Evolving law, Smolin and others

[Max™]

Even with a configuration space, it doesn't have to remain in a single state.

The impression I'd think would be the view that time is unchangeable implies a single configuration state. I was speaking of the opposite, that there should be no single configuration space state allowable in general, as that is almost as bad as implying a preferred frame of reference from the point of view of time.

 

[Fra]

Even with a configuration space, it doesn't have to remain in a single state.

The impression I'd think would be the view that time is unchangeable implies a single configuration state. I was speaking of the opposite, that there should be no single configuration space state allowable in general, as that is almost as bad as implying a preferred frame of reference from the point of view of time.

Oh, then it was me misunderstanding you. That sounds a lot better to me and then we are in closer agreement.

But then I think I understand your post #45 even less. I probably didn't understand your idea.

/Fredrik

 

[Max™]

Just a failure of language to represent ideas which should be explained mathematically in the first place.

 

[Fra]

Just a failure of language to represent ideas which should be explained mathematically in the first place.

Very true. But finding not just some arbitrary mathematics, but the correct mathematics that gives us predictive power is a core part of the problem. My personal view on that is that immature or flawed mathematics can sometimes be far more ambigous and deceptive that plain english becuase it gives the impression of beeing precise, but sometiems arbitrarily so. After all there is a difference between mathematics and physics.

The formalism I'm working on as part of my personal research is something I intend to develop much more before publishing anything, otherwise I KNOW it will come out ambigous. Otherwise you just trade the preciseness problem for the interpretational problem. We need both.

But so far what I'm pondering is a discrete model, where actions and expectations are combinatorically explored. But with the twist that this entire "model, discrete expectaions" etc are not to be thought of as in a realist sense, rather each observer/sub system has their own discrete system; and physical interactions are when several such systems interact. There are several problems still to solve, before I can defend the choice of mathematics. Most important are to show that this scheme solves at least some of the open problems, and correctly can incorporate the standard model. Anything less and the mathematics is not defendable.

/Fredrik