Brent, thanks for this.  If I've understood it at all, the idea is
that the "sum over histories" results in our witnessing the most
"probable" macroscopic outcome as our "present" observation.  I
believe there is some controversy in interpreting how "probability"
should be understood in the context of a "block" multi-outcome
structure (which I'm assuming to be implicit here) in which every
outcome in some sense exists with equal "probability" - i.e.
certainty.  Does this imply that, to recover the "subjective
probability" of my experiencing this moment "now", some further notion
of (random?) "selection" of observer moments from the block is needed?
 A bit like an (infinite?) ensemble of measurements, the overall
results of which (i.e. "subjective time") would be expected to conform
to the inherent (i.e. "observed") distribution of outcomes in the
"block".

David

On 14 August 2011 06:40, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> My friend, Vic Stenger, sees Hawking and Mlodinow as adopting theory close
> to Bruno's
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-grand-accident_b_777249.html
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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