Funny thing, I just watched the Q&A where Saunders answers the same question about the time direction branching. He says both directions are allowed for the system. I would think if that's the case then he's only talking about the quantum realm of the system. BTW why see the branching as parallel, why not perpendicular? And why does each branch have to carry with it an entire universe?
2;30 Of course objects are processes. Matter = energy and all energy has frequency and frequency comes in waves and a frozen wave is not a wave but must unfold over time. Otherwise it's not a wave. Therefore all matter is a process over time.
If the importance of Time is demoted as the enveloping context at the beginning, (recognition of time as the "living"/moving process of existence is made contentious by religious interpretation, which leads scientists to throw everything out and start again without the emotional complications), then the rest of the video is confined to quantitative relative values, ie mathematics. So even if that's the only approach admitted, then property of finding probable vales in an imaginary possibility can be thought to exist as a superficial set of probabilities on a vast invisible field of potential, and that is the purely mathematical universe. Then the mechanism of time as the detailed description by "imaging" , assembling evolving probabilities, is the mathematical state beyond human thinking of resonant emphasis, and without the inherent instability of including every possible value in one temporal function, nothing would change. Ie, everything is history changing now in the observed process. All nomenclature is superficial and incomplete, so it would be advantageous to have a language of pictographs to assist various function definitions.
the frequency idea of probability, what he calls 'frequentism', *does* work in an infinite universe, or any of the multiverses made up of an infinite set of separated universes. There is no problem with it at all.
If the importance of Time is demoted as the enveloping context at the beginning, (recognition of time as the "living"/moving process of existence is made contentious by religious interpretation, which leads scientists to throw everything out and start again without the emotional complications), then the rest of the video is confined to quantitative relative values, ie mathematics. So even if that's the only approach admitted, then property of finding probable vales in an imaginary possibility can be thought to exist as a superficial set of probabilities on a vast invisible field of potential, and that is the purely mathematical universe. Then the mechanism of time as the detailed description by "imaging" , assembling evolving probabilities, is the mathematical state beyond human thinking of resonant emphasis, and without the inherent instability of including every possible value in one temporal function, nothing would change. Ie, everything is history changing now in the observed process. All nomenclature is superficial and incomplete, so it would be advantageous to have a language of pictographs to assist various function definitions. If the philosophical view is basically about what is utilitarian, then the problem with religious attitudes that originally came from it is the failure to change in keeping with the application of advancing knowledge, such as is in this video.
![Leonard Susskind - Copenhagen vs Everett, and ER=EPR [2016]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LndrOIXG3i8/mqdefault.jpg)
22:00 the tree diagram - what's supposed to be happening at the branching? It seems to me to be upside down or going the wrong direction in time.
Funny thing, I just watched the Q&A where Saunders answers the same question about the time direction branching. He says both directions are allowed for the system. I would think if that's the case then he's only talking about the quantum realm of the system. BTW why see the branching as parallel, why not perpendicular? And why does each branch have to carry with it an entire universe?
Galileo's dictum is longer than his telescope.
2;30 Of course objects are processes. Matter = energy and all energy has frequency and frequency comes in waves and a frozen wave is not a wave but must unfold over time. Otherwise it's not a wave. Therefore all matter is a process over time.
If the importance of Time is demoted as the enveloping context at the beginning, (recognition of time as the "living"/moving process of existence is made contentious by religious interpretation, which leads scientists to throw everything out and start again without the emotional complications), then the rest of the video is confined to quantitative relative values, ie mathematics.
So even if that's the only approach admitted, then property of finding probable vales in an imaginary possibility can be thought to exist as a superficial set of probabilities on a vast invisible field of potential, and that is the purely mathematical universe.
Then the mechanism of time as the detailed description by "imaging" , assembling evolving probabilities, is the mathematical state beyond human thinking of resonant emphasis, and without the inherent instability of including every possible value in one temporal function, nothing would change.
Ie, everything is history changing now in the observed process. All nomenclature is superficial and incomplete, so it would be advantageous to have a language of pictographs to assist various function definitions.
the frequency idea of probability, what he calls 'frequentism', *does* work in an infinite universe, or any of the multiverses made up of an infinite set of separated universes. There is no problem with it at all.
If the importance of Time is demoted as the enveloping context at the beginning, (recognition of time as the "living"/moving process of existence is made contentious by religious interpretation, which leads scientists to throw everything out and start again without the emotional complications), then the rest of the video is confined to quantitative relative values, ie mathematics.
So even if that's the only approach admitted, then property of finding probable vales in an imaginary possibility can be thought to exist as a superficial set of probabilities on a vast invisible field of potential, and that is the purely mathematical universe.
Then the mechanism of time as the detailed description by "imaging" , assembling evolving probabilities, is the mathematical state beyond human thinking of resonant emphasis, and without the inherent instability of including every possible value in one temporal function, nothing would change.
Ie, everything is history changing now in the observed process. All nomenclature is superficial and incomplete, so it would be advantageous to have a language of pictographs to assist various function definitions.
If the philosophical view is basically about what is utilitarian, then the problem with religious attitudes that originally came from it is the failure to change in keeping with the application of advancing knowledge, such as is in this video.