On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
<mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
change
between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every
book and
paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None
offer
any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place.
If we
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still
need to
explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened".
No, it
could not "Happen".
A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
stacked on
top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to
"explain
time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the
relevant
equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias
against the
idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But
anyway...)
You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of
physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of
physics
are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a
block
universe.
Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to
be an
external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise
occurs.
In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block
universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in
the
form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the
probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to
evolve or
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws
of
physics occur.
But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in
which all
possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of nothing" - to
specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific
ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical
structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible
starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations.... (somehow.... A
visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.)
Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.
I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led
to here.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
