4 ms·
OP should have said that change in state = time. Anyone who has worked on secure consensus has had the same thought. You can't derive time from pure math. You
by BigParm 2y ago
OP should have said that change in state = time.
Anyone who has worked on secure consensus has had the same thought. You can't derive time from pure math. You must observe some state change.
It's a useful concept, but strictly speaking it's not true. If this universe was completely devoid of matter, time would still pass. "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
- gibsonf1 2y agoHmm, I would not say that a change in state = time, but that a state changes at some point in time where the state is current for the period of time (start to end) in which some measurable attribute of an object does not change. The standard for measuring time is based on planetary movement etc, so its really all about observing change as it happens, and the sequence of those changes. If the universe was devoid of matter, it would mean there would be no us. And since time is a human concept, that concept would not exist :)