Do the Gravity Probe B results provided by NASA from 2011 support and lean in favor of a 4-dimensional everyday world? The world you and I live in. Do the results argue for block time?
The place on Earth that I read about this concept was while sitting in front of my computer. Type in 'higgs boson and time travel' into a search engine and see what pops up-
Is this why I have seen some discussion on aspects of time travel in relation to the Higgs boson, in the sense that the past, present, and future are 'laid out' or existing in principle? Or, maybe it is better for me to ask: How does time travel relate the Higgs boson discovery, or is this...
I don't understand where the contradiction lies. Why shouldn't things be crisp and definite especially when we are talking about the macro world? Leaving QM aside, I think on the large scale most things and events are deterministic, maybe not predictable, but deterministic. So, where is this...
I have seen several responses here that claim the present is all that is real and true. I agree with this, but every state is a present state. So, more accurately I can't claim that this particular 'now' state is only real and true. When any state is in a physical form and in a specific set of...
I think it depends on when/where you ask the question. If I ask: "is this moment more real here at 12pm than all other times?". I may respond "yes, it is, because I am asking the question now". But, what if I ask the exact same question tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that? Is...
But, it seems the 'now' is all that is real. I am not agreeing with presentism. However, how can I not claim that every state has its own state of 'now'. If true, and all states are now states at their own unique times, then in principle, when they physically are present, they are real and...
I'm not sure that because things unfold in linear manner that there is a true and objective distinction between past, present, future states. It seems that to claim past and future states are objectively true is misleading. It seems there is a direction of how things unfold, but you can't pick...
But, the crux is not if the two events are simulataneous. They do not exist at the same physical times and locations, but they both exist equally at differing times and locations where one has no objective value or 'realness' over another in principle. If this is true and the 1pm event is as...
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I think the point is that just because we single out a point in time and then claim the past is the past and the future is out there waiting from this unique view point is incorrect. It seems this appears true from this view point in time, but objectively...
I agree. It seems the past is only the 'past' (12 pm) because I am viewing it from my present now state (1 pm). It seems that 1pm carries no more value in how 'real' it is, than that of 12pm. There is no past that exists, it is only a previous present state of 'now'. If the past is the past as...
But, 'real' meaning it is all laid out in principle, it is there and valid when I am not experiencing it as a 'now' state. As a 'flow' or as a movement, time is an illusion. But in its entire lay out, it is real and existing.
"Is time real?" :
I think asking what 'real' means is confusing. I think it comes down to the following question: if there are no inherent value differences between 'present/now' states, then how can I claim any single 'now' state is more in existence than any other? If 'real' equates to...
Imagine viewing the world from state X at 1 pm, and viewing the world from state Y at 2 pm. State Y is required to be in existence in principle at the viewing of state Y, and at state X equally. This is because neither is more valid of a state to view the world from. Neither can claim it is more...
Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.
Tossing a single coin is based on a 50/50 probability of landing on heads. It seems obvious that this is the numerical interpretation (the movement towards the 50/50 outcomes (the actual results) will increase when the number of throws increase as well). However, I think the actual potential of...
I agree. If I have a blindfold on and I walk into the room but my senses do not pick up the table or other objects in the room, it does not mean they are not real. My viewpoint gives it a perspective, but not an existence. I think decoherence can answer this question. My observation is not...
I agree. The issue however then becomes if eternal and there were no initial conditions from the Big Bang, then how do the properties and configurations of the Universe look the way they do today? In other words, this model allows for no logical explanation for why objects and relationships we...
I think relativity took care of squashing the concept of absolute time. As for choices, Libet and more modern researchers are shedding light on the myth of libertarian free-will.
I think 'randomness' in any form is a flimsy term. I think 'random' as it relates to acausality, predictability, and deterministically (dependence on prior causes) must be defined more clearly. When one talks of randomness I think this can mean different things to different people.
I guess objectively it does not matter that much. But, I still finding it interesting thinking about these things. I have not read much of Cramer's theory. I picked up Schroedinger's Kittens (I think that is the name of his book) once, but did not get through it. Is his theory held in high...
It seems decoherence can not explain the measurement problem, but I wonder why I rarely read about the interaction between a quantum system and the environment being causal as an interpretation. What about a causal interpretation for the process of decoherence? This avoids a true collapse...
I think there is much to be gained from other sciences. They may not be as "hard" of science, but there is value there. For example, Bell's theorem can be resolved by addressing the issue of free-will. Libet and his studies and many more recent studies equate free-will to being an illusion. If...
1 - Can we argue that the wave function is used to determine all possible temporary states of a quantum system, and that via Schrodinger’s equation evolving deterministically the quantum system influences and is influenced by the Universe in a deterministic way? If the Universe has its own wave...
I think of wetness as a type of qualia, like pain, so I think this brings in new variables. Rather, if we accept the notion that there is no border between micro and macro scales (this is not to say we don't see differences on each scale), then we must conclude the same logic is inherent in both...
I think of wetness as a type of qualia, like pain, so I think this brings in new variables. Rather, if we accept the notion that there is no border between micro and macro scales (this is not to say we don't see differences on each scale), then we must conclude the same logic is inherent in both...
Thanks for the perspective. To me the approximation of the macro scale seems so consistent and logic based in a way that makes me think for all practical purposes it may as well be deterministic. But, I see your point, if the approximation breaks down into uncertainty when applied to the micro...
In other words, causal and based on tit for tat logic, but without true randomness, only unpredictable in principle and in practice. Maybe, the process of decoherence is a causal one based on available variables that can not be reached, or realism is actually present all along.
Does the notion that a mechanical resonator following the laws of quantum mechanics imply that a similar logic should be used to understand micro and macro events? If there is no border, then why should the logic be different? In other words, if macro events are based on QM, yet they are...
Thanks for directing me to this study. I am not a scientist, but I do read quite a bit on the subject of QM. If modern thinking has moved past some of these hangovers, it is not always reflected in the literature. However, I believe even recent work and advances on causal interpretations do seem...
I think an interpretation of a personal God can be a very good thing for great number of people. However, this often leads some unique people to think my interpretation should be the same as their interpretation. Better to just be done with all of it. Logic should be the new religion. I think...
But, how can a 'truly random' event or outcome depend on its initial distribution? Unless information is unavailable in principle (for example: position and velocity), then in theory why would a future state of that event not be deterministic (at least in principle), but at the same time...
I think it is similar to free will and randomness. It seems that truly free willed actions argue for no dependence on prior states, the same can be stated about truly random events, and the same goes for Zeno's arrow too. If there is no movement or acceleration of the arrow within each moment or...
I do think that our consciously willed actions are simply caused by information , but this comes in many forms (genes, environment, experience, , etc). The process is not random in any way. I just think that in principle, to have 'free will' (choice to do otherwise), requires the mind or 'will'...
In a sense I think that true randomness must act as its' own first cause. If we are talking about an acausal event, and there is no cause, then we are led into a paradox of there being an action, but without an initiator (a cause of some kind). If there are no variables or conditions to bring...
I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes...
Just a thought:
If we could identify the position and velocity (via weak measurements) of a particle at some instant, and its future evolution is fully determined (at least in principle, not in practice), then can we extrapolate this to surmise that all events are are inherently deterministic...
It is meaningless because there is no point in discussing the event without an interaction between the observer and this event. It becomes null and void without someone present to experience it. When we reflect back on it, we can conclude, 'yes, it did in fact occur. It always was in existence...
Technically yes the tree does exist if no one is around. But, it is insignificant as it takes a conscious observer to identify the tree as separate from its surroundings, It exists all along, but it is meaningless without an observer. An observer can make sense of it after, but prior to being...
I am not a physicist or a neuroscientist, however I have read quite a bit on free-will. It seems whether or not true free-will does occur is an ongoing debate. There is much research indicating that true free-will is an illusion, that is: the ability to make choices without the parameters of...
I typically post in the QM section, but I was reading an article about the cyclic model and wanted input on if this model of Steinhardt–Turok is widely accepted, is gaining support, has been upgraded, or replaced by something more current?