tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7068528325708136131.post5913195219051522..comments2024-03-01T21:25:21.218-08:00Comments on Structural insight: Metaclassical physicsJohn Shutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00041398073010099077noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7068528325708136131.post-91597237781400430232013-06-08T16:47:15.667-07:002013-06-08T16:47:15.667-07:00It would be very cool if we were converging on the...It would be very cool if we were converging on the same thing, though presumably they'd get there long before me unless, as sometimes alas happens, they brought along some sort of conceptual baggage that slows them down or diverts them. If there's a local (or global) optimum somewhere around there, it makes sense that anyone in its general neighborhood would tend to converge on it. We do seem to be starting out from different points in the math. Which would make converging on the same thing that much cooler.<br /><br />I can sympathize with choosing a name for something early on and then being stuck with it. (Didn't Einstein say he regretted the name "relativity"?)John Shutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00041398073010099077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7068528325708136131.post-37084887356318062842013-06-07T21:13:46.959-07:002013-06-07T21:13:46.959-07:00Damn! This thing ate my previous reply. I'll...Damn! This thing ate my previous reply. I'll retype.<br /><br />The Transactional "interpretation" (I take your point about that word) absolutely does posit a concrete process that settles into a standing wave.<br /><br />And at least some of them regret the term "pseudo-time". I'm not sure what they've replaced it with, though, and they may not agree among themselves.<br /><br />I'm not clear on all the details, but you and they may be converging on the same theory.<br /><br />Jason<br />jason.grossman@anu.edu.auAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7068528325708136131.post-83343766152570880232013-06-07T06:35:37.918-07:002013-06-07T06:35:37.918-07:00Not really, no. I mentioned it simply to point ou...Not really, no. I mentioned it simply to point out that I understand them to not be equated, so that people thinking along those lines would be aware that I'm aware and, fwiw, my perception of non-identity.<br /><br />From what I understand of the transactional interpretation, it's looking for a philosophical explanation of QM, and invoking the notion of standing waves to provide such. It's not about positing some concrete process that settles into a standing wave, just using the idea for intuitive grasp. It is, after all, the transactional <i>interpretation</i>. I'm looking at the thing concretely, and thinking about where the steady state comes from, and don't even actually care whether the steady state takes the form of a standing wave per se. It's symptomatic of a difference in attitude that afaics those considering the transactional interpretation speak of "pseudo-time", whereas I'd long since naturally settled on the much more vigorous "meta-time" — not an auxiliary device to aid intuition, but a primordial concept wholeheartedly embraced.John Shutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00041398073010099077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7068528325708136131.post-81961588337829486472013-06-06T20:40:45.056-07:002013-06-06T20:40:45.056-07:00Cool!
Is it meant to be obvious how this differs ...Cool!<br /><br />Is it meant to be obvious how this differs from the Transactional theory?<br /><br />JasonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com