Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of cnearing

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cnearing

1
Thanks.  I'll admit I don't really know enough to continue the conversation at this point.  Appreciate your thoughts

2
So, typically we would say that the laws of quantum mechanics are just descriptions of the nature of physical reality, right.  We don't typically reify them as some sort of metaphysical structure.

Why can't we say that the nature of that initial Hilbert space is such that it will evolve into space-time via entanglement?  Seems like that evolution could be caused by the Hilbert space itself, just the space acting on its own nature. 

Any particular reason why we must reject this interpretation?

3
Given that Stefan Molyneux is basically an angry idiot, I'm not sure how much that helps you.

4
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the nature of the Hilbert space itself compels that evolution.

It could only do so if the laws of quantum mechanics exist, but the whole point is that if spacetime doesn't exist, then you need quantum laws to exist prior to spacetime. In that case, you have a platonic set of laws acting on a Hilbert space.

My understanding of this Hilbert space is that it is inherently unstable, and that it's nature is precisely to evolve into something else.  I guess I could be wrong, but maybe you can point me to a source that corroborates your story here?

5
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the nature of the Hilbert space itself compels that evolution. 

6
"Yes, but in that case the world is perfectly described as a t0 state (e.g., a finite-dimensional Hilbert state), why think that it had to evolve?"

Harvey: well, basically because our best understanding of physics tells us that a universe in that state *will* evolve. 

7
Yeah, I see no reason to accept this.  Seems like T0 is the cause of T1, no magic or metaphysical "fire" required. Barbour would agree.

Except you and Barbour need the laws of physics to exist at t0, which means that you need the laws to be propositions. Propositions "existing" is a metaphysical structure.

We certainly don't need any propositions to exist at t0.  The "laws of physics" which are propositions are descriptions.  We create them.  Whatever features of the universe they describe get along just fine whether they are described by propositions or not.


No metaphysical structure necessary

8
Okay, but in this case the "cause" is literally just the universe state at T0, right?

Generally a preceding state lacks a sufficient condition to be a cause. That is, if all you have is a t0 state, then what imbues that forward in logical structure (causal structure/ontic structure/temporal structure) to become a t1 state. Thus, you need something that "breathes fire into the equations" to make it happen. So, in that sense, in addition to the t0 Hilbert state you also need additional metaphysics that make it necessary for the transition of the effect t1.

Quote from: cnearing
And there is no change from any pre-T0 state to T0, so no need for any cause there.  T0 just is the initial cause

As I mentioned, we require a surrounding metaphysical structure too.

Yeah, I see no reason to accept this.  Seems like T0 is the cause of T1, no magic or metaphysical "fire" required.

Barbour would agree.

9
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Analytic / Synthetic Identity
« on: March 10, 2017, 04:28:02 pm »
Alright, let the analytic identity of a proposition P be the set of propositions that we agree by stipulation to affirm in thr case thay we affirm P.

A term, then, has an analytical identity only inspection far as you can define it in the context of a proposition, for example T such that (some proposition including T) has analytical identity D.

This is somewhat different from what I wrote above (which doesn't actually work) but closer to what I've written on this subject in the past.


10
Okay, but in this case the "cause" is literally just the universe state at T0, right?

And there is no change from any pre-T0 state to T0, so no need for any cause there.  T0 just is the initial cause. 

11
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Analytic / Synthetic Identity
« on: March 10, 2017, 01:27:41 pm »
What do you think the difference between analytic identity and analytic meaning is?

12
Okay, but what does this tell us about causation?

That it is non-temporal.

Fair.  I guess the point is, why think that this timeless universe block has a cause?

13
Okay, but what does this tell us about causation?

14
So, literally your argument is, "on timeless physics, the universe is caused by an initial Hilbert state, ergo on timeless physics the universe has a cause?"

I'm not really getting the import, here.

15
Quote from: cnearing
But the universe certainly doesn't begin to exist in this way, since the universe is omipresent in time, as it were, on B theory.

That's one approach to B-theory. Another option is a Wheeler-DeWitt universe where the evolution from its initial state is instaneous - i.e., time is not real per se. Julian Barbour wrote a book on this possibility a few years ago called the "End of Time".

Yes.  This would be a little bit different from B-theory (often called "timeless physics") but the universe *also* doesn't begin to exist, as per your definition, on this theory--since there is no T1 and T0 at all.

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 179