On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > By the way, I may have this wrong but it seems to me your > "hyperdeterminism" objection is an objection to block universes generally. > I can't see how the big crunch (or timelike infinity) being a boundary > condition on the universe is a problem in a block universe (or multiverse) > ...? > > > I think Bruno is thinking of a tree-like branching "block multiverse" so > there can still be FPI due to the branches. Otherwise definite, random > things have to happen in realizing the block universe - and Bruno hates > random things and he likes infinities, so... But you should read L.S. > Schulman's solution to the problem of randomness. He speculates that > within the domain of a state we can prepare, which is of measure hbar=/=0, > there are special states which are causally connected to *future* states > and when we choose a measurement in the future we are selecting out one of > these "special states". > > I am thinking of a block multiverse, too, and I can't see why future (or past) boundary conditions are a problem. Maybe I'm being thick, it wouldn't be the first time.
Do you have a link to that reference? -- 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.
