[ExI] New article about the Block Universe

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 9:20 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:


> *>>> 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)*
>

*No, that is not the term I am looking for. If things are realistic then
you automatically get counterfactual definiteness. But in light of the
experimental fact that Bell's Equality is violated, there is no way to
explain how counterfactual definiteness could exist unless things are
realistic.*

*> 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.*
>

*CFD means the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the
results of measurements that have not been performed; but the experimental
fact that Bell's Inequality is violated tells us that it would be
impossible to explain how CFT could be true unless either realism or
locality did not exist. *

*And in Many Worlds an "observation" need not be made by something that has
a brain or is even alive because ANYTHING that produces a change, that is
to say causes something to be in more than one definite state, can be
called an "observer". But if something does have a brain and if it is
capable of forming a thought makes the observation then at the very least,
a change has been made in the observer's brain, because otherwise he
wouldn't be able to remember he had made the observation.   *



> *>>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.*
>

*According to Many Worlds the moon exists, but NOT in one and only one
definite state. Since the moon's creation 4.5 billion years ago there has
not been one nanosecond when something wasn't observing it, because any
change it produces is an observation, and the moon is constantly making a
lot of changes: for example in the tides the Moon produces on the Earth by
gravitation, and in the photons of light that bounce off the moon's surface
and hit the Earth.  So a sphere centered on the moon with a radius of 4.5
billion light years is not and has never been in one and only one definite
state. *


> *>>> 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?*
>

*For one thing because the speed of light does not even show up in
Schrodinger's Equation, but also because no one has even proposed an
experiment, much less actually performed it, that could determine if the
split occurs instantaneously or if it propagates only at the speed of
light. Many Worlds does not need to make the assumption that the split
occurs at the speed of light, nor does it need to make the assumption that
the split occurs instantaneously, it works fine either way. *

*> 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.*
>

*Fine. As far as Many Worlds is concerned, if you prefer thinking about it
in that way Many Worlds has no objection. There's no disputing matters of
taste.  *

*> >>"To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic.*
>>>
>>
>> *>> Yes. But it is not realistic. *
>>
>
> *>You used to say MWI was non-local.*
>

*I don't remember saying that. But if you changed your mind and now prefer
thinking that the split happens instantaneously then that's fine. As I said
before, there's no disputing matters of taste. *


> *> Strictly speaking MW is realistic regarding the wave function*
>

*I'm not sure how something that is constantly changing as rapidly as is
physically possible could be said to be existing in one and only one
definite state.  *



> *>> 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.*
>

*An understanding of relativity is necessary but not sufficient to
understand the universe, you also need to understand quantum mechanics.  *


> *> Arguably the block universe conception is the only philosophy of time
> consistent with relativity.*
>

*Special Relativity is OK but General Relativity is inconsistent with
Quantum Mechanics, and resolving that conflict is the biggest challenge in
modern physics.  *


*>>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.*
>

*Yes. Bohm thought, correctly I think, that Schrodinger's Equation produces
the Many Worlds ontology, but for some reason he felt that was a fault that
needed correcting; so he devised a super complex non-local pilot wave
equation whose only purpose was to get rid of those nasty other universes
that he did not like. That's why some say the pilot wave interpretation of
quantum mechanics should be called the Disappearing Universes
Interpretation; others say it is the Many Worlds interpretation in denial. *

*I like Occam's Razor so **I prefer a theory that needs the fewest
assumptions. Just like Many Worlds, Pilot Wave needs Schrodinger's Equation
but it also needs another equation that is even more complex, the pilot
wave equation, and to this day nobody has been able to make a version of it
that is compatible with special relativity; Paul Dirac was able to produce
a version of Schrodinger's Equation that was compatible with Special
Relativity way back in 1927. *



> * > 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.*
>

*Y**ep, that's all the hideously complex non-local pilot wave equation
does. And that's why Many Worlds is bare bones, no nonsense Quantum
Mechanics with no ridiculous and unnecessary bells and whistles.
Schrodinger's Equation is hard enough to solve on its own and we don't need
the pilot wave equation to predict experimental results. *

*> 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.*
>

*I agree.  *


* John K Clark*








>> *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.  *
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260321/53fc485a/attachment-0001.htm>