I should have added this in the previous post. it is an article about time from a different perspective. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1604v1.pdf Ronald
On Dec 10, 1:01 pm, ronaldheld <[email protected]> wrote: > I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he > mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory > of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields > correct results. > > Ronald > > On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote: > > > > Anyone want to give this a try and comment? > > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf > > > He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse > > view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that > > setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined. > > > Bruno > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
