On 25 February 2014 00:26, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Stathis, > > 1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer > which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If > anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of time > flowing, which is the correct understanding...
No, what it shows is that the running time is not relevant to the appearance of continuity. The computer can be restarted after a second or after a billion years in the Andromeda galaxy, and it makes no subjective difference. This is how the separate frames in a block universe "join up". > 2. I assume in this context you don't mean 'multiverse' but 'many worlds' > and that your use of 'multiverse' was a typo? > > If so I have some questions I like to ask to clarify how you understand MWI, > particularly in the block universe context you previously mentioned. I meant multiverse, not specifically the MWI of QM. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
