tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post1736139601265903189..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: A wacky metaphysics of time for deterministic physicsAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18202076268854147162015-04-28T11:20:45.274-05:002015-04-28T11:20:45.274-05:00I suspect that the theory will require something l...I suspect that the theory will require something like multiple worlds. There are many Ut-style operators, corresponding to different physical theories. Which one is the one that defines our four-dimensional universe? It seems that the only satisfactory answer on the theory is: they all do. And each one corresponds to a different world.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-80500003332431360932015-03-09T10:10:49.913-05:002015-03-09T10:10:49.913-05:00Yes, that was my intent. But this doesn't affe...Yes, that was my intent. But this doesn't affect the truth of any physics statements about later times. It only affects what makes these statements be true.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61612014636416968102015-03-09T10:07:48.118-05:002015-03-09T10:07:48.118-05:00I think I misunderstood your intent. I had the id...I think I misunderstood your intent. I had the idea that the universe was a single frozen 3D timeslice, with an extra metaphysical "law of nature", so that "later" states of the universe were just mathematical functions of the "initial" state. Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-21396896644307747732015-03-09T09:07:15.403-05:002015-03-09T09:07:15.403-05:00I am not sure what you mean by saying things don&#...I am not sure what you mean by saying things don't seem that way. On this interpretation particles are where they seem to be. But what grounds the statement that they are there are the "initial" conditions. But grounding facts are not meant to be apparent.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-55232502667307378962015-03-09T08:50:17.315-05:002015-03-09T08:50:17.315-05:00I will agree that this is very far and very strang...I will agree that this is very far and very strange.<br /><br />But is observation, "the way things look," one of your shuffled-off anthropocentric coils? Because surely the best argument that things are not the way you describe, now at t>>>0, is that they don't seem to be that way.<br /><br />Or am I missing something?Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com