|
|
|
Email
|
If you enjoy this article, consider making an online donation to support the Global Spiral.
|
| Comment on Zeh on Weinstein
[WHEELER] Comment on Zeh on
Weinstein
I would like to comment on the following exchange between Steve
Weinstein and Dieter Zeh. I agree with Dieter's points, but feel that
something stronger should also be said.
Steve Weinstein:
>As for the classical case, I would say that we should
only be
>surprised to find homogeneity in a system on which
gravity has
>acted. But the initial state is, by definition,
not the
>time-development of any other state.
Dieter Zeh:
Counting of states has nothing to do with dynamics and
history. The
question is how many (possible) states EXIST for each
macrosopic
characterization. This requires (microscopic) kinematical
concepts to
begin with -- at least in principle.
Steve Weinstein:
> Analogously, we would not be surprised to find that a
new deck of
>cards is sorted by number and suit. Though we
would be surprised if
>a deck which had been shuffled were so
ordered.
Dieter Zeh:
I feel I have addressed this problem. Statistically we
should be
surprised that the world began in a state that now allows
us to find
sorted decks of cards (or consistent documents). Most of
us are not
surprised because we are used to this fact.
Steve's points presuppose that the distinction between initial
and final states is an objective matter. Without such a distinction,
it is just as correct to say that the homogeneous distribution of
matter close to the 'Big Bang' is a late stage of a period of
gravitational collapse, as it is to say that it is the initial stage
of a period of expansion. In this case, one perfectly acceptable way
to describe the surprising fact in question is to say that it is that
as the universe collapses towards that extremity, matter manages to
distribute itself so homogeneously.
To rule out this description, we need objective basis for the
usual temporal labelling, which puts the Big Bang at the beginning.
What could such a basis be? In my view, it is far from clear how
physics *could* provide such a basis, let alone that it actually does
so.
Thanks to Paul and everyone else involved for these fascinating
discussions.
Huw Price.
--
Department of Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
David Hume Tower
George Square
Edinburgh EH8 9JX
Tel: +44 131 651 1784
Fax: +44 131 650 6536
Did you enjoy this article? ... Your donation is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
Published 2002.03.07
|
Printer-Friendly |
Email This Article
©1997-2008 Metanexus Institute
www.metanexus.net |
|
|
|
|
|
|