of time.
Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to
minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.
The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How
many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection
response: unlimited.] so
Hi John:
At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something
like:
...In the Beginning there was
in information in that Something.
Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable
Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of
compatible states for a Something each containing more information
than the last - that is the imposition of time.
Each step of the quest has
way to imagine this discrete space and discrete time, is to
look at the Game of Life. There you have discrete space points, that
can have two states, on/off (or black/white or spin up/spin down). In
this discrete space-time, you can see the gliders move. It is the same
thing
. There is no space between the
points. The vacuum IS these points.
This might be hard to understand. But this is the same thing that
there were no time "before" the Big Bang. The time started with Big
Bang. And there is the same thing with the space points in the strings
in the discrete space
. Fluctuate. Undulate into waves. But without anything interstitial
they melt into a continuum? Your next sentence is TRUE:
This might be hard to understand. But this is the same thing that there
were no time before the Big Bang. The time started with Big Bang.
JM: I overcame this contradictory
(From the swedish Allting List:)
The discrete space-time is a liquid. This explains why the space is
isomorph in all directions.
The one that discovered that the space-time is a liquid, was Xiao-Gang
Wen (Home Page: http://dao.mit.edu/~wen ). He has found that elementary
particles
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from coincidental ones. How does a
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin wrote :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from coincidental ones. How does a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno, I spent some (!) time on speculating on 'timelessness' - Let me tell
up front: I did not solve it.
Hi John
For example, we can conceive of a consciousness generated by a computer
operating in a time share mode where the time share occur every
thousand years
At 01:23 PM 1/23/2006, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
Marc Geddes wrote:
This is very recent (late 2005):
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510010
I've read this and the author's prior two papers on multi-dimensional time.
(snip)
All,
Finnish physicist Ari Lehto wrote about 3D time way back in
1990
: This is very recent (late 2005):
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510010I've read this and the author's prior two papers on multi-dimensional time.
(snip)All, Finnish physicist Ari Lehto wrote about 3D time way back in1990.Used it while researching my sci fi novel Dreamer.You candownload Ari's
Marc Geddes wrote:
This is very recent (late 2005):
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510010
I've read this and the author's prior two papers on multi-dimensional time.
It appears that his mathematical formulation is able describe a variety
of quantum-mechanical properties by adding one or more
I realize that there are unsolved problems in quantum mechanics that can be
solved by adding dimensions, whether spatial or time. I also know that
added dimensions are describable mathematically, and that some (Tegmark)
hold that this makes them real. However, as Jonathan points out
Norman Samish wrote:
I realize that there are unsolved problems in quantum mechanics that can be
solved by adding dimensions, whether spatial or time. I also know that
added dimensions are describable mathematically, and that some (Tegmark)
hold that this makes them real. However
This is very recent (late 2005):This paper will interpret quantum physics by usingtwo extra dimensional time as quantum hiddenvariables. I'll show that three dimensional time is abridge to connect basics quantum physics, relativity
and string theory. ``Quantum potential'' in Bohm'squantum hidden
;excuse my ignoranceKim JonesOn 20/01/2006, at 7:33 PM, Marc Geddes wrote:This is very recent (late 2005):"This paper will interpret quantum physics by usingtwo extra dimensional time as quantum hiddenvariables. I'll show that three dimensional time is abridge to connect basics quantum phys
time dimensions, and I have also written a 'Short Short' sci-fi story describing what it may be like to be able to *see* in three time dimensions.
Any comments or links about theories of extra time dimensions would be appreciated. Cheers.
So here's the theory:
It seemed to me recently
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:53:01AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juil.-05, ? 07:16, Russell Standish a ?crit :
My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it).
Thinking
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are there reason to believe that (physical, or local) time could have a
scale invariant fractal dimension (between 1 and 2, bigger?) ? Does it
make sense ?
I don't know if this is relevant, but Laurent Nottale published
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf .
Wouldn't it be true
Le 21-juil.-05, à 08:33, George Levy a écrit :
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark
define its
own time dimension? The number of decoupled branchings contained by the
observable universe is very large. Linear time is only an illusion due
to our limited perspective of the branching/merging network that our
consciousness traverses. While our consciousness may spread over
to?
I think im arguing for caution about McTaggart. I am trying really hard to
argue for perhaps even more than local realism. I want the moving present,
which we can not break free of, to be right at the center of our concept of
time. I want the past to not exist, and I want the future to not exist
Hi Chris,
Thank you for a very interesting discussion of McTaggart's ideas,
frankly after reading Huw Price's Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point,, I
abandoned any hope of them being useful. My current favorite contender for
an model of time is that of a perpetually ongoing computation
expressing a personal intuition there, or do you think some
actual logical paradox arises from the block time concept? Also, do you
agree that to define a notion of a single universal present, we must
privelege one relativistic reference frame over all others? If so, do you
think this reference frame
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf . In the excerpts
below, n is the number of space dimensions
, are expressed as (3+1) or (10+1)
theories. The +1 is of course time. Clearly many physicists attracted by the
idea of time as dimension are nevertheless aware that in some sense time is
different.
But then, in what way is time asymmetric to space? You have no answer to
that.
There may
are strongly
restricted by thermodynamics and causal restraints. Maybe we should be
asking why this is the case!
As to the notion of more than one temporal dimension: we have that exact
situation in the Many Worlds! Each path in the branching tree is a
history, having its own notion of time
it means for there to be a real value square root of -1
or for an object to move in two or more orthogonal spacial directions
'at the same time' ; in some reimann transform or other, all linear
motions can be figured as and only as a mono-dimensional motion.
Regards
Chris.
of
quantization of the red shift. He put me in touch with physicist Ari Lehto
who had proposed a theory of dimensional-binding which included the concept
of 3D time. I may even still have a copy of his paper. At time time, he
was with the Univ of Oulu in Finland, but later transferred to a state
he had possibly found evidence of
quantization of the red shift. He put me in touch with physicist Ari
Lehto who had proposed a theory of dimensional-binding which included the
concept of 3D time. I may even still have a copy of his paper. At the
time, he was with the Univ of Oulu in Finland
that the universe can be conceived as a purely mathematical entity,
that extension can be done away with.
Perhaps it is the possibility of time travel that sounds unconventional to
you, but here again, its similar to Aquinas' discussion of whether angels
can jump from a to b without
Le 15-juil.-05, à 04:15, Hal Finney a écrit :
Surely Chaitin's algorithmic information theory would not work;
inputting
a zero length program into a typical UTM would not produce the set of
all infinite length bitstrings; in fact, I don't see how a TM could
even
create such an output from
with.
Perhaps it is the possibility of time travel that sounds unconventional to
you, but here again, its similar to Aquinas' discussion of whether angels
can jump from a to b without traversing the points imbetween, isnt it?
A blend of rationalism, idealism and scholastic thought
Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative
to time, and instead identifies certain similarities,
that in turn identify how quantum mechanics and classical
relativity can be unified
No, because I wasn't talking about artificially imposed orderings. One
can always define a strict ordering by means of something like
x y iff Re(x) Re(y) or Re(x)=Re(y) and Im(x)Im(y)
However, the usual meaning of xy for x,y \in C is undefined, except
for x,y real.
I think the previous
) of observables to make some statements about ordering
of events, however you were confusing this with the nonordered
property of complex numbers.
More seriously though, given that the experience of time is a 1st
person thing, the ordering of observables is chosen, so there is a
definite ordering
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Right, that is one of the big selling points of the Tegmark and
Schmidhuber concept, that the Big Bang apparently can be described in
very low-information terms. Tegmark even has a paper arguing that it
took zero information to
Russell Standish writes:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
=20
Right, that is one of the big selling points of the Tegmark and
Schmidhuber concept, that the Big Bang apparently can be described in
very low-information terms. Tegmark even has a paper arguing that
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:15:02PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Do you really think there is such a thing as a zero information object?
If so, why do you have to say what it is? :-)
Is this just an informal concept or is there some formalization of it?
Surely Chaitin's algorithmic
with
its complex conjugate? This operation of conjugation must involve the
selection of some basis.. This makes the problem of a pre-existing Real value
time to be, at least, doubly difficult.
Complex numbers have no natural ordering, as opposed to the Reals, which
do, because
Le 13-juil.-05, à 06:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (being basically
points on a plane)
So you pretend the axiom of choice is false. It is easy to build an
ordering of the complex numbers through it.
There is no ordering *which satisfies
in spatial dimensions
is second nature, movement in time - other than the apparantly inevitable
next step forward - is theoretical at best. It is not something I can just
do, I am in the 'now' in a stronger sense than I am 'here'.
But, say time travel is possible, we have a futher asymetry in so
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did you
happen to know that the notion
exerting any
effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At
least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension dont involve change of
position, but our a priori notion of time at least involves a change of
time. If time has no arrow one way or the other
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's
ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes
dont involve change of
position, but our a priori notion of time at least involves a change of
time. If time has no arrow one way or the other, if there is no succession
of events, then time stops.
I am left wondering whether you know what I mean at all when I say that we
are embeded in time
True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if
you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always
reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each
particle) in the final state and use that as an initial state for a new
Hal Finney wrote:
True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if
you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always
reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each
particle) in the final state and use that as an initial
Jesse Mazer writes:
I've sometimes thought that if uploads are ever created, and can be run in a
simulation with time-reversible fundamental laws, it would be very
interesting to take a snapshot at the end of a simulation and do the trick
of reversing everything, but with a tiny
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
Hal Finney writes
Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some
sense), where there is no actual causality?
You yourself have already provided the key example
chris peck" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc:
everything-list@eskimo.comSent:
Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AMSubject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea
of time as a "dimension" Hi Stephen; I
suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are
provisos.[
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being.
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that
results from
no difference between these views.
This thread talks about time deniers and I might be one, but from my
perspective it seems that many people are time mystics. They see a
special role for time that goes beyond its mere presence as part of the
laws of physics of a universe.
I imagine that multiple
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of
computations? Can't we
Jesse Mazer writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results
Dear Tom,
I do not understand how you arrived at that conclusion! I am arguing
that Existence - the Dasein of Kant - is independent of space-time;
space-time is secondary. I would like to better undertand your idea being
as (roughly) the integral of change, and change as the derivative
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static
Being.
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality-
that results from
Stathis writes
I wasn't very clear in my last post. What I meant was this:
(a) A conscious program written in C is compiled on a computer. The C
instructions are converted into binary code, and when this code is run, the
program is self-aware.
(b) The same conscious program is written
Jesse writes
So again, is it enough to look at the natural laws of our universe in
order to decide whether the consciousnesses within it are real? Or do we
need more? Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:48:48PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
(c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a
programming language which, when a program is written in this language so
that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
(c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a
programming language which, when a program is written in this language so
that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary
code so produced is the same as this random
Hi Stephen;
I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos.
Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it
moves onwards in a single direction without anyones
chris peck wrote:
Hi Stephen;
I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos.
Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it
moves onwards in a single direction
exists in the sense that my movement in spatial dimensions
is second nature, movement in time - other than the apparantly inevitable
next step forward - is theoretical at best. It is not something I can just
do, I am in the 'now' in a stronger sense than I am 'here'.
But, say time travel
Again travel has forced me to take an absence from this list for a while,
but I think I will be home for several weeks so hopefully I will be able
to catch up at last.
One question I would ask with regard to the role of time is, is there
something about time (and perhaps causality) that goes over
Hal Finney writes
Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some
sense), where there is no actual causality?
You yourself have already provided the key example in imagining
a two dimensional CA where the second
Hal Finney wrote:
So again, is it enough to look at the natural laws of our universe in
order to decide whether the consciousnesses within it are real? Or do we
need more? Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist
-aware, then by definition *it*
knows.
--Stathis Papaioannou
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: The Time Deniers
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:42:49 -0700
Stathis writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But it is *precisely* that I cannot
Jesse Mazer wrote:
You might say that in the last example the states were causally
connected, while in the first they were not. But why should that make any
difference, especially to a solipsist?
If one believes in psychophysical laws (to use Chalmers' term) relating
3rd-person patterns of
Le 06-juil.-05, à 07:16, Russell Standish a écrit :
My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it).
Thinking again on why you keep saying this, I can imagine, giving
/pratt95rational.html
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Rép : The Time Deniers
The same can be said with Stephen dualism. If it is not a dualism
.
Im not quite sure what you mean by this. Possibly you mean that to
coherently describe time it isnt enough to have laid out in succession a
series of moments, or events, described by real numbers or however. There
must also be something running through the series in order for the concept
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this post! Interleaving...
- Original Message -
From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Hi Stephen;
I
Lee Corbin writes:
But it is *precisely* that I cannot imagine how this stack of
Life gels could possibly be thinking or be conscious that forces
me to admit that something like time must play a role.
Here is why: let's suppose that your stack of Life boards does
represent each generation
).
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming
Dear Hal,
Please forgive my delay in replying.
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive
Stathis writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But it is *precisely* that I cannot imagine how this stack of
Life gels could possibly be thinking or be conscious that forces
me to admit that something like time must play a role.
Here is why: let's suppose that your stack of Life boards does
.
- Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try
On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:PC:But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?[SPK] Please notice that the identification of "time" with a "dimension" involves the identificat
gives a
very appropriate name to all the sponsors of these ideas, from
Bruno and Russell, all the way to Julian Barbour: the time-
deniers.
I hate it when someone introduces a new term I don't understand. What,
pray, are time deniers? Is it related at all to the material jeans
are made out
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Where I join you (in failing to understand) is what happens as
the OM becomes of zero length. I did not say *the limit as
it becomes zero*, I said zero. It's almost as though some
people take this as license to suppose that time
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try it this way:
1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the
All/Nothing system and must
@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try it this way:
1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
2) The system
Russell writes
I find it amazing
that you claim I deny the existence of time. Au contraire, it is
something I explicitly assume. My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have
Hi Lee,
To split a hair... ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: The Time Deniers
snip
I am still at the point where I cannot quite imagine how a
huge nest of bit strings (say all
. The idea that a process,
of any kind, can occur requires some measure of both transitivity
and duration.
The mere *existence* of a process only speaks to its potential
for occurrence.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary
Hi Pete,
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is a huge difference in kind
Pete writes
But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary
(or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?
I've wrote to the list before about a Game of Life simulation in
which, instead of running the states of the automaton forward in
time, erasing
Hi,
I recently wrote a blog entry on time travel
http://www.goertzel.org/blog/blog.htm
and Tom Buckner followed up with an interesting
comment on the potential for time travel in Tegmarkian multiple
universes.
(You can see it by going to the bottom of the page
and clicking where
Ben Goertzel writes:
I recently wrote a blog entry on time travel
http://www.goertzel.org/blog/blog.htm
and Tom Buckner followed up with an interesting comment on the potential
for time travel in Tegmarkian multiple universes.
Those are interesting speculations, but I don't think it really
normally think of it happening.
I think David Deutsch had some ideas about time travel in the
MWI going between parallel worlds, but again I didn't think
that could work, physically. Once worlds have decohered,
there are no physical mechanisms for them to interact to any
measurable degree
contracting this would not
necessarily cause entropy to decrease, in fact most physicists would
consider that scenario (which would mean the 'arrow of time' would reverse
during the contraction) pretty unlikely, although since we don't know
exactly why the Big Bang started out in a low-entropy state we
, if the universe began contracting this would not
necessarily cause entropy to decrease, in fact most physicists would
consider that scenario (which would mean the 'arrow of time' would reverse
during the contraction) pretty unlikely, although since we don't know
exactly why the Big Bang started out in a low
appearing in its computational history.
Yes.
[Lee]
Well, I think that David Deutsch's version includes all our
latest and best physical theories, which still includes the
Schrödinger equation and other time-based foundations. I'm
guessing that the universes (I mean *slices*) are real
Hal wrote:
I agree that in our particular universe the role of time is complex
IF there is anything that is not complex...
Time is definitely not a Ding an sich, definitely not a 'thing' and as
agreed: we really don't know how to identify that word. The phenomena we
assign as 'time related
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:55:39PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Sure, in fact I first learned of the idea from one of Tegmark's
papers, he who is unknowingly one of the founding fathers of this list.
Unknowingly? Tegmark was certainly involved in this list in the early
days, but I suspect he
601 - 700 of 772 matches
Mail list logo
