Bernd Paysan wrote:
> The other option to have a sort of causality as well as determinism is a
> "Alzheimer universe", thus the past can't be deduced out of the current
> state. Since it doesn't matter whether you take time as going forward or
> backward (although a few formulas change when time runs backward), the
> Alzheimer universe is just the same as our universe, only with negative
> time. In other words: what is determined we call the past, what is
> unknown we call the future.
Not at all. We have already suffered through several limitations on our
ability to know everything, e.g., the Solar System is chaotic, and if
closed timeline loops exist that just adds another limitation, and,
IMHO, not nearly as serious as what we've already been hit by.
As to the arrow of time, they've been arguing whether and what for a
long time, and probably will continue into the indefinite future. All
that seems know today is that we can observe violations of T invariance
but have yet to observe a violation of CPT invariance (the assumptions
for the CPT theorem *seem* reasonable, but ...)
> The wonderful thing about QM is that it explains why we can't obtain
> complete knowledge - the uncertency relation prevents it. It furthermore
> shows that all simple hidden state theories (which would allow to
> discover the hidden value) don't work - the current experiments don't
> close all loopholes for hidden state theories, but those that remain
> don't reveal their states (and therefore violate Bell's inequation).
That depends on what you mean by simple. Do you take the position that a
theory with "spooky action at a distance" is by definition not simple?
Bell's inequality only rules out the combination of hidden variables
*and* local causality.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Reply to host nsf (dot) gov, user smetz