Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely

`On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:`
```
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle.
>>
>> To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong.
>>
>
> Can you explain your justification for this assertion?
>
>
>>  Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes
>> refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the
>> important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the
>> SAME common present moment..
>>
>
> How can there be a single common present if relativity says one person can
> consistently believe that A happens before B, while, another person, every
> bit as consistent, could believe that B happens before A.
>
> If anything like a present exists, there must be at least two of them (one
> for each person in this example), and they must each be different in their
> content. Relativity of simultaneity absolutely rules out the notion of a
> single objective present.  The only alternatives are: 1. a present for each
> inertial reference frame, 2. four dimensionalism (block time / eternalism).
>
>
>
>> I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their
>> minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of
>> time.
>>
>> The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states
>> would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of
>> physics.
>>
>
> If there are two observers in relative motion to each other, Alice and
> Bob, then Alice's present contains things that exist in both Bob's future,
> and Bob's past. How can something exist in Alice's present which supposedly
> stopped existing for Bob, and how can something exist in Alice's present
> which hasn't yet happened, from Bob's point of view?  I think this is clear
> evidence that all points in time exist. They don't stop existing just
> because we can't see them--to me this seems a head-in-the-sand mentality,
> i.e. if I can't see it, it mustn't be there.
>
> If a theory explains why we can't see some particular thing, our inability
> to see that thing should not be considered evidence against that thing
> (within that theory).
>
>
>>  Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of
>> reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid
>> perspective.
>>
>
> What if multiple possibilities exist for the present moment, such as after
> a quantum erasure. Could there be more than one past moment consistent with
> the current present moment?
>
>
>> Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact
>> and could not have been different in even the slightest detail.
>>
>
> How does this work with QM?  You expressed distaste for multiverse
> theories, but quantum mechanics is not 100% exact and predictable under
> single-universe interpretations.
>
>
>> The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility
>> of other pasts.
>>
>
> Say there are two very similar but different universes, one in which a
> photon took path A, and another where it took path B.  However, mirrors are
> arranged such that regardless of which path is taken, the photon bounces to
> the same spot. After this happens the two universes are in identical
> states.  Could either Edgar Owen (in either of the two universes) rule out
> the idea of multiple pasts consistent with their present?
>
>
>> This is another difficult concept for many.
>>
>> Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist
>>
>
> If Julius Caesar still exists (in a point in space time some 2000 light
> years away), nothing changes in the laws of physics, and yet the future
> would seem just as as probabalistic and unpredictable from his point of
> view as it seems to us in ours.  We can't use the presumed "lack of
> existence" as an explanation for the unpredictability of the future.
>
> Actually, we can entirely explain the unpredictability of the future from
> thermodynamics.  Storing information requires energy, and energy can only
> be used to perform useful work in the direction of time through which
> entropy increases. Therefore no machine, brain, etc. can operate backwards
> in time and store information about future events, as it would represent a
> thermodynamically impossible system. Imagine a device using energy to store
> memories running backwards in time (from our point of view).  It would be
> expending energy to store those bits, but from out perspective, expending
> energy in a useful way (backwards in time) from our perspective, appears as
> gather energy from the environment. It would be like seeing light bounce
> randomly off all the walls in the room to focus on the filament of a
> flashlight and recharge its batteries.  It's physically possible but
> extremely unlikely. If no (likely) process can possess information stored
> about the future, then we have an explanation for our inability to know
> future outcomes.
>
>
>> and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has
>> been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it
>> exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all.
>>
>
> I think the ideas you have developed are good, but are based on starting
> assumptions that are different from mine, hence our disagreement.  Where I
> think we agree:
>
> Everything travels at the speed of light
> Physical reality emerges from computation and as seen by observers
> Consciousness creates consciousness
>

Sorry, I meant "Computation creates consciousness"

Jason

--
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