- #1
EclogiteFacies
- 77
- 17
- TL;DR Summary
- Does The Consistent Histories interpretation nullify the timing of dinosaurs and imply solipsism? Sounds like wooey nonsense to me... But I'm a geologist not a physicist so it's a bit beyond me. Would love some advice.
I have just finished reading the book 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' by Lee Smolin.
My question interestingly is associated with my geology background. Lee Smolin notes Fay Dowker concludes that if Consistent Histories is true then we cannot deduce the existence of dinosaurs 100 million years ago.
I must say, as a geologist I can say that I have seen first-hand that the evidence proving their existence 100Ma is flawless.
Therefore, I was wondering what you think about this? I understand a lot of time has passed since Fay Dowker illustrated this point of view (20 years) and I was wondering if the interpretation still implies that this. I personally feel this must be nonsense.
Furthermore Fay Dowker seems to think this interpretation implies some form of solipsism. Again a nonsense point of view.
A lot of these points of view are summarised in the essay by Dowker and Kent (1994). Again this is very old so I'm wondering if these interpretations have at all held up...
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9412067
Would really appreciate hearing what you all think about this.
Thank you
My question interestingly is associated with my geology background. Lee Smolin notes Fay Dowker concludes that if Consistent Histories is true then we cannot deduce the existence of dinosaurs 100 million years ago.
I must say, as a geologist I can say that I have seen first-hand that the evidence proving their existence 100Ma is flawless.
Therefore, I was wondering what you think about this? I understand a lot of time has passed since Fay Dowker illustrated this point of view (20 years) and I was wondering if the interpretation still implies that this. I personally feel this must be nonsense.
Furthermore Fay Dowker seems to think this interpretation implies some form of solipsism. Again a nonsense point of view.
A lot of these points of view are summarised in the essay by Dowker and Kent (1994). Again this is very old so I'm wondering if these interpretations have at all held up...
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9412067
Would really appreciate hearing what you all think about this.
Thank you