Fra said:IMO, the two questions belong together.
As my own line of reasoning is close to smolins, thinking, i find it easy to extrapolate and make sense between out what he says. But there is also a risk that my own bias risks misinterpreting his ideas. In short, all of Smolins explicit ideas are IMO not the final answers, and its also "incomplete", beeing sometimes a reconstruction "designed to give the right answers" so i can see what he means when he refers to future progress, and that the principles hold the possibility open for replacing the assumptions to increase the explanatory value (my own thinking circles in the domains which smolin skipped). I can not defend the specific examples smolins makes. IMO they are likely a first attempt to create a mathematical model, that partly implements or illustrates the possible power of the idea. But to make up your own mind, I recommend reading these papers, relating to emergence of QM
-- Precedence and freedom in quantum physics, arXiv:1205.3707v1 [quant-ph] 16 May 2012
-- Quantum mechanics and the principle of maximal variety arXiv:1506.02938v1 [quant-ph] 9 Jun 2015
But if you read it with a too critical axiomatic mindset, one likely dismisses the whole points. I consider the papers to outline and try to make simple mathematical dressings of intuitive ideas; but they can, and need improvements. Smolin for a LONG time has also advocated a new paradigm in THINKING about the nature of law, that has more in common with evolution than with classical reductionism.
I reread the paper and it gave me more clarity after Lord Crc described about "intrinsic momentum space" (see above two messages) but after reading the quantum mechanics ensemble idea in Smolin old book where nonlocality was said to occur because simple electrons were alike compared to more complex objects and at that time I didn't like the idea because it was quite simple and no richness left. I want to know what happens if Smolin would be agnostic of quantum mechanics interpretation but just used his momentum space and ideas of the universe as consisting of "views of itself" represented by causal sets. Would the latter stand alone? Or what would be modified if no quantum interpretation was used?
By the way. This is related to this thread because of this passage in the paper
" The views do not live in spacetime. They live rather in products of momentum spaces, as a view is made up of incoming energy-momentum. The fact that we perceive our past as a set of incoming energy-momenta does not commit ourselves to the expectation that the universe is a lorentzian spacetime. This approach is, in a way, Kantian, in that the apparent 3 + 1 dimensionality and lorentz invariance of our perceived world reflects the structures through which we perceive the worldthe views-and are not necessarily realized as properties of the world itself. ".
I'm interested in the paper about Momentum space because I have been for a decade interested in the idea of dual physics in both real space and a separate momentum space. Have you read or heard anything like this?