On 19 December 2013 12:51, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> Calling a "sequential ordering of events" time does not make a sequence of
> events spring into being. It may "in our heads" but the physical world
> doesn't work that way... Time would emerge right along with space from
> interactions between events. We do not need to specify the space and time
> before hand; all that is necessary is a huge number of events and
> interactions among them.
Like a Feynman diagram, perhaps? Space and time can emerge from a network
of events, of course - in for example the delightfully named "spin foam"
(physics can be so poetic sometimes). However the chains of events are
themselves unchanging, and hence effectively embedded in something, even if
only an abstract topological space. One doesn't need a "higher-order time"
in which these events interact in some sense, one only needs them plus the
links between them. So this is just another way of getting space-time from
an underlying block universe.
> QM systems come with
> so have everything they need to build space-time out of their
That would be the "snapshot" approach to space-time espoused by David
Deutsch in FoR, I assume. It allows the "appearance of space, time and
change" to emerge from something that has no intrinsic time built in.
(Hence it shows how we could recover space and time from something like the
Wheeler-deWitt equation, I guess.)
> The Fishbowl fears Occam's razor's strike!
> The enfant terrible of the bad analogy fears the wilted celery of the
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.