A block universe does not allow for consciousness.
The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think,
means that our universe is not completely blocked,
although the deviations from "block" may be minor
and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.
Richard.

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is
> provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable.  Maybe this is a place
> where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
> Lessons from the Block Universe
>
>
> Ken Wharton
> Department of Physics and Astronomy
> San José State University
>
>
>
> http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9
>
>
> In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete
> knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited
> by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence
> of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23],
> the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty
> [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such
> states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic
> evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the
> features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states
> of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena.
> This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy
> with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge
> were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow
> maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge
> [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results
> of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the
> restriction on knowledge should take a particular form,
> namely, that one’s knowledge be quantitatively equal to
> one’s ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge.
>
> It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive
> quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any
> simple modification thereof. The problem is that the
> toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowledge about
> local and noncontextual hidden variables, and it is well
> known that quantum theory cannot be understood in this
> way [28, 30, 31]. This prompts the obvious question: if
> a quantum state is a state of knowledge, and it is not
> knowledge of local and noncontextual hidden variables,
> then what is it knowledge about? We do not at present
> have a good answer to this question.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to