Brent, 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 observer. 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. Edgar 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 [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.
