Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Dear LizR, >>>> >>>> I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum >>>> mechanics: positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite states; a >>>> block universe must have all of its observables as mutually commuting so >>>> that they are all simultaneously definite. >>>> >>> >>> If this is a problem (which is far from certain) it's one of classical >>> physics vs quantum theory. It doesn't show block universes are impossible, >>> it shows that classical physics is impossible. (The resolution is almost >>> certainly a block multiverse.) >>> >> >> Umm, one more time: A block universe requires that it be a block, a fixed >> 4-dimensional object. As such all properties associated with the points >> making up that hypercube must be simultaneously defined. The general >> non-commutability of observables (energy, spin direction, position, >> duration, etc.) of QM disallows this requirement. Thus QM prohibits the >> existence of a block universe. >> > > Your use of "simultaneously" doesn't make sense. These properties are > *not* simultaneously defined (simultaneity in a block universe is defined > as a particular hyperplane, and is relative to an observer). > Is the block universe a 4-dimensional object or not? If it is and it obeys the rules of topology, etc. All of what it is, it is. Even if we stipulate the definition of simultineity as a particular hyperplane relative to some wordtube "observer", all of the positions and the momenta and the spin angles and the ... have to have some particular value or else it, the block universe, is not a 4-d object. We cannot have the tangent spaces popping in and out as the hyperplane is swung around... or can we? > > >> I don't comprehend what a "block multiverse" could be. >> > > A multiverse which evolves according to deterministic laws. QM under the > Everett interpretation describes a block multiverse. > It is infinitely dimensional, as each "universe" is orthogonal to all others. I understand what a Hilbert space is.... > >>> >>>> But let us ignore that and stipulate the block universe for the sake >>>> of the conversation. What we could see in the block universe, once we >>>> associate with it with the Hamiltonians or Lagrangians of the world tubes, >>>> is a *representation of action*. *It is not action itself*. >>>> >>> >>> No, it really is action. The past is a block universe (unless you know >>> some way to change it). You can associate a Hamiltonian with something in >>> the past (since physics worked in the past). So you can do all the above >>> with block universes. >>> >> >> The mathematical representation of the action *is* the action? Maybe >> you are thinking in a different way or interpreting the definition given in >> the wiki article in a different way... >> > > OK, I may have not put that too clearly. Let's just concentrate on the > past. The past is by definition a block universe (it's unchanging, with > everything fixed in place in a 4D continuum.) Actions took place in the > past, hence actions can take place in a block universe. > No, I don't buy that idea any more. There is no reason to believe that there is a universe "outthere" that matches 1 to 1 to what we perceive as Humans. We could all agree on what we believe to be "out there" just because our brains tend to generate similar simulations of what they believe to be "out there". If we take QM seriously, we are forced to accept this. There is no such thing as a classical world "out there". It is a mass delusion. > >>> >>>> A world or "reality" is not in my thinking a representation of >>>> something that does not exist. We can define observers as being >>>> representable per Bruno's definition, but that is half of what they are, >>>> not all of what they are. *For every representation there must exist >>>> at least one physical object and for every physical object there must exist >>>> at least one representation*. >>>> >>> >>> So "no universe without representation!", eh? (So no universe before >>> beings able to make representations?) >>> >> >> No, a physical system, say the universe comes into being with its >> representation (at least its self-representation), one cannot exist without >> the other. This is a form of panpsychism... maybe... I am not married to >> this idea without the possibility of a divorce. It is weird, I admit, I am >> just trying to see if it "works". >> > > OK, I'll leave that aside for now. > >> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kindest Regards, >> >> Stephen Paul King >> >> Senior Researcher >> >> Mobile: (864) 567-3099 >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://www.provensecure.us/ >> >> >> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of >> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and >> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >> immediately.” >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
