[ExI] New article about the Block Universe

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026, 7:21 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:41 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *>> According to the block universe time is not an illusion, it is a
>>> variable; and it's not a new idea, theologians have been playing around
>>> with the predestination concept for over 1000 years. But today we know
>>> something that neither those ancient theologians nor the scientists who
>>> first proposed the block universe idea did not. It has been experimentally
>>> shown that Bell's Inequality is violated, and that proves that either local
>>> hidden variables do not exist or it proves the universe is not realistic;
>>> that is to say unmeasured things do NOT exist in one and only one definite
>>> state, so there can be more than one result in an experiment because there
>>> is ALWAYS more than one experimenter performing the experiment, at least an
>>> astronomical number to an astronomical power of them, and possibly an
>>> infinite number. *
>>>
>>
>> *> Existing as a multiplicity does violate realism*
>>
>
> *Yes.*
>

My apologies this shit have said "doesn't violate realism"



>
>> * > or locality in QM,*
>>
>
>  *Existing as a multiplicity does not violate locality. And the
> experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated does not mean locality
> must be false, but it does mean that if locality is true then either
> realism or determinism must be false.*
>


You are using the term "realism" in a non standard way. Most quantum
physicists take realism to mean the idea of an independently existing
reality. For MWI, that independently existing reality is the universal wave
function. It's existence is independent of observers making measurements.


>
>> *> the wave function is still real,*
>>
>
> *Being "unrealistic" does not mean nothing is real, in physics the word
> has a very precise meaning, experimental results always have more than one
> result because unobserved objects always exist in more than one state. *
>

Then the term you are looking for is  "conterfactual definiteness." (CFD)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness

You are apt to confuse a lot of people if you use "realism" in place of, or
to refer to CFD. Since conventionally the word realism simply refers to the
assumption that there is an observer independent reality.



>
>
>> *> and moons still exists when no one is looking.*
>>
>
> *The moon doesn't exist when nobody's looking according to the Copenhagen
> interpretation, or at least that's what some followers of the Copenhagen
> interpretation say, but its fans can't agree even among themselves exactly
> what the Copenhagen interpretation is saying. Niels Bohr, the inventor of
> Copenhagen, was notorious for being very obscure in his philosophical
> musings, he was a great scientist but a lousy philosopher.  *
>

Well if you say the moon exists when no one is looking according to MW,
then MW is realistic.


>
>> *> And changes still only propagate at c.*
>>
>
> *As to that Many Worlds is agnostic. The Many Worlds idea is consistent if
> the split (a.k.a. change) happens instantaneously, but it also remains
> consistent if the split only propagates at the speed of light. *
>

I'm not sure about that. The
Schrodinger equations doesn't contain anything moving faster than c, so why
should we assume that?

Also "splits" can be reversed so I'm not sure it makes any sense to speak
of something going out and splitting the whole universe then reversing
course and stitching it back together.

Much easier to think of it in terms of local effects of a superposition
that can spread at most by the speed of the particles that carry the
superposition.



> *> "To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic.*
>>
>
> *Yes. But it is not realistic. *
>

You used to say MWI was non-local. Now you say that it is local but unreal.
I think this is progress from calling it non-local, but I think you should
still clarify terms still further by saying MW violates CFD. Strictly
speaking MW is realistic regarding the wave function (but to local
observers whose observations are confined to specific branches, there will
be the appearance that their observations were needed to settle a value on
a particular measured result). This makes unmeasured values *seem unreal*,
but it is only because one confused the wave function as some unreal
description of mere potentialities, rather than the more fundamental
reality itself, which is the universal wave function.



>
>> *> Local measurements split local systems (including observers) in a
>> subjectively randomfashion, distant systems are only split when the
>> causally transmitted effects of the local interactions reach them.*
>
>
> *Yes.*
>
> *> There are many conceptions of QM with block time.*
>
>
> *According to Many Worlds** the "Multiverse" and the "Universal Wave
> Function" mean the same thing, so I suppose you could call that a "Block
> Universe" if you wanted to, although I can't see the advantage in doing
> so. *
>

Relativity can be much better understood in terms of geometric consequences
of a block universe. Arguably the block universe conception is the only
philosophy of time consistent with relativity.

See: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf
For an overview of reasons.



>
>>
>
>> *> So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong?*
>>
>
> *I don't know much about Eberhard but Bell did not go wrong, he believed
> in the Pilot Wave Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is
> realistic and deterministic, but not local. Many Worlds is deterministic
> and local but not realistic. Experiments have proven that, except for
> Superdeterminism (which is idiotic), no theory that successfully predicts
> the outcome of experiments can be deterministic, local and realistic; at
> least one of those three things has got to go.*
>

You only need to choose between locality and CFD to settle Bell's
inequalities.


> *I do disagree with Bell in that I prefer Many Worlds not pilot waves
> because it makes fewer assumptions. **Many Worlds has only two
> fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:*
>
> *1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information
> about a system.*
> *2) The quantum wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger
> equation.*
>

Do those things exist with or without observers? If so, that is realism.



> *In some places and at some times the quantum wave function has a very low
> amplitude but is nevertheless greater than zero, therefore according to
> axiom #1 it must be physical, and being physical has consequences. And
> according to axiom #2 one of those consequences is that the universe is
> deterministic (because Schrodinger's equation is deterministic) and local,
> but NOT realistic. The great virtue of Many Worlds is that it takes quantum
> mechanics at face value, it needs no extra machinery to explain
> measurement or observation. *
>
> *By contrast the** pilot wave interpretation (which Bell preferred) keeps
> Schrödinger's equation but adds another very
> complicated equation that describes the behavior of something called a
> "pilot wave" which has some very unusual properties. The pilot wave
> is extremely non-local, it has to take the state of the entire universe
> into account in order to know if it should guide an electron through the
> right slit or the left slit in an experiment, and influences can be
> instantaneous, and distance does not diminish effects, so a grain of sand
> in the Andromeda galaxy 2 million light years away might be just as
> important in making the decision of which split the electron will go
> through as an elephant that is only 1 foot away.*
>
> *Also, the pilot wave can affect an electron but an electron cannot affect
> the pilot wave, the wave pushes the particle but the particle can NOT push
> back. This sort of one-way causation has never been observed before. And
> the asymmetry means that matter is real (it always has one definite
> position and velocity) but is fundamentally passive, matter is guided by
> the pilot wave but matter is unable to influence the pilot wave. Human
> Beings are made of matter so we are just puppets, the pilot wave pulls the
> strings. Well OK… Technically we're marionettes not puppets. *
>
> *Pilot Wave supporters argue that all of this additional byzantine
> complexity is worth it because it maintains realism. I disagree, I think
> that is far too high a price to pay. At the end of the day all the pilot
> wave does is provide a little arrow that points at a particle and says
> "this is the real particle, ignore all others". This is why detractors of
> pilot wave theory have called it "the disappearing worlds theory" or "Many
> Worlds theory in denial.   *
>

I think even Bohm (I think it was him if I recall correctly) admitted pilot
wave leads to the same multiverse ontology of MW. In pilot wave the whole
multiverse of possibilities exists, as they're all still needed for the
math to work out right. Pilot wave just adds a metaphysical pointer that
says, yes all those other branches and all the things happening then, with
observers living out their lives are there, it's just that only this
particular branch, the one that I am pointing to, only the observers in
this one branch are conscious. The observers in all the other branches
which I am not pointing to are zombies, even though those observers walk
and talk as if they're conscious, they're mistaken.

It is of course ridiculous.

Jason


> *As for super determinism, I can't prove it's wrong but I can prove that
> super determinism is silly. The greater the violation of Occam's Razor that
> your theory needs to be true the sillier it is, and by that metric it would
> be impossible to be sillier than super determinism.  *
>
>
> *John K Clark*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260320/c7f5ee22/attachment-0001.htm>