4 ms·
Could be our universe and timeline is a boltzman universe/boltzman timeline embedded in some large timeless crystalline state space. That would kinda suck, bec
by barfbagginus 2y ago
Could be our universe and timeline is a boltzman universe/boltzman timeline embedded in some large timeless crystalline state space.
That would kinda suck, because we'd be static crystals. But from the subjective perspective of a self aware sub crystal is maybe not so bad. Perhaps reality is malleable and magical.
For instance it might be possible to travel to other universes. From the global view, we have multiple atemporal subjective timelines, with subjective agents popping out of one reality and into another thanks to some crystals and magnets with special geometries. From the subjective view, you have a Rick and Morty episode
- mcronce 2y agoI think I'd love to read a fantasy book based on this premise
- barfbagginus 2y agoA fantasy book that comes to mind is The Dark Tower, by King. The universe is unraveling into a bundle of broken times and locations, falling apart because the old society "moved on" to another plane of existence... It doesn't have this idea of the the world being a static crystal. But it's interesting to think of a static crystal spacetime that eventually seems to fall apart.
- lxgr 2y agoWhy would it suck/what would it change? There are so many (largely metaphysical) theories for things that our universe might actually be a subjective emergent phenomenon of (a simulation, somebody's dream, a timeless static meta-universe, just to name a few) – but given that there is subjective consciousness in this universe, does it matter what substrate it's actually embedded in for our (or somebody else's, for that matter) ability to ascribe meaning to the emergent phenomenon itself? In other words, somehow I wouldn't feel much worse about "time not being real" than I'd feel about matter, gravity etc. "not being real", being caused by the vibration of cold, unfeeling superstrings etc.
- entropicdrifter 2y agoJust speculation on my part, but I think what they're concerned about is that if time doesn't actually exist and we're all just part of a static crystal, then free will can't exist because everything already happened at once. It's the ultimate form of determinism: not only is everything predetermined but it already happened and we're just experiencing it as though it hasn't yet.
- spixy 2y agoHow goes "it already happened" with infinite time? Does it mean there is no infinite time? Also no free will sounds so horrible yet so liberating.
- itishappy 2y agoWhy assume infinite time? Time appears quite finite in the only direction we can measure.
- HelloMcFly 2y ago> It's the ultimate form of determinism: not only is everything predetermined but it already happened and we're just experiencing it as though it hasn't yet. I'm not being glib or contrary when I ask this question: in what ways does this matter beyond the philosophical implications?
- strogonoff 2y agoDeterminism vs. non-determinism is indeed philosophy, so the implications of getting it wrong can be pretty significant (someone could see themselves as free from moral responsibility to not do bad things to others, because determinism).
- HelloMcFly 2y agoSorry, to be more clear: I'm more interested in whether this matters from a scientific/measurement perspective.