On 1/10/2014 9:43 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:>As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and relistic if time symmetry is valid. If time is symmetrical
I'm not sure what "time is symmetrical" means to you. It's the equations of dynamical evolution that are t-symmetric in physics (both classical and quantum-sans-collapse).
then retro-causality exists, so how can realism hold? How can the outcome of a coin flip today have a definite value independent of the observer if next year or next millennium someone can cause a change in today's coin flip?
If the coin flip today had a definite outcome why do suppose some one the future could simply choose it to be a different outcome?..."free will"?
If realism holds under those circumstances then the word "realism" has no meaning.
So you think realism would have no meaning in Laplace's deterministic universe?
And by the way, if time is symmetrical then there is no point in ever actually performing an experiment because you would remember the future as clearly as you remember the past, so you would already remember the outcome of the experiment just as clearly as you remember setting up the experimental apparatus.
Not if "time is symmetrical" == "dynamical equations are t-symmetric" and memory depends on the state of a lot of particles in your brain so that the 2nd law applies.
Brent -- 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.
