44 ms·

You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand, it's just surprising that you'd use so many characters to do so. The question is if there's

You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand, it's just surprising that you'd use so many characters to do so. The question is if there's a different sort of thing beyond our idea of time. We have our concept of N caesium oscillations is the base reference for everything, and the duration of all action is derived from it. Could there be more depth to the rate at which things occur than that, especially on cosmic scales? Could other processes, which operate at different base clock levels, be interacting with the universe we observe in ways we don't yet understand? Could those processes have clock levels that vary over history with respect to our caesium definition? You can claim not, that's its precisely that shallow. But neither of us can provide evidence either way, and your belief is simply much less interesting to me.

explaininjs 3y ago
Could those processes, for instance, have configured the initial state of the entire universe in 6 of their days, but 13.8B-6,000 of our call years? I see no reason why not.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand What I ignored was an analogy. Not an argument from analogy; and not a question. Just a rhetorical device, which I considered irrelevant, and didn't feel like arguing about. > the base reference for everything Caesium oscillations are a proxy for the passage of time. I can imagine a universe in which the rate of Caesium oscillations might vary, or be influenced, making atomic clocks unreliable. I don't know how one might measure the passage of time directly; I suspect it's impossible, and can only be done with proxies. I don't see why you couldn't have more than one timescale operating and interacting. It's an interesting speculation. But William of Ockham advised against multiplying hypotheses; and I can't see what multiple interacting timescales might explain, that can't be explained without them.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  I mentioned a practical implication for interacting timescales in the sibling comment.

explaininjs 3y ago

Could those processes, for instance, have configured the initial state of the entire universe in 6 of their days, but 13.8B-6,000 of our call years? I see no reason why not.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand What I ignored was an analogy. Not an argument from analogy; and not a question. Just a rhetorical device, which I considered irrelevant, and didn't feel like arguing about. > the base reference for everything Caesium oscillations are a proxy for the passage of time. I can imagine a universe in which the rate of Caesium oscillations might vary, or be influenced, making atomic clocks unreliable. I don't know how one might measure the passage of time directly; I suspect it's impossible, and can only be done with proxies. I don't see why you couldn't have more than one timescale operating and interacting. It's an interesting speculation. But William of Ockham advised against multiplying hypotheses; and I can't see what multiple interacting timescales might explain, that can't be explained without them.

explaininjs 3y ago
I mentioned a practical implication for interacting timescales in the sibling comment.