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 <[email protected]> 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 [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. > > -- 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.
