On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]
> wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because
instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there
appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain
anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts
to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason
for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still
need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just
"happened". No, it could not "Happen".
A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a
movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read
are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to
explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I
suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by
using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But
anyway...)
You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is
what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things
change over time. They describe a block universe.
Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there
has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or
evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this
question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only
possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum
theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing
all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of
physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with
the laws of physics occur.
But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse
in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial
conditions obtain?
That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of
"theory of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions
requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark
suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical
structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies
all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in
the equations.... (somehow.... A visit from Smaug may be required,
but I suspect not.)
Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)
reasonable?
Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing.
You need to say what you mean by "thing" to explain what is meant by
"nothing". The same with everything. For example, to define the
quantum vacuum, you need to assume Hilbert Space or von Neumann
Algebra, which are a lot of thing by itself.
Bruno
It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is
"fundamental": change exists at all levels - this can happen when we
reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is
not a "thing", at best it is a transition between a pair of things...
I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to [email protected]
.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
[email protected]
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
