2 ms·

I think the interactions between "ticks" not being "observed" or "realized" by the universe is what gp means when they assert our [physical] world depends on ti

by c22 9y ago

I think the interactions between "ticks" not being "observed" or "realized" by the universe is what gp means when they assert our [physical] world depends on time. If these between-tick interactions are not impacting our physical measurements then I am not sure it's possible for time to not be "steady" from a single frame of reference. I can of course imagine a scenario where different entities, even in the same universe, experience the passage of time differently. For instance, a positronic robot whose consciousness is only switched on for one minute of every hour. To this being, events could appear to happen willy-nilly, without causation, due to activity between ticks, but the robot would have no way of knowing why the world works like this without talking to another being without the limitations who has been making observations in "real time". So perhaps something like this is happening to us and could explain some weird quantum phenomena, but I'm having trouble thinking of any way we could test it.

mbrumlow 9y ago
I can see that point now. Yes, maybe how our observed physics and universe depends on constant time illusion. Yes, the problem of how to test such things. That is why it is so fun to think about it. For all we know between the seconds a trillion trillion tiny life forms that resemble ants slip out between the cracks of space time and take a untold amount of time (to their reference) to nudge each particle just so according to a small tattoo on their forearms. When they are all done they slip away just as mysteriously as they came. And each time they come back to arrange our universe it is done so by ancestors of many generations removed of the last workers who came to enforce our its will on our universe. This also brings me back to Lawrence Krauss? with the notion of there is not really nothing in nothing and we can't truly ever have a "vacuum" void of all. I think it was in his book Something out of Nothing.

by c22 9y ago

mbrumlow 9y ago

I can see that point now. Yes, maybe how our observed physics and universe depends on constant time illusion. Yes, the problem of how to test such things. That is why it is so fun to think about it. For all we know between the seconds a trillion trillion tiny life forms that resemble ants slip out between the cracks of space time and take a untold amount of time (to their reference) to nudge each particle just so according to a small tattoo on their forearms. When they are all done they slip away just as mysteriously as they came. And each time they come back to arrange our universe it is done so by ancestors of many generations removed of the last workers who came to enforce our its will on our universe. This also brings me back to Lawrence Krauss? with the notion of there is not really nothing in nothing and we can't truly ever have a "vacuum" void of all. I think it was in his book Something out of Nothing.