3 ms·

I always saw time as a way of applying numerical labels to a state of the universe. In my view, the universe only ever exists in one state, albeit constantly c

by kirse 9y ago

I always saw time as a way of applying numerical labels to a state of the universe. In my view, the universe only ever exists in one state, albeit constantly changing at the "speed" of light. It is our biological capability to remember past states and envision future states that project this notion of time into everything. Time is lodged into almost all of physics because the only way we can do something useful (not being God and not knowing the absolute equations sans-units) is to compare present values to previous-present values. That division sign wedged into every relative unit of measure - kg, sec, meter, etc - is basically a way of saying "as compared to". Present as-compared-to the-previous-present. What-is-now ÷ the-remembered-now. Universe-at-Planck-Tick #145 ÷ Universe-at-Planck-Tick #144 All of the universal constants come down to comparing a present state to a previous-present state and noticing that the delta between them is a consistent value. I don't think this is really news to many, but it helped to make physics and the some of the exotic math behind it make more sense to me.

tradedash 9y ago
You might like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton I think about time in a similar manner. The delta between point A and point B is the mutation state and point A is the initial state that was mutated into B.
SiempreViernes 9y ago
You might want to read some of Julian Barbour's writing, in particular his "The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics" where he tries to explain a theory of timelessness with an apparent arrow of time. Here is a rather long interview I found (and only skimmed to confirm its mostly relevant): https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time
pdonis 9y ago
> In my view, the universe only ever exists in one state > All of the universal constants come down to comparing a present state to a previous-present state The problem with this as you state it is that it is not relativistically invariant; there is no absolute "present" for the universe as a whole. However, a more restricted version of this, where the notion of "present" is not applied to the whole universe but only to a single observer's worldline, works fine.
- kirse 9y ago
  there is no absolute "present" for the universe as a whole. And if God played chess, what would be his next move? We entertain the absolute/omniscient perspective to discover answers in our simplest of games, where truth appears relative because our access to information is finite. I'm always a fan of applying that strategy to the bigger games. Physicists might benefit if they did the same, but I understand we are at the point where philosophical assumptions form the basis for many axioms.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > And if God played chess, what would be his next move? Along any particular person's worldline, God's "next move" is whatever the next thing is that that person experiences. For the universe as a whole, there is no well-defined "next move", for the same reason there is no well-defined "present".
3pt14159 9y ago
The thing that is tricky though is that the changes in state are affected by the the state's own state regarding the state of the state change. Put another way: My writing this comment is changing the state of our universe. I'm writing it because I perceive the state change. If time is solely illusion then there would be no difference in the state between Tick #145 and Tick #146, but there is and it is this comment, which means that the universe (or at least our universe) is dependant on something that you all say doesn't exist. I'm not saying you're all wrong, but it is a pretty surprising thing if it's true and modal realism is false.
- Senderman 9y ago
  State-change received and confirmed. Thank you for updating the universe.
  - 3pt14159 9y ago
    I am the state.
- contoraria 9y ago
  Illusion is in reference to the phenomenology of mind, I guess, which in epistemological terms must precede a minding physics.
coldtea 9y ago
>I always saw time as a way of applying numerical labels to a state of the universe. In my view, the universe only ever exists in one state, albeit constantly changing at the "speed" of light. If that was the case there would be nothing to take it from state N to state N+1 because (as per your definition) there's nothing in-between states.
- contoraria 9y ago
  indeed, in such a concept there is no room for causation between the smallest time steps. That's in line with basic human thinking, it is how it is. I mean, I settled on time being the measure of change, every change is a tick. However, there doesn't need to be a smallest time step if you use rational numbers or sum such. But the
stephengillie 9y ago
See the universe as a type of cube. (It's a 4d hypercube, but don't worry about the 4th dimension just yet.) The cube is vastly bigger at one end, like a horn. An explosion occurred at the narrow end of the box/horn. We, the Earth, the Sun, solar system, Milky Way, everything we can see are the particles flying away from the explosion. The path we're tracing are the world lines. Indeed, these can be seen as tunnels, and we are a charged force propagating through them. We perceive time as a cross section of the cube/horn. But things slow down where they gather. And so the actual cross section would be very lumpy. But not to our limited perception.

by kirse 9y ago

tradedash 9y ago

You might like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton I think about time in a similar manner. The delta between point A and point B is the mutation state and point A is the initial state that was mutated into B.

SiempreViernes 9y ago

You might want to read some of Julian Barbour's writing, in particular his "The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics" where he tries to explain a theory of timelessness with an apparent arrow of time. Here is a rather long interview I found (and only skimmed to confirm its mostly relevant): https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time

pdonis 9y ago

> In my view, the universe only ever exists in one state > All of the universal constants come down to comparing a present state to a previous-present state The problem with this as you state it is that it is not relativistically invariant; there is no absolute "present" for the universe as a whole. However, a more restricted version of this, where the notion of "present" is not applied to the whole universe but only to a single observer's worldline, works fine.

kirse 9y ago
there is no absolute "present" for the universe as a whole. And if God played chess, what would be his next move? We entertain the absolute/omniscient perspective to discover answers in our simplest of games, where truth appears relative because our access to information is finite. I'm always a fan of applying that strategy to the bigger games. Physicists might benefit if they did the same, but I understand we are at the point where philosophical assumptions form the basis for many axioms.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > And if God played chess, what would be his next move? Along any particular person's worldline, God's "next move" is whatever the next thing is that that person experiences. For the universe as a whole, there is no well-defined "next move", for the same reason there is no well-defined "present".

3pt14159 9y ago

The thing that is tricky though is that the changes in state are affected by the the state's own state regarding the state of the state change. Put another way: My writing this comment is changing the state of our universe. I'm writing it because I perceive the state change. If time is solely illusion then there would be no difference in the state between Tick #145 and Tick #146, but there is and it is this comment, which means that the universe (or at least our universe) is dependant on something that you all say doesn't exist. I'm not saying you're all wrong, but it is a pretty surprising thing if it's true and modal realism is false.

Senderman 9y ago
State-change received and confirmed. Thank you for updating the universe.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  I am the state.
contoraria 9y ago
Illusion is in reference to the phenomenology of mind, I guess, which in epistemological terms must precede a minding physics.

coldtea 9y ago

>I always saw time as a way of applying numerical labels to a state of the universe. In my view, the universe only ever exists in one state, albeit constantly changing at the "speed" of light. If that was the case there would be nothing to take it from state N to state N+1 because (as per your definition) there's nothing in-between states.

contoraria 9y ago
indeed, in such a concept there is no room for causation between the smallest time steps. That's in line with basic human thinking, it is how it is. I mean, I settled on time being the measure of change, every change is a tick. However, there doesn't need to be a smallest time step if you use rational numbers or sum such. But the

stephengillie 9y ago

See the universe as a type of cube. (It's a 4d hypercube, but don't worry about the 4th dimension just yet.) The cube is vastly bigger at one end, like a horn. An explosion occurred at the narrow end of the box/horn. We, the Earth, the Sun, solar system, Milky Way, everything we can see are the particles flying away from the explosion. The path we're tracing are the world lines. Indeed, these can be seen as tunnels, and we are a charged force propagating through them. We perceive time as a cross section of the cube/horn. But things slow down where they gather. And so the actual cross section would be very lumpy. But not to our limited perception.