On 1/15/2014 5:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 13:57, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[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?
His book
Schulman L S 1997
Time's Arrows and Quantum Measurement
(New York: Cambridge University Press)
also
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2602.pdf
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.
