There is a very strong consensus that the more popular theories of quantum mechanics implies indeterminism.
You presumably have no issue with the idea that the past is immutable; there is no clear reason why that cannot apply to the future as well. Indeed, to posit that it is not - that the future is fundamentally different in nature from the past - is adding a huge amount of needless complexity.
It's either that, or the consciousness is fundamentally different from the rest of nature. Either way, there is something more to talk about than just 4 spatial dimensions.
Three spatial dimensions plus time.
Time is different.
I agree.
But not sufficiently different as to support your claims here.
I am not the one making claims. There are some reasons to believe otherwise. You have the burden of proof.
Consciousness is just a process. Duality is ruled out by quantum field theory.
Do you have any idea about what you are saying here? This is so ridiculous that I don't even know what to say.
Don't you realize how douchey comments like this make you look? What is wrong with you?
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Fel1VKEN8[/YOUTUBE]
That fact in no way implies that past and future are fundamentally different in their nature. The only reason to think that is that you like the idea. But the universe is not constrained by what you do or do not like.
If you want to claim that a block universe is not possible, then prove it.
Find a testable hypothesis that discriminates between the block universe and your preferred model; and show the results that indicate that the block universe doesn't exist.
Pay closer attention to what my position is here.
You are the one with the specific claim.
Personally I doubt you can even get the first part of this - the block universe maps precicely to any other realistic model. Your task is analogous to trying to find a point in a Cartesian grid that cannot be described using polar coordinates.
Don't you realize how douchey comments like this make you look? What is wrong with you?
There is nothing wrong with me - I am simply putting forward the very straightforward idea that time can be considered to be a dimension in space-time. It's not even my idea - it's quite an old and well established concept. And it implies that, if we consider the dynamic universe of
n dimensions plus time, then we can equally well describe this as
n+1 dimensions, with no time - which must, in the absence of any further dimensions in which things could change, be static and unchanging. And this, of course, is true for ANY
n.
My 'claim' which you want me to defend is that there is NO WAY to distinguish between the '3d+time' dynamic model, and the '4d' static model - they are not different in any way. This is the null hypothesis. You can either accept it, or argue for a more complex model of your choosing; but I have no burden to prove that the least complex possible hypothesis is right.
On the other hand, it seems futile to discuss any of this with someone who isn't able to grasp the concept of infinity, and who thinks that transfinites belong to the set of natural numbers. You are, as usual, out of your depth; and as usual, your response to simple statements of fact, that you cannot grasp, is to accuse the people who present those facts of being 'douchey'.
Get over it - NOBODY understands everything. Finding something you are incapable of understanding is NOT evidence that you are being picked on.
