow fundamentally different from that is electrons 
in atoms? If so, how?

pg. 17. "Potentiality changes to actuality at each quantum measurement process, 
but some potentialities may remain undecided even as others have transmuted to 
definiteness. Thus we consider that on a given world line "now" is the moment 
when those aspects of reality become fixed." Cool! We have a definition of 
"now" but does it stand up to scrutiny?

pg. 18. Would this crystalization's dependence on scale introduce "defects" 
that could have observational consequenses? Would these differ sufficiently 
from the defects that we expect from symmetry breaking? How do I line up these 
predictions with resent observational results that strongly indicate that there 
is no linear dependence between the speed of light and the frequency of a 

pg.20. "The measurement interaction may perhaps be regarded as an interaction 
between scales." This sounds a lot like a transactional version of Penrose's OR 
idea! Maybe similar experiements would illuminate them...

pg. 21. "when quantum effects are significant, the Evolving Block Universe 
("EBU") of classical physics cedes way to the Crystallizing Block Universe 
("CBU"). On large enough scales that quantum effects are not significant, the 
two models become indistinguishable." We are left with what looks like a global 
time-assymetry and scale-dependence as an explanation, but such an explanation 
is driven by a need for a global "ice cube". 

    Is the idea that "property definiteness is a purely "local" phenomena 
contingent of the observational conditions therein" not ever considered? Do we 
*really* have to have global definiteness?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ronaldheld" <ronaldh...@gmail.com>
To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:25 AM
Subject: Crystallizing block universe?

> Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
>  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf
>                                             Ronald


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 

Reply via email to