RIP Roe v. Wade

[Asmodean]

It's not round or flat, billy rubin, it's a heptagon.
Heptapods, or
heptadimensional beings will prove this alternative fact one day.
 
--You just wait for it.

...Or we may never know. In that case, their perception of Earth may not be relevant, but would it still be true?

Just imagine time being a coordinate in this. For a being perceiving it from the outside, I suspect the Earth would look kind of like a 4D sausage if seen along the time axis, with every single point on said axis corresponding to a 3D Earth at that precise moment in time.

[Magdalena]

It's funny that any of you believe there's an "Earth".

FOOLS!!!!

Checkmate, everyone!
It's in all caps.
That makes it truer.
And louder.
Can't argue with it now.
 

[Magdalena]

...

Just imagine time being a coordinate in this. For a being perceiving it from the outside, I suspect the Earth would look kind of like a 4D sausage if seen along the time axis,
...

"a 4D sausage."


"Just imagine time being a coordinate in this."

--That's a mighty long sausage.

[billy rubin]

It's not round or flat, billy rubin, it's a heptagon.
Heptapods, or
heptadimensional beings will prove this alternative fact one day.
 
--You just wait for it.

...Or we may never know. In that case, their perception of Earth may not be relevant, but would it still be true?

Just imagine time being a coordinate in this. For a being perceiving it from the outside, I suspect the Earth would look kind of like a 4D sausage if seen along the time axis, with every single point on said axis corresponding to a 3D Earth at that precise moment in time.

i dont believe in linear time.

i think time is a series of interdependent instants, each instant requiring the concurrent existence of the instant before and the instant after.

like turtles, all the way down.

the implication of this is that time is multidimensional , a series of side-by-side playing cards, just like the multidimensional nature of the multiverse.

course it might not be, but the interesting point is that our sense of linear time might be an illusion

this is closely related to st thomas aquinas's five ways, arguments for the existence of god. but aquinas was an idiot, and his reasonimg was unsound. if you  apply valid arguments, you end up with time being a valid infinite regress

[Magdalena]

^^^
billy rubin, I think you'll like the movie:
Arrival
PG-13.
Sci-fi/Thriller.
1h 56m

 

[Asmodean]

i dont believe in linear time.

I may be completely wrong about this, because I'm not too well-read on the subject, nor do I have really well-polished opinions, but I think time as we commonly understand it is just a measure of change. A unit of entropy, if you will. That said...

i think time is a series of interdependent instants, each instant requiring the concurrent existence of the instant before and the instant after.

Quantised time could still be represented in a linear fashion.

the implication of this is that time is multidimensional , a series of side-by-side playing cards, just like the multidimensional nature of the multiverse.

Multidimensional time... Cool. Honestly though, I think it would do little with the example I used, beyond adding a coordinate. Thus, in addition to slicing across spacetime plane to get your sausage bits, you'd be slicing across a spacetime "volume," or a plane of spacetimes, which in the first instance would result in each slice yielding a spacetime within a single higher order of Time*, rather than space at a singular moment in time.

*Using Time to distinguish multidimensional proposal

course it might not be, but the interesting point is that our sense of linear time might be an illusion

In a static system, it certainly appears to be.

Which... Hmm... I wonder... Say time is a quantised field. What would a static system then look like from the field's perspective? Would it be a zero-energy area? Or just flat as a pancake? Or... Something completely different, because let's face it - a physicist, The Asmo isn't?

[billy rubin]

^^^
billy rubin, I think you'll like the movie:
Arrival
PG-13.
Sci-fi/Thriller.
1h 56m

 

i will look it up.

[billy rubin]

my phone wont allow me to quote, asmo.

no reason why it couldnt be quantised. i dont know jack about quantum mechanics.

one way i view my model is to think of a lit gunpowder fuse, a long cord with a flare of energy- the present- moving along its length. the cord exists before and after the flare.

alongside the fuse are others, packed tightly together, each with a flare moving along its length slightly out of synch with all the others. the result of this is that all present times coexist with each other, even though the model incorporates what we think of as as a past, present, and future.

your idea of a spacetime volume is exactly what i mean. we percieve a local linearity because we inhabit a single strand of the bundle. but the bundle is onfinite in all lateral directions, and infinite before and after, as near as i can figger

i dont actually understand any of this. im just speculating.

[Asmodean]

my phone wont allow me to quote, asmo.

I can relate. The struggle. It is real.

no reason why it couldnt be quantised. i dont know jack about quantum mechanics.

I have read a little bit about this, and understood... Less-than-everything, shall we say, and there are some proposals for how time could be quantised.

From what I understand, a quantum of time would be one "below" which, you could not distinguish between any event's past and future.

one way i view my model is to think of a lit gunpowder fuse, a long cord with a flare of energy- the present- moving along its length. the cord exists before and after the flare.

Hmm... Yes... Hmm...

Does not that model of time itself rely on being viewed within the framework of time? As in, the flare has a past state and a future state, as does the fuse..?

...Let us imagine a point on that fuse being a coordinate of time. If you slice at any point, what you get is the state of the fuse (the "condition" of time, for lack of properly impressive linguistics with which to express this to lessen confusion) - it will yield one of three states; past, present or future.

I don't think you could combine those states in order to model interactions which are not strictly of relative time.

alongside the fuse are others, packed tightly together, each with a flare moving along its length slightly out of synch with all the others. the result of this is that all present times coexist with each other, even though the model incorporates what we think of as as a past, present, and future.

...And herein lies the problem. Let us for the sake of simplicity draw ourselves a few time fuses (Assume infinity in both directions)

<----------M---------->
<--M------------------>
<-------------------M->
<-----^--------------->

The last one here is my time slice. Here, I can easily distinguish 1 and 2 or 2 and 3, but not 1 and 3. They would both return "Past."

As you get into, we'd have to expand the analogy for it to yield meaningful distinction. For example, if each is a spacetime much like ours, our space could be represented as a sausage of Earths, stacked so that each point is just a single planck time length apart from its future self and its past self.

As such, if you make a cut, you do not get any sort of sense of past, present or future - what you do get, is the Earth exactly as it was in that precise instance of time.

I'm not sure I'm being any sort of understandable here - I hope so. To simplify my point, I don't think time necessarily "cares" about past, present or future.

your idea of a spacetime volume is exactly what i mean. we percieve a local linearity because we inhabit a single strand of the bundle. but the bundle is onfinite in all lateral directions, and infinite before and after, as near as i can figger

i dont actually understand any of this. im just speculating.

Yes, you should not quote me on any of this too hard either - it's a few decades of study above my pay grade. Still, it's fun to speculate.

I do wonder though if the volume of time as you propose it is like the linear time I tried to explain up above.

The idea I was playing with, was more akin to time itself having something akin to length, height and width, and what that would mean. You would be looking at parallel spacetimes and chronogeometry (Please let that word be uncoined as of yet, so I can claims it for The Asmo!) and I'm totally going to try and speculate on what the implications of that could be.

[No one]

Keeping abreast of all that's current, this thread is flowing quite swimmingly.

[billy rubin]

[Dark Lightning]

It's not round or flat, billy rubin, it's a heptagon.
Heptapods, or
heptadimensional beings will prove this alternative fact one day.
 
--You just wait for it.

...Or we may never know. In that case, their perception of Earth may not be relevant, but would it still be true?

Just imagine time being a coordinate in this. For a being perceiving it from the outside, I suspect the Earth would look kind of like a 4D sausage if seen along the time axis, with every single point on said axis corresponding to a 3D Earth at that precise moment in time.

i dont believe in linear time.

i think time is a series of interdependent instants, each instant requiring the concurrent existence of the instant before and the instant after.

like turtles, all the way down.

the implication of this is that time is multidimensional , a series of side-by-side playing cards, just like the multidimensional nature of the multiverse.

course it might not be, but the interesting point is that our sense of linear time might be an illusion

this is closely related to st thomas aquinas's five ways, arguments for the existence of god. but aquinas was an idiot, and his reasonimg was unsound. if you  apply valid arguments, you end up with time being a valid infinite regress

I'd recommend cracking out the physics books and getting some edumacation, personally.

[Magdalena]

Static interpretation of time.

The static interpretation of time is a view of time which arose in the early years of the 20th century from Albert Einstein's special relativity and Hermann Minkowski's extension of special relativity in which time and space were famously united in physicists' thinking as spacetime.

Essentially the universe is regarded as akin to a reel of film – which is a wholly static physical object – but which when played through a movie projector conjures a world of movement, color, light and change. In the static view our whole universe – our past, present, and future are fixed parts of that reel of film, and the projector is our consciousness. But the 'happenings' of our consciousness have no objective significance – the objective universe does not happen, it simply exists in its entirety, albeit perceived from within as a world of changes.

The alternative, and commonly assumed view, is that the world unfolds in existence, that our present has some wider physical significance, because the universe evolves in step with it.

The static view is the simpler in that all that is held to exist is the physical ordering of the universe. All that there is at every time simply exists. The unfolding view requires an additional quality to the universe – that besides the physical ordering there is some quality of coming into and out of existence.

One can argue that the onus is therefore upon those who propose it, that the world unfolds, and that this additional quality they hold to (absent from special relativity) is indeed a physical feature of the world. There is however as yet no proof, experiment, or measurement, to show that our conscious experience of an unfolding present has any objective physical significance, or that the universe is anything other than static.

The static view is however commonly rejected for psychological, not scientific reasons, because it leads to a fatalistic or "fixed" conclusion about human existence – our 'past', 'present', and 'future' being what they are – there is no contingency in the world and no possibility of 'altering' or creating the future through some act of will – the future exists. It is simply that our consciousness has not yet reached it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_interpretation_of_time

[billy rubin]

It's not round or flat, billy rubin, it's a heptagon.
Heptapods, or
heptadimensional beings will prove this alternative fact one day.
 
--You just wait for it.

...Or we may never know. In that case, their perception of Earth may not be relevant, but would it still be true?

Just imagine time being a coordinate in this. For a being perceiving it from the outside, I suspect the Earth would look kind of like a 4D sausage if seen along the time axis, with every single point on said axis corresponding to a 3D Earth at that precise moment in time.

i dont believe in linear time.

i think time is a series of interdependent instants, each instant requiring the concurrent existence of the instant before and the instant after.

like turtles, all the way down.

the implication of this is that time is multidimensional , a series of side-by-side playing cards, just like the multidimensional nature of the multiverse.

course it might not be, but the interesting point is that our sense of linear time might be an illusion

this is closely related to st thomas aquinas's five ways, arguments for the existence of god. but aquinas was an idiot, and his reasonimg was unsound. if you  apply valid arguments, you end up with time being a valid infinite regress

I'd recommend cracking out the physics books and getting some edumacation, personally.

lol

the day my physics professor explained that electrons had no locations but existed merely as solutions to a probability function  was the day i realized that physics and philosophy wete two words for the same thing.

nothing ivevread from stephen hawking contradicts that so far.

[Old Seer]

Time is the/an interval between events. (measured by increments of the suns position at certain locations relative to the earths surface)