Hi Brent, "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."
No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not "random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers). On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <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 >> > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com 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 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.
