I agree with him; if the future to be open (and not deterministic) the past should/could also be open/ not deterministic. Anyways it is impossible to predict it (the past) with thermodynamics logic like we would the future. So it makes no sense to say the past is something that exists like a determined fixed thing as well, just because it's the past. Considering we cannot predict it, the past, no matter how much of a Sherlock Holmes we are. Does past equate with linear determinism? That is the question. You would likely say that it does, because it's the Newtonian R reality of quantum mechanics compared to the open wavefunction U reality (Penrose- Road to Reality). So in the end I'm not sure about the statement
@tomsuniverse42
6 ай бұрын
It reminds me a bit to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis applied to Mathematics and Physics. The kind of language you use determines your thinking or what you are able to think.
@quintalfer
9 ай бұрын
Very interesting and informative interview, from start to finish.
@Thinginitselfpodcast
9 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@Robinson8491
Жыл бұрын
Great channel
@Thinginitselfpodcast
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@4pharaoh
Жыл бұрын
I wonder if the professor is aware how many different definitions of _Time_ he used in this interview. We are all so comfortable with the concept of time that we usually segue between the multiple understandings without effort. Nevertheless this is a cause of much confusion even between the scientifically minded, let alone between the scientist/ mathematician and the general population.
Пікірлер: 8