Roger,

You were recommended by James Putnam, and for some reason, I hadn't read your essay yet.Though subjected to head-jerking shifts in philosophies of time, I was pleased with an essay rich in relevant quotes that skillfully and substantially guides us through philosophies and scholarly discussions of time.

I'm not sure where I am in time now, but I will never consciously feed a "naive view of time," considering that "the past is definite, the present is now, and the future is uncertain."

We all want answers on how to steer the future, but it is presumptuous to think we can come up with a plan when climate change deniers now say it's too late, damage done.

Your essay puts more doubt in our established minds.

High marks.

I would like to see your thoughts on mine: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

Jim

    Thanks. Your essay nice explains how some future solutions, like ethanol, are not as good as they appear.

    Hi Roger,

    What an awesome essay. I'm sorry I didn't get to it sooner, as I think my essay and yours intersect some of the same territory. I explore the concept of a future-viewing machine. I am not referring to a mere prediction machine, as some have mistakenly thought, but a machine that could literally see the future. Many juicy logical problems arise when one conceives of such a machine.

    I would like for us to be able to communicate after the contest, as we have very little time left to communicate in this forum. If you choose to contact me, my email address is foreknowledge.machines{AT}{g.m.a.i.l}.{c.o.m}.

    I enjoyed your essay immensely and have rated it highly. All the best!

    Warmly,

    Aaron

    In many cases a revolution of physical perspective leads to unchanged short-term practical implications. For example, discovering that spacetime is curved doesn't affect terrestrial navigation. In the same way, we feel at least that a many-worlds perspective doesn't automatically negate what we know about probability; if you make a choice that helps someone 90% of the time and hurts them 10% of the time, that still seems better than the opposite even if you live in a MWI multiverse.

    Steven Kaas & Steve Rayhawk

      I disagree. Curved spacetime can be ignored because the effects are too small to measure. But MWI rejects the idea that you can help someone 90% of the time. The MWI advocates deny that it even makes sense to talk about 90% of the universes. You might think that you are helping someone 90% of the time, but actually be creating innumerable universes where he is hurt very badly.

      There are some papers where physicists try to makes sense of probabilities in MWI, but they have not been successful so far. MWI is like a religion for people who do not want to accept probabilities.

      a month later

      Hello Roger,

      I posted an article giving some publicity to your piece:

      http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20140705

      All the best!

      Rick Searle

      Write a Reply...