There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change can't happen in a block universe" (which are obviously nonsense, or Einstein et al would hardly have entertained the idea in the first place).So, I'd like to maybe clarify what the idea means, and give them a proper target if they still want to demolish it.A block universe is simply one in which time is treated as a dimension. So Newtonian physics, for example, specified a block universe, in which it was believed (e.g. by Laplace) that in principle the past and future could be computed from the state of the present. The Victorians made much of time being the fourth dimension, probably most famously in Wells' "The Time Machine". This was the Newtonian concept of a block universe, and was generally treated quite fatalistically (Wells didn't indicate that history could be changed, for example).
Then special relativity came along and unified space and time into space-time. The reason SR gives rise to a block universe is the relativity of simultaneity.
You can slice up space-time in various ways which allow two observers to see the same events occurring in a different order. Hence there is no way to define a "hyperplane of simultaneity" that can be agreed upon by all observers as being a present moment. This indicates that space-time is a four-dimensional arena in which events are embedded. Indeed, I have never heard of an alternative explanation of the relativity of simultaneity that gets around this result - if it's correct, space-time is a block universe, that is to say, time is "just" another dimension.
So classical physics posits a BU. Before worrying about QM, let's see what the classical picture has to say about whether things can change in a block universe. Change is defined as something being different at different times - say the position of the Earth relative to the centre of the galaxy (it traces out a wobbly spiral like a spring as it follows the Sun around an almost circular orbit around the galactic centre every quarter of a billion years). Does the fact that the Earth's orbit is a spiral embedded in space-time prevent the Earth's position from changing? Clearly not. It changes all the time.
The same applies to any other changes that we observe. A person changes as they get older - in the relativistic view these are cross sections through their world-tube (or "lifeline" as Robert Heinlein put it). Particles move through space - they trace out 4 dimensional world lines, but they can still move. Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant equations) would see it as static. But of course we don't see it like that.This appears to be the source of the problem a few people have with this concept, however - they appear to confuse the god's eye view with ours. But of course we're embedded in space-time - along for the ride. So of course we see change all the time.
QM, perhaps a bit boringly, goes back to the Newtonian view.
Space and time are a background arena in which wave functions evolve with time - which is of course a process that can be mapped out within a 4D manifold. Indeed the equations involved are determinstic, and the famous quantum probabilities have to be added "by hand" - so this is rather close to the Newtonian view, apart from the ad hoc wave-function collapses. Fortunately, Everett gave us a completely deterministic view - the wave function evolves in a multiverse - so the block "universe" of QM is instead a block multiverse, but otherwise it is a deterministic process embedded in a space-time manifold.
Lastly, the past is an excellent example of a block universe. It is unchanging, with events embedded in it. If anyone wants to consider what the concept means, think about the past as the example of choice, a 13 billion year long block universe. Change appeared to happen to the people embedded in it, but we have a "god's eye" view of the past, and can see that they were just experiencing different points along their world-tubes. And people in the future will be able to see that the same was true of us.
Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant equations) would see it as static. But of course we don't see it like that.This appears to be the source of the problem a few people have with this concept, however - they appear to confuse the god's eye view with ours. But of course we're embedded in space-time - along for the ride. So of course we see change all the time.
To answer the question about the frogs. We imagine we are an "extended frog" because of memory; without it we really would be stuck in the present moment, a series of individual isolated moments - and completely unable to function, of course. (If you haven't seen "Memento" do so because it's very good AND it shows the illusion of continuity up very nicely.)Ironically I don't have any more time to write on this! Later...
--
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was. But I haven't managed to find it, and I can't spend all night trawling the forum for it, so I will just put my take on the matter here.
Assuming I've got it right, this seems to me a rather odd question. Asking how a block universe comes into existence presupposes that this is a process that must happen within a time stream.
My point is that we needn't take these models seriously. We just use them to try to picture things.
We study the quantum measurement problem in the context of an infinite, statistically uniform space, as could be generated by eternal inflation. It has recently been argued that when identical copies of a quantum measurement system exist, the standard projection operators and Born rule method for calculating probabilities must be supplemented by estimates of relative frequencies of observers. We argue that an infinite space actually renders the Born rule redundant, by physically realizing all outcomes of a quantum measurement in different regions, with relative frequencies given by the square of the wave function amplitudes. Our formal argument hinges on properties of what we term the quantum confusion operator, which projects onto the Hilbert subspace where the Born rule fails, and we comment on its relation to the oft-discussed quantum frequency operator. This analysis unifies the classical and quantum levels of parallel universes that have been discussed in the literature, and has implications for several issues in quantum measurement theory. It also shows how, even for a single measurement, probabilities may be interpreted as relative frequencies in unitary (Everettian) quantum mechanics. We also argue that after discarding a zero-norm part of the wavefunction, the remainder consists of a superposition of indistinguishable terms, so that arguably "collapse" of the wavefunction is irrelevant, and the "many worlds" of Everett's interpretation are unified into one. Finally, the analysis suggests a "cosmological interpretation" of quantum theory in which the wave function describes the actual spatial collection of identical quantum systems, and quantum uncertainty is attributable to the observer's inability to self-locate in this collection.
My point is that we needn't take these models seriously. We just use them to try to picture things.
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often remarked, the past is a block and the universe keeps adding new moments and growing. This would be like Barbour's time capsules, except just sticking everything into one capsule, like a history book that keeps adding pages. But yes it implies another exterior "time" in which this "happens"; but then so does Bruno's UD.Only if you call the order of the natiral numlbers a "time". The UD does not use anything more.
On 3 February 2014 08:03, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often remarked, the past is a block and the universe keeps adding new moments and growing. This would be like Barbour's time capsules, except just sticking everything into one capsule, like a history book that keeps adding pages. But yes it implies another exterior "time" in which this "happens"; but then so does Bruno's UD.On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was. But I haven't managed to find it, and I can't spend all night trawling the forum for it, so I will just put my take on the matter here.
Assuming I've got it right, this seems to me a rather odd question. Asking how a block universe comes into existence presupposes that this is a process that must happen within a time stream.
I don't think Bruno would agree with that. I think the UD is supposed to function simply by existing, and each state is defined relative to another one....somehow. (But at this point my brain melts...)
My point is that we needn't take these models seriously. We just use them to try to picture things.
Right.... maybe.... not sure what you mean. That is, I'm not sure where the line is between which models one should take seriously (if any) and which ones are "just for picturing". Did Minkowski take space-time seriously? Does it matter? I thought the important things were prediction of (preferably unexpected) consequences, and being open to refutation.
I assume as we get more into interpretation and general meta-ness, refutation comes to rely more on logical inconsistency or similar meta-refutations. But things can occasionally be "de-meta-ised" as our knowledge improves. This happened for block universes with SR. The experimental evidence for space-time being a 4D manifold is the relativity of simultaneity. I assume that before this, the concept was "just an interpretation" - it was the only picture that made sense of Newtonian physics, but (apart from thought experiments like "Laplace's godlike being") it was not considered experimentally testable. You just had to accept it on logical grounds (or posit extra time streams). Then along came Einstein, and showed that it was experimentally testable after all.
I guess it's possible the MWI will undergo a similar "demetaisation" at some point, perhaps if quantum computers factoring very large numbers become commonplace...
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often remarked, the past is a block and the universe keeps adding new moments and growing. This would be like Barbour's time capsules, except just sticking everything into one capsule, like a history book that keeps adding pages. But yes it implies another exterior "time" in which this "happens"; but then so does Bruno's UD.Only if you call the order of the natiral numlbers a "time". The UD does not use anything more.The UD both generates and executes all programs.
In other words it reads the numbers, yes?
It both reads the numbers to generate numbers
and reads them to execute them. I mean the order of the natural numbers is itself a number isn’t it?
Then there are just numbers READING ie glimpsing, looking at, noticing or whatever - each other. What has time got to do with any of that?
Kim============================Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
What did you mean by "reading numbers”?
Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better idea.
I remember reading someone argue against it in terms of energy, and I think this was thrown out by others with explanations, but can't remember any details. Any chance you could me by the explanation of that?
I was also able to get a good beginner foothold understanding of your explanation how SR gives rise to blocktime via relativity of simultaneity. Best I can I do see the implication is compelling and hard to avoid - I can't think of any criticism directly. But then I wouldn't expect to be able to do that from the level I am at.
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?
If not then out of interest, what sort of strength would you personally attach to blocktime? Say compared to the speed of light, or big bang? Genuinelly curious.
The intuitive problem I would have with blocktime would veiry much be along the same themes as a lot of other inferences in one way or another at the 'edge'. The same assumption seems to come into play, that nature has infinite resources at her fingertips...is able to get those resources pretty much anywhere she likes too. Which might be true, but I return to that worry that, whether true or not, the explanation is always available to us, and will always deliver this kind of resolution, regardless of context. So long as the problem is at the edge of knowledge.Is that a worry for you as well?
I will come back on this when I have time
but - to continue my suggestions re SF stories - "Flux" by Michael Moorcock addresses the "momentary frog question" rather nicely. Philosophically, at least, it is always possible that we ARE just momentary frogs.
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?
The world from which he had come, or any other world for that matter, could dissipate into its component elements at any instant, or could have come into being at any previous instant, complete with everybody’s memories!
--------------------------On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.
That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.
Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...
Einstein's equations shows that space-time is a 4D manifold, as Minkowski pointed out. His "canonical" quote on this is:We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[3]
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
— Hermann Minkowski
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.
Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics, not metaphysics. Specifically, it's a claim that the laws of physics work exactly the same in all inertial frames, which have different definitions of simultaneity. If someone agrees that no frame's definition of simultaneity is "preferred" in any physical sense, but that one is "metaphysically preferred" in a way that is wholly invisible to all possible experiments, this would not contradict SR or the relativity of simultaneity as a physical principle.
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.No. The Schroedinger equation which calculates wavefunction evolution in QM is already fully deterministic, the MWI just dispenses with the extra postulate of "wavefunction collapse" on measurement, which is the only random element in QM. Determinism only implies hidden variables if you assume each experiment has a *unique* outcome, and that this outcome is generated in a deterministic way by the initial conditions. If you assume that the physical state at the end of an experiment is a quantum state that's a superposition of many possible classical results, then this can be calculated from a prior quantum state using just the standard Schroedinger equation.
Jesse,That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken metaphorically at times and even to seemingly contradict himself on occasion (eg. on religious belief), so I think one would need to have more than just that one quote to make a convincing case.
On the other hand I suspect one can find very many Einstein quotes in which he mentions the PRESENT which would stand in direct contradiction to a belief in a block universe.
On Monday, February 3, 2014 7:37:44 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...In Einstein's case this does definitely seem to be his own belief, for example when his lifelong friend Michael Besso died in 1955, he sent his family a letter in which he wrote:"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."I think the serious context of this letter likely precludes the possibility that he was joking, or that he was just speaking in an offhand way about how relativity models the world as opposed to expressing a belief about the way the world really is.Jesse
--
Liz,
Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments changed their belief system! Goodness gracious, can't let that happen...:-)
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both imply the existence of a block universe.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...Obviously Newton didn't use that phrase. Equally obviously it's implied by his equations, as Laplace realised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[3]
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics, not metaphysics. Specifically, it's a claim that the laws of physics work exactly the same in all inertial frames, which have different definitions of simultaneity. If someone agrees that no frame's definition of simultaneity is "preferred" in any physical sense, but that one is "metaphysically preferred" in a way that is wholly invisible to all possible experiments, this would not contradict SR or the relativity of simultaneity as a physical principle.OK, maybe what I should have said is that no one has come up with an explanation for the ROS that doesn't include the concept of space-time being a 4D manifold.
Well, yes, of course. The MWI is defined as QM with no collapse, and the SWE is deterministic, therefore we have realism....don't we? OK, I may have used the wrong terminology here. Maybe "hidden variables" means something different from what I thought. I assumed the MWI, being completely deterministic (a "block multiverse") had a definite state at all times, and that therefore there is stuff that we can't measure but is there, even so - which I thought meant hidden variables. But I may have messed up.I'm not sure if that leaves us with a physical or metaphysical problem (or maybe no problem at all!)
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.No. The Schroedinger equation which calculates wavefunction evolution in QM is already fully deterministic, the MWI just dispenses with the extra postulate of "wavefunction collapse" on measurement, which is the only random element in QM. Determinism only implies hidden variables if you assume each experiment has a *unique* outcome, and that this outcome is generated in a deterministic way by the initial conditions. If you assume that the physical state at the end of an experiment is a quantum state that's a superposition of many possible classical results, then this can be calculated from a prior quantum state using just the standard Schroedinger equation.
(That said, time symmetry could also be termed hidden variables, I think?)
So do you think block time is what is inferred as a reality by each of these space and time variants?
Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while their time is being actively blocked in? Or does blocktime exist statically as the end-to-end story of the universe?
I appreciate the construction is the chain of relations, but does anyone say whether the relations necessarily happen like a domino effect from the big bang through, just the one time? Or can they get washed through like waves of an incoming tide? is another version of me happening on the wave just behind the one I'm on?
I think what I'm realty asking is what is blocktime giving the world? It's giving us a deeper vision of reality (if true). But if it is objectively true, what purpose or utility does it serve, if any?
My experience when I ask something like that is normally puzzlement..."what do you mean what purpose/utility?' It's an implication of relativity! :o)
But it's strange really. Where are knowledge is strongest, at the core of our own universe, there is no part of it that does not serve a fundamental purpose in the workings of physical law. If someone asked what purpose were served by neutrinos, or dark matter, or gamma rays, gravity....there would be several interpretations involving some utility in the scheme of things.But what happens at the edges..of our theories, of our knowledge, is completely different. And tightly linked to what action we take. This one here is in the same class as what takes place with QM. An interpretation. Both times then, MWI and this time, the result is an - albeit completely differently configured - sort of translation even from a set of relations in one universe, to the same relations distributed in a multiverse-like construction.
Obviously we don't see this as a multiverse in that blocktime happens along the passage of time we associate with this single universe. But relative to the old concept of a single version of objects moving through the passage of time, blocktime is a multiverse-like construction IMHO.
Guess what we're getting could be objective , or it could be an artefact of doing something improper, brought about by circumstances involving invoking a process of interpretation of some sense of an exposed edge of a theory.
Two possibilities
On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:29:11 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.Liz, do you say above:- blocktime can be tested experimentally- relativity of simultaneity can be tested experimentally and blocktime is inferred from relativity simultaneity
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both imply the existence of a block universe.
How does it derive from the Newtonian picture? I don't seem to get the visualization ...can ye help :O)
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...Obviously Newton didn't use that phrase. Equally obviously it's implied by his equations, as Laplace realised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[3]Liz - are you saying then, that cause and effect implies blocktime, or do I get that wrong?
Liz - I was just thinking. If Newton's world predicted a variant of blocktime. What is that saying, given Newton's world wasn't correct? Or was it based some aspect that is correct?
What does it mean if something that isn't correct gets blocktime? Is that strengthening the case for blocktime or raising a doubt that it is objectively real, given it arises as an artefact of the same kind of interpretative activity on an edge of a theory?
On 4 Feb 2014, at 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:What did you mean by "reading numbers”?I imagine the UD as a kind of ‘playhead’ or ‘read head’ in a digital device that scans encoded information. The difference of course being that there is no output. The lack of output is correlated with the ‘block time’ concept somehow.
The Prolog interpreter demo you gave suggests the algorithms are ‘generated’ but I am suggesting they already exist (“everything exists”)
and are merely scanned or read by the Universal Song Pointer Line which is at all positions simultaneously and, presumably, eternally (whatever ‘eternally’ could possibly mean in a block universe.)
K============================Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On 2 February 2014 18:53, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:I will come back on this when I have timeThanks.but - to continue my suggestions re SF stories - "Flux" by Michael Moorcock addresses the "momentary frog question" rather nicely. Philosophically, at least, it is always possible that we ARE just momentary frogs.I can't seem to locate a reasonably priced copy of this. You would be doing me a most tremendous favour if you could precise the relevant bits?Actually, I've had the glimmer of an idea. It's not fully worked out, but I'll just dump what I have. When Mad Max talks about the bird view, the assumption is that it's a panoptic (god's eye) view that encompasses all the momentary frogs together. IOW, all the frog perspectives are available "simultaneously" from this extrinsic perspective. When he talks about the frog view, it's natural to think of the focus as collapsing right down to that of a single momentary frog.
But perhaps we should rather think of the frog focus as continuing to be fundamentally panoptic (i.e. encompassing all the frog perspectives) except that "down there" the extrinsic simultaneity is intrinsically broken by the discrete perspective of each momentary frog. If so, one could then see Hoyle's heuristic as a frog's eye view of the experiential consequences of this broken simultaneity.
DavidOn 3 February 2014 03:19, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
On 2 February 2014 03:42, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:To answer the question about the frogs. We imagine we are an "extended frog" because of memory; without it we really would be stuck in the present moment, a series of individual isolated moments - and completely unable to function, of course. (If you haven't seen "Memento" do so because it's very good AND it shows the illusion of continuity up very nicely.)Ironically I don't have any more time to write on this! Later...Actually I was lucky enough to see Memento when it was premiered at Sundance in 2001, I think. Great movie.
Yes, I've got the bit about memory - this allows each "momentary frog" to perceive itself as an "extended frog". But now we seem to have conjured up a collection of momentary frogs each one of which imagines itself to be an extended frog with more or less history, if you see what I mean. What I'm interested in is why or how this could resolve into a singular momentary frog that has the impression of one history that keeps extending itself. One can see that this must be true of each of the momentary frogs, each stuck in its pigeon hole, so to speak, but the logic we are discussing seems to imply that each such frog is deluded and that its particular history (memory, that is ) never in fact changes.The more I think about this the worse it gets. I realise that I can never actually prove that I'm not just one of those momentary frogs stuck in a pigeon hole with my memories of a past history, because that frog could never observe any "transition" to a future moment (i.e. one not yet encoded in its memory) in which that proof would occur. But accepting that "I" am just one such momentary frog seems about as difficult as believing I am not conscious simply because I apparently can't appeal to consciousness to explain why I'm having the thought that I'm conscious (another thread!). I think this is what Hoyle was getting at with his flashlight: we can't seem to help thinking of ourselves successively as one frog at different times. His flashlight idea just pumps the intuition that though we can consider the pigeon holes in any order we like, we can't seem to avoid considering them in some sort of order, even if that order is merely logical, not temporal (because the temporal ordering is already in the pigeon holes themselves).David
--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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.
That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.
Jesse
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...
Edgar
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:11:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 11:48, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better idea.Good, that was the point. A lot of people seemed to be attacking it on the basis of straw man arguments, so obviously not everyone "gets" it.I remember reading someone argue against it in terms of energy, and I think this was thrown out by others with explanations, but can't remember any details. Any chance you could me by the explanation of that?I do remember that, but only very vaguely - so I can't really say what the problem or resolution was. Sorry. If anyone can remember, please let me know.
(Maybe it was something similar to the fallacy that the MWI violates conservation of energy because it's constantly "creating new universes" ... ?)
I was also able to get a good beginner foothold understanding of your explanation how SR gives rise to blocktime via relativity of simultaneity. Best I can I do see the implication is compelling and hard to avoid - I can't think of any criticism directly. But then I wouldn't expect to be able to do that from the level I am at.I haven't been able to come up with anything. Of course any type of physics that treats time as a dimension implies block time, for example Newtonian mechanics does, as illustrated by Laplace's comment about an omniscient being that could know the past and future given the configuration of the universe at a single moment.
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?
The idea of space-time seems to be central to SR, and even more so to GR. (It was also central to Newtonian physics, but as "space and time" which taken together have the features of a block universe.)
If not then out of interest, what sort of strength would you personally attach to blocktime? Say compared to the speed of light, or big bang? Genuinelly curious.I'm not sure what you mean about the speed of light. I'd say block time is the best interpretation of what phyics is telling us about the universe because (a) the theoretical and experimental evidence is very strong and (b) the ontological basis for it is good - it's the minimal explanation necessary. Although other variants like "presentism" are theoretically possible, they're unnecessary to explain all existing observations, and only push the problem of time back a step, since presentism just says there's an extra time dimension in which our universe is being continually created and destroyed - but of course another time dimension can also be viewed as a block universe, one step removed. If that time dimension is also given a time dimension in which it's happening, that can also be viewed as a block universe, 2 steps removed ... and so on.
The intuitive problem I would have with blocktime would veiry much be along the same themes as a lot of other inferences in one way or another at the 'edge'. The same assumption seems to come into play, that nature has infinite resources at her fingertips...is able to get those resources pretty much anywhere she likes too. Which might be true, but I return to that worry that, whether true or not, the explanation is always available to us, and will always deliver this kind of resolution, regardless of context. So long as the problem is at the edge of knowledge.Is that a worry for you as well?It might be for some things, but block time has been so uncontentious amongst the vast majority of physicists since Newton that I don't have any problems with it. It's been very well thought through by many minds, and no one has come up with a viable alternative that I'm aware of.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both imply the existence of a block universe.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...
Obviously Newton didn't use that phrase. Equally obviously it's implied by his equations, as Laplace realised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[3]
Einstein's equations shows that space-time is a 4D manifold, as Minkowski pointed out. His "canonical" quote on this is:
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
— Hermann MinkowskiOtherwise, just read papers on the subject of SR. It isn't a secret that SR treats space-time as a 4D manifold.
Here is an introduction to the subject:http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics, not metaphysics. Specifically, it's a claim that the laws of physics work exactly the same in all inertial frames, which have different definitions of simultaneity. If someone agrees that no frame's definition of simultaneity is "preferred" in any physical sense, but that one is "metaphysically preferred" in a way that is wholly invisible to all possible experiments, this would not contradict SR or the relativity of simultaneity as a physical principle.
OK, maybe what I should have said is that no one has come up with an explanation for the ROS that doesn't include the concept of space-time being a 4D manifold.
I'm not sure if that leaves us with a physical or metaphysical problem (or maybe no problem at all!)
That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.
No. The Schroedinger equation which calculates wavefunction evolution in QM is already fully deterministic, the MWI just dispenses with the extra postulate of "wavefunction collapse" on measurement, which is the only random element in QM. Determinism only implies hidden variables if you assume each experiment has a *unique* outcome, and that this outcome is generated in a deterministic way by the initial conditions. If you assume that the physical state at the end of an experiment is a quantum state that's a superposition of many possible classical results, then this can be calculated from a prior quantum state using just the standard Schroedinger equation.
Well, yes, of course. The MWI is defined as QM with no collapse, and the SWE is deterministic, therefore we have realism....don't we?
OK, I may have used the wrong terminology here. Maybe "hidden variables" means something different from what I thought. I assumed the MWI, being completely deterministic (a "block multiverse") had a definite state at all times, and that therefore there is stuff that we can't measure but is there, even so - which I thought meant hidden variables. But I may have messed up.
(That said, time symmetry could also be termed hidden variables, I think?)
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Jesse,
I agree that the evidence is that Einstein very probably believed in a non personal God of the universe. But there are those who try to prove he believed in a personal Biblical God and they do come up with some quotes they claim support their belief.
The quote you provide re an objective now are simply referencing the non-simultaneity cases of clock time which are well known but as I've pointed out ad nauseum do NOT falsify an actual present moment. That is clearly shown by the twins having NON-simultaneous clock times in the exact SAME present moment.
And as this quote points out "the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed NOT completely suspended, just more complicated".
And he goes on to note that there is an "EVOLUTION of a three dimensional existence in time" which clearly indicates what he really believed in was a 4-dimensional universe in which things EVOLVE, happen and change.
But perhaps we should rather think of the frog focus as continuing to be fundamentally panoptic (i.e. encompassing all the frog perspectives) except that "down there" the extrinsic simultaneity is intrinsically broken by the discrete perspective of each momentary frog. If so, one could then see Hoyle's heuristic as a frog's eye view of the experiential consequences of this broken simultaneity.I think that is is what happen when we apply the theaeteus definition on provability, except that provability is already a symmetry broker, then the Theaetetus makes it even more assymetrical (irreflexive, even), and the miracle is more in the fact that, defining the physical reality from that move, we get the core symmetry back.
I hope I will be able to clarify this for you with the self-reference (modal) logics.
Hi Jesse,Well, we disagree here
but thinking we know for sure the details of what Einstein believed is probably a lost cause
Aside from quotes already mentioned, if you want to educate yourself on the subject you might try reading the book Bruno mentioned, Pale Yourgrau's "Einstein and Gödel" which recounts the extensive discussions Einstein had with Gödel on the subject of block time.
Jesse,Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even imply block time.
What it actually implies is that everything is MOVING in clock time and if things actually move in clock time that is the opposite of block time. Nothing moves in a block universe.
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote:On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime go on to imply something beyond blocktime?If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally.SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.But not "hidden variable" in the EPR sense. In the MWI, there are hidden universes, they are not variable, but terms in the universal wave, and we just don't know which terms apply to us. If it was hidden variable in the EPR sense, then by Bell, they would be non-local, and you would conclude falsely (like Clark) that the MWI has to be non local (which I doubt very much).
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, LizR wrote:On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:Liz,You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time.It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both imply the existence of a block universe.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. That's only fair...Obviously Newton didn't use that phrase. Equally obviously it's implied by his equations, as Laplace realised.Yes, I was thinking of Laplace. Why did I wrote Pascal?
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:55, LizR wrote:On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:Well, yes, of course. The MWI is defined as QM with no collapse, and the SWE is deterministic, therefore we have realism....don't we?
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics, not metaphysics. Specifically, it's a claim that the laws of physics work exactly the same in all inertial frames, which have different definitions of simultaneity. If someone agrees that no frame's definition of simultaneity is "preferred" in any physical sense, but that one is "metaphysically preferred" in a way that is wholly invisible to all possible experiments, this would not contradict SR or the relativity of simultaneity as a physical principle.OK, maybe what I should have said is that no one has come up with an explanation for the ROS that doesn't include the concept of space-time being a 4D manifold.
I'm not sure if that leaves us with a physical or metaphysical problem (or maybe no problem at all!)
The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables.That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work.No. The Schroedinger equation which calculates wavefunction evolution in QM is already fully deterministic, the MWI just dispenses with the extra postulate of "wavefunction collapse" on measurement, which is the only random element in QM. Determinism only implies hidden variables if you assume each experiment has a *unique* outcome, and that this outcome is generated in a deterministic way by the initial conditions. If you assume that the physical state at the end of an experiment is a quantum state that's a superposition of many possible classical results, then this can be calculated from a prior quantum state using just the standard Schroedinger equation.Careful: in this context realism often means "collapse" or "unicity of outcome", like in Bell's paper. or even in EPR, where realism is thought only with the implicit assumption of unique universe.In other context, physical realism means that physics is independent of us, like in "arithmetic realism" (arithmetic is independent of us).
--
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change can't happen in a block universe" (which are obviously nonsense, or Einstein et al would hardly have entertained the idea in the first place).
So, I'd like to maybe clarify what the idea means, and give them a proper target if they still want to demolish it.
A block universe is simply one in which time is treated as a dimension. So Newtonian physics, for example, specified a block universe, in which it was believed (e.g. by Laplace) that in principle the past and future could be computed from the state of the present. The Victorians made much of time being the fourth dimension, probably most famously in Wells' "The Time Machine". This was the Newtonian concept of a block universe, and was generally treated quite fatalistically (Wells didn't indicate that history could be changed, for example).
Then special relativity came along and unified space and time into space-time. The reason SR gives rise to a block universe is the relativity of simultaneity. You can slice up space-time in various ways which allow two observers to see the same events occurring in a different order. Hence there is no way to define a "hyperplane of simultaneity" that can be agreed upon by all observers as being a present moment. This indicates that space-time is a four-dimensional arena in which events are embedded. Indeed, I have never heard of an alternative explanation of the relativity of simultaneity that gets around this result - if it's correct, space-time is a block universe, that is to say, time is "just" another dimension.
There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by future boundary conditions.
A photon has a very limited memory and doesn't partake in thermodynamics on its own.
The onus is to show why it wouldn't be influenced equally by past and future boundary conditions if time is fundamentally symmetric
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by future boundary conditions.
You *could* determine the state of any system in quantum theory by future boundary conditions, but what would be exotic is the assumption that neither past nor future boundary conditions are sufficient on their own, that you need a combination of both. That just isn't how it works in quantum theory,
On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by future boundary conditions.
You *could* determine the state of any system in quantum theory by future boundary conditions, but what would be exotic is the assumption that neither past nor future boundary conditions are sufficient on their own, that you need a combination of both. That just isn't how it works in quantum theory,
Some people think it is. When the past boundary condition doesn't predict a definite future condition, then adding a future boundary condition can resolve it. That's how Stenger effectively gets a non-local effect in an EPR experiment.
Some people think it is. When the past boundary condition doesn't predict a definite future condition, then adding a future boundary condition can resolve it. That's how Stenger effectively gets a non-local effect in an EPR experiment.On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by future boundary conditions.
You *could* determine the state of any system in quantum theory by future boundary conditions, but what would be exotic is the assumption that neither past nor future boundary conditions are sufficient on their own, that you need a combination of both. That just isn't how it works in quantum theory,
You said we don't need a coordinate system at all, we can just use 4-momenta and 4-intervals - so using those doesn't imply or define a 4D coordinate system?
Sure they imply that a 4D coordinate system is possible, in fact many different ones. This is just like map surveyors who measure a lot of distance and angles between points can infer that they're on a spheroid and hence can introduce a consistent coordinate system. But the distances and angles are more fundamental, i.e. operational, than the coordinate system which has a lot of arbitrariness in it. But we don't say we know we live on a spheroid because of the relativity of latitude.On 2/4/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
You said we don't need a coordinate system at all, we can just use 4-momenta and 4-intervals - so using those doesn't imply or define a 4D coordinate system?
The point only makes a difference when people are asking things like does SR mean that the block universe is really real. I think even the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" is kind of misleading. It seems to imply that distant events are simultaneous with local ones relative to some frame. But in general it's only that given two spacelike events there exists a frame in which they are simultaneous. If you add a third event then there may not be any frame that will make the three simultaneous. So I'd rather say there is no such thing as simultaneity for distant events.
On 2/3/2014 9:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
So do you think block time is what is inferred as a reality by each of these space and time variants?
You mean "implied by"? It doesn't imply anything about which is right, because it applies equally to all of them, just like we could label every point with a latitude and longitude on a torodial Earth.
Brent
It's the easiest way to think about SR. And it works for GR too so long as you avoid closed time-like loops. But GR and QM seem to be inconsistent, so it's hard to say either one is a good candidate for what's real. I just think they're very good approximations over some domains.
On 4 February 2014 16:56, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while their time is being actively blocked in? Or does blocktime exist statically as the end-to-end story of the universe?Block time doesn't have any implications for individual lives. It can't make a difference to everyday life, because obviously it predicts that everyday life will be exactly what we observe it to be (otherwise it could be shown to be false). It would seem that the 4D space-time manifold "exists as the story of the universe".
I appreciate the construction is the chain of relations, but does anyone say whether the relations necessarily happen like a domino effect from the big bang through, just the one time? Or can they get washed through like waves of an incoming tide? is another version of me happening on the wave just behind the one I'm on?This interesting possibility is explored in Barrington Bayley's novel "Collision with Chronos" which I heartily recommend even though as far as we know it doesn't have anything to do with real physics!
For things to wash through block time you need an extra time stream. So you move your block universe out to 5D - 3 space and 2 time dimensions. There's no reason to posit this to explain any observed phenomenon. A 4D space-time manifold appears to be sufficient.
I think what I'm realty asking is what is blocktime giving the world? It's giving us a deeper vision of reality (if true). But if it is objectively true, what purpose or utility does it serve, if any?My experience when I ask something like that is normally puzzlement..."what do you mean what purpose/utility?' It's an implication of relativity! :o)Well, it's more an ontological underpinning of relativity, since the whole thing is based around the concept that the universe is a 4D manifold (a warped one in GR). So I guess the puzzlement is similar to if you'd asked "what is the purpose/utility of the big bang, or of evolution?" It sounds like a theological / teleological question.
But it's strange really. Where are knowledge is strongest, at the core of our own universe, there is no part of it that does not serve a fundamental purpose in the workings of physical law. If someone asked what purpose were served by neutrinos, or dark matter, or gamma rays, gravity....there would be several interpretations involving some utility in the scheme of things.But what happens at the edges..of our theories, of our knowledge, is completely different. And tightly linked to what action we take. This one here is in the same class as what takes place with QM. An interpretation. Both times then, MWI and this time, the result is an - albeit completely differently configured - sort of translation even from a set of relations in one universe, to the same relations distributed in a multiverse-like construction.It isn't really an interpretation, except insofar as all physics could be called that (I think "model" would be a better term). It's one of the entities postulated by SR and GR, much as (say) mass is. I suppose it has the benefit of being the only view of time that actually makes sense - at least, I've never seen a physical theory that explains time any other way, and it's hard to imagine any other way of explaining it - although presentism expands the scope of the block universe to extra time dimensions, but I don't consider that a good thing.
Obviously we don't see this as a multiverse in that blocktime happens along the passage of time we associate with this single universe. But relative to the old concept of a single version of objects moving through the passage of time, blocktime is a multiverse-like construction IMHO.QM posits a block multiverse.Guess what we're getting could be objective , or it could be an artefact of doing something improper, brought about by circumstances involving invoking a process of interpretation of some sense of an exposed edge of a theory.Any idea what?
Two possibilitiesOnly one of them has had amazing predictive success, however :-)
I'm presuming you don't mean blocktime directly predicts...but relativity. If so, I take your point obviously.If you meant blocktime directly, I'd love to hear the prediction.
On 4 February 2014 10:14, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:But perhaps we should rather think of the frog focus as continuing to be fundamentally panoptic (i.e. encompassing all the frog perspectives) except that "down there" the extrinsic simultaneity is intrinsically broken by the discrete perspective of each momentary frog. If so, one could then see Hoyle's heuristic as a frog's eye view of the experiential consequences of this broken simultaneity.I think that is is what happen when we apply the theaeteus definition on provability, except that provability is already a symmetry broker, then the Theaetetus makes it even more assymetrical (irreflexive, even), and the miracle is more in the fact that, defining the physical reality from that move, we get the core symmetry back.Yes, the idea I'm trying to convey is that the symmetry of the frog's panoptic view is broken, or breaks itself, as a consequence of its intrinsic non-simultaneity, and this, at least for me, is the intuition that Hoyle's heuristic fundamentally conveys. This internal asymmetry of simultaneity obviates any requirement to appeal to any further extrinsic principle of symmetry breaking, so Hoyle's selective principle becomes merely a conceptual ladder to be cast aside once we have used it to imaginatively descend "down here". In a different but related sense, the "physical symmetry" re-emerges from any one of the frog's discrete perspectives. I guess this is what you mean by the miracle, and yes, I do regard this as a major prize if indeed the comp assumption is correct.
I hope I will be able to clarify this for you with the self-reference (modal) logics.I hope so too!
David
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Thanks for the nice summaries too, in some of your post.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
Jesse,Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even imply block time.Einstein just says there is no "simultaneity of distant events", he doesn't suggest that there's some alternative to "clocktime simultaneity" which he believes in. As I understand it you definitely believe that there is such a thing as simultaneity of distant events, since you think there's a definite yes-or-no answer to whether they happen at the same p-time.And I guess you're going to just ignore my point about the obvious meaning of a sentence of the form "we should think of physical reality as A instead of, as hitherto, as B", that such a sentence is endorsing A and rejecting B as outdated? No surprise there, you always seem to just drop the discussion once it goes down a line you'd have trouble answering without damaging your position (as with the issues I asked you to address at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/BaKE8Sq-fN8J -- another post you simply ignored).What it actually implies is that everything is MOVING in clock time and if things actually move in clock time that is the opposite of block time. Nothing moves in a block universe.I have no idea what "moving in clock time" could mean (wouldn't "moving" in a time dimension require a second "meta-time" dimension to keep track of "changes" in an entity's position in the first time dimension?), or why you think a lack of absolute "clocktime simultaneity" should "imply" this. But if you'd care to explain in detail I would be happy to address the argument.Jesse
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:Jesse
Liz,Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments changed their belief system! Goodness gracious, can't let that happen...:-)Speaking of simply retreating when one can't come up with a scientific rebuttal in order to avoid having one's beliefs challenged by rational argument, do you ever plan to respond to the following 3 posts of mine?1. The one at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/HeLo1QmdHFQ/4pDpJ6WXYgkJ where I pointed out that when the matter field is more irregular than the "perfect fluid" of the FLRW model, there is no obvious "natural" way to divide up 4D spacetime into a series of 3D slice, since there's no longer a unique choice of slicings that ensures the matter field on each slice is perfectly homogenous...so as I asked, what criteria would you propose to use to decide which of various possible slicings represents p-time? Or would you admit that you have no idea what physical criteria, if any, could choose between competing simultaneity conventions in a universe where matter isn't distributed in a perfectly homogenous way?2. The one at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/HeLo1QmdHFQ/Mw8jXkmytGoJ where I continued with the analogy to 2D geometry, and pointed out that the same logic you seem to be using to get the conclusion of a truth about which events happened at the "same point in time" independent of coordinate system could equally well be used to argue for a truth about which points on different roads were at the "same point in y" independent of a particular choice of x and y axes, which seems obviously silly...but as I said, "If you agree it's silly in the 2D case, then you still need to explain what the relevant difference is that does *not* lead you to conclude there must be such an objective truth about common y-values, even though every step of the argument up until then maps perfectly onto your own argument about time."3. The one at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/HeLo1QmdHFQ/eZSEOw-ilXUJ where I asked if you were asserting there's just one point on an observer's worldline that represents his "actual local time", or if you just meant that each point on an observer's worldline has its own definition of the "local time" without presupposing that only one of those points could be "correct". As I pointed out, if you are *assuming* the former at the start of your argument, then your entire argument is merely an exercise in circular reasoning, since idea of a privileged point on each object's worldline that is happening at the "present moment" is precisely what you were trying to demonstrate, so you can't just assume it from the start.
Jesse,I didn't answer these 3 because you are once again describing well known aspect of CLOCK time simultaneity with which I probably agree.
These have nothing to do with the concept of a present moment independent of clock time within which clock times run at different rates.You need to understand the distinction.
Refer to my 2 thought experiments of a day ago. 1. The billion twins example. 2. The all observers in the universe example.
However these won't do you any good until you understand and accept the basic well established FACT that the clock times of the twins differ in the exact same present moment they both share.
Jesse,
A couple of points in response:1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows just fine in SR and GR.
No clock time simultaneity of distant (relativistic is a better descriptor) events does NOT imply time is not flowing at those events. This is quite clear. It's a fundamental assumption of relativity that time flows.
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it requires everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact that everything always travels at the speed of light through spacetime. I find it baffling that so many can't grasp this simple fact.
2. You complain about me not answering a few of your questions. As I've explained before I have limited time to post here because running my business keeps me very busy.And please note that a lot of my posts have received NO answers at all either, e.g.a. Several major posts, some as new topics, on my theory of how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Apparently this has just sailed over everyone's heads with not a single meaningful comment, not even any negative ones which is pretty surprising among this crowd! Apparently no one is interested in understanding the nature of time at the quantum level?b. My post on a solution to Newton's Bucket. Also no relevant responses.c. Several thought experiments lending very strong support to my present moment theory, posted just a couple days ago. Again zero response. And weren't those directed to YOU?d. Several thought experiments designed to dig into the fine points of various aspects of time dilation. Again only a vague comment or two on 'asymmetry' but zero actual analysis of the points I raised.e. Several other new topics on basic issues of science and epistemology. Again no relevant responses.
As for your comment that "you have no idea what moving in clock time could mean" pull your head out of your physics books and watch your watch for a little while and see if the hands are moving. If not, you are in block time.