the Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Problem of Time

Fourier wrote: »

You're not getting the point. The alternative is the Copenhagen view, which is that the stuff exists but it is not comprehensible or mathematically modellable. This is called AntiRealism or Non-Representationalism. Hidden variable theories assume the stuff of the microscopic realm is comprehensible and modellable. For this reason they are classed under Realism or Representationalism. Like most physicists in the area I think Representationalism/Realism is not going to work.

The point is that we know we know it exists and that there is something there. We could nearly go so far as to say we know that there must be hidden variables. Our inability to model it mathematically is besides the point.

Fourier wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "frozen". Newtonian dynamics has similar trajectories defined for all time, but nobody would call things "frozen" in Newtonian dynamics.

Newtonian dynamics was predicated on a universal present moment, where the universal configuration was constantly updating. This allows for relative motion.

Fourier wrote: »

Isn't it clear from the mathematics? Each 3D moment is a slice of the worldtubes. Thus the world tube is a collection of 3D configurations one for each moment. A world tube can describe an object moving from one point to another over time. Trivially so mathematically. The initial section has it at one point and intermediate sections have it at different points along the path and the final intersection has it at its destination.

Indeed, and Minkowski spacetime is the collection of 3D slices for the universe, assembled together - this is where the term Block Universe comes from.

An oft used analogy is that of a movie reel - as referenced by Sean Carroll in What is Time?. The frames in a movie reel can be taken as analogous to the 3D slices of worldtubes of an object in spacetime. What happens when you jump into one of those 3D frames? The world is frozen. there is no motion. There is no projector light to bring those frozen 3D slices to life, in the Minkowski spacetime structure.

Again, this is why Weyl and others have to invoke consciousness to bring 3D relative motion to the 4D structure of Minkowski spacetime.

Fourier wrote: »

It's difficult to say that there is hidden variables because of no-go theorems. They provide strong arguments against hidden variables. It's not that "we" don't have the ability to model it mathematically, it's that it cannot be modelled mathematically at all. Not just by us. There are no variables to describe it is what the no-go theorems suggest. Not that there are and we don't know them.

But there is something going on in the individual experiments. That this cannot be modelled mathematically is either a limitation on our part, or a limitation on the applicability of mathematics.

Fourier wrote: »

It seems to be the latter not the former. It's also a limitation on the applicability of reason.

Nobody thinks "nothing" is going on though. That's not what the realist vs anti-realist debate is about.

Discussing this elsewere also, it strikes me that there are similarities between this and the Buddhist (and perhaps Hindu) ideas that absolute reality is beyond conceptualisation.

I am continually trying to update my understanding based on the different discussions and information I encounter. Usually this results in me presenting my understanding in a matter of fact way, and then getting into what might more accurately be termed disagreements than discussions. After all this time, I might finally be learning to change that approach - old dog new tricks? In that vain, I want to ask rather than declare and see if there is anything that I have missed. Obviously, I have a mental model in mind based on all of the information I have encountered to date, but there may be nuances to that information that I am missing - this usually turns out to be the case. With that said:


In those said "disagreements" I have arrived at the understanding that the Block Universe is incompatible with any indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics because the Block Universe is fundamentally deterministic. A key issue with the Block Universe, when it comes to Bell tests is, according to the Block Universe, there can only be one possible outcome in a Bell test and that future outcome is eternally etched in the Block even before the beginning of the experiment - in this case "before" is not intended to suggest that the experimental result occurs temporally prior to the beginning of the experiment, rather that future events co-exist with past and present events.

If QFT is an indeterministic interpretation of QM, then it too would have to be incompatible with the Block Universe.

Would this then mean that an indeterministic interpretation of QFT necessitates a presentist universe? Or is there some nuance that I am missing out on? Possibly a "growing block" universe? Although would a "growing block" universe require some extremely ad hoc assumptions?

As I say, there are usually some nuances that I haven't picked up on.