<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div>Jeff Davis wrote:<br><br>> My point was/is -- and I state it as a proposition for consideration,<br>> not as an assertion -- time in bulk, time as history, is a mental<br>> convention. Past and future "exist" only as abstractions. The source<br>> of all our time-related notions comes from the iterative "reset" of<br>> the universe from the current "now" state to the next "now" state.<br>> This sequential reset somehow translates into the "rate of<br>> progression" which we call time.</div><div> </div><div>The classical physics view is a continuum of states from the past</div><div>to the future. I don't see that you are saying anything different.</div><div>Is discrete change versus continuous change what you are interested in?<br> </div><div>Scott <span
id="misspell-0" class="mark">Aaronson<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span> quote:<br><br>"For almost a century, quantum mechanics was like<br>a <span id="misspell-1" class="mark">Kabbalistic</span> secret that God revealed to Bohr, Bohr<br>revealed to the physicists, and the physicists revealed (clearly) to<br>no one. So long as the lasers and transistors worked, the rest of us<br>shrugged at all the talk of complementarity and wave-particle duality,<br>taking for granted that we'd never understand, or need to understand,<br>what such things actually meant. But today - largely because of<br>quantum computing - the <span id="misspell-2" class="mark">Schrodinger's</span> cat is out of the bag, and all<br>of us are being forced to confront the exponential Beast that lurks<br>inside our current picture of the world."</div><div> </div><div>I am no fan of Bohr to be certain. I do not believe a correct </div><div>understanding of QM
involves the kind of <span id="misspell-3" class="mark">indeterminism</span> or</div><div>involvement of mysterious processes Bohr wanted to believe.</div><div> </div><div>Dennis May<br> </div></div></body></html>