First, there are NO "possibilities in the future". The future does not 
exist and thus there is no content that can ascribed to it.

What we have is the problem of how nature is to align separate spacetime 
fragments in the PRESENT moment when an event common to them occurs, 
necessitating an alignment. 

It is well known that separate spacetimes have no relational alignment 
whatsoever. However within each spacetime all alignments are already well 
defined by the particle property conservation laws that govern all quantum 
events. e.g. the spins of the particles are already equal and opposite in 
their own frame, it's just that that frame is not yet aligned with that of 
the human observer prior to his measurement of it.

When the human observer makes a measurement of one spin that is a common 
event that aligns the two spacetime fragments, or more accurately the 
spacetime fragment of the spins with the developed spacetime of the 

Since there are no laws governing the exact alignment of separate 
spacetimes nature must choose randomly between the possibilities and thus 
the particular spin orientation of the measured particle can be in any 
alignment when measured but that event also immediately aligns the spin of 
the other because it's already aligned with that of the first particle.

It's a straightforward theory that resolves all quantum paradoxes, explains 
the specific source of and reason for quantum randomness, and also provides 
a conceptual unification of QM and GR.


On Friday, January 17, 2014 7:26:22 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>  On 1/17/2014 9:04 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is and what 
> it applies to in my New Topic post "Another shot at how spacetime emerges 
> from computational reality".
>  Basically nature must choose randomly when it aligns the separate 
> spacetime networks that arise from particle property conservation when 
> particles computationally interact. That's because there can be no 
> deterministic way to align separate spacetimes, so nature must choose 
> randomly among the available possibilities.....
> Of course if there are possibilities in the future that are incompatible 
> then "nature" must pick one.  But that's just a tautology unless you can 
> quantitatively calculate relative probabilities.  Can you show how aligning 
> spacetime networks gives the right decay rates for radioactive nuclei?
> 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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to