Time is not linear

[1srelluc]

It's more of a flat circle.

“Time is a flat circle”: Here's What it Really Means

If you’re here, odds are you are a fan of the TV show “True Detective,” which features the iconic line 'Time is a flat circle.' In its first season, the protagonist Rust Cohle, portrayed by

linguaholic.com

What are the odds of you being conscious/alive now and not the massive amounts of time being dead or not even born yet?

In the trillions of years that the universe will exist, the minuscule 80-odd years you will exist on this rock just so happens to be happening right in this instant? It's just too convenient.

There is no beginning, no end. You will never know anything but consciousness in one form or another at all times.....Till you don't.

Music to ponder time by:

 

[ReinyDays]

That doesn't explain the speed of light ... if time is a circle, then why doesn't light return to us? ... we know time isn't linear, why we use the Lorentz Transformations ... because:

1] This explains the orbit of Mercury, and
2] Stars behind the Sun are offset during total solar eclipses ...

That's relativity, not circles ...

 

[alang1216]

It's more of a flat circle.

“Time is a flat circle”: Here's What it Really Means

If you’re here, odds are you are a fan of the TV show “True Detective,” which features the iconic line 'Time is a flat circle.' In its first season, the protagonist Rust Cohle, portrayed by

linguaholic.com

What are the odds of you being conscious/alive now and not the massive amounts of time being dead or not even born yet?

In the trillions of years that the universe will exist, the minuscule 80-odd years you will exist on this rock just so happens to be happening right in this instant? It's just too convenient.

There is no beginning, no end. You will never know anything but consciousness in one form or another at all times.....Till you don't.

Music to ponder time by:

History may repeat but time does not. We get a small taste of existence and then it is gone. The denial of that is why religions are so comforting to so many.

 

[odanny]

Wow, that's heavy.

Let me think on this one.

 

[scruffy]

History may repeat but time does not. We get a small taste of existence and then it is gone. The denial of that is why religions are so comforting to so many.

Okay - here's an idea. Physics and chemistry are all about predicting the time evolution of a system. If you could see across all possible evolutions in all possible time frames ("all possible pathways", kind of like a Feynman diagram), then in theory you'd have a complete description of the system.

The thing is, physics shows us clearly that the starting point matters. The system may have memory, but it always evolves from where it is "now". And, "now" is a state, if you could map all possible configurations "now" would be a point on the graph (in the state space).

What constrains this model is, we already know, that "now" is more than one state! The quantum theory tells us it's half one state and half another - and maybe there are more than two possibilities, maybe even an infinite number.

So then, if you're an engineer, you're interested in "coercing" these probabilities to achieve the outcome you want. That word "outcome", implies serial time. It may not be linear (it may be parabolic, like someone mentioned), but it definitely implies an ORDERING.

The basic requirement for the ordering, is the same as that in relativity - any two observers have to see the same order.

So as a suggestion to play with this, consider the well known Ising model for ferromagnetism - but apply it to TIME instead of space. So your lattice becomes like a "time crystal", where past AND FUTURE states interact with "now".

Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Square lattice Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[alang1216]

Okay - here's an idea. Physics and chemistry are all about predicting the time evolution of a system. If you could see across all possible evolutions in all possible time frames ("all possible pathways", kind of like a Feynman diagram), then in theory you'd have a complete description of the system.

The thing is, physics shows us clearly that the starting point matters. The system may have memory, but it always evolves from where it is "now". And, "now" is a state, if you could map all possible configurations "now" would be a point on the graph (in the state space).

What constrains this model is, we already know, that "now" is more than one state! The quantum theory tells us it's half one state and half another - and maybe there are more than two possibilities, maybe even an infinite number.

So then, if you're an engineer, you're interested in "coercing" these probabilities to achieve the outcome you want. That word "outcome", implies serial time. It may not be linear (it may be parabolic, like someone mentioned), but it definitely implies an ORDERING.

The basic requirement for the ordering, is the same as that in relativity - any two observers have to see the same order.

So as a suggestion to play with this, consider the well known Ising model for ferromagnetism - but apply it to TIME instead of space. So your lattice becomes like a "time crystal", where past AND FUTURE states interact with "now".

Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Square lattice Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not a physicist but that is not my understanding of the quantum world. Time may be relative but it never reverses itself, even for objects approaching the speed of light.

 

[scruffy]

I'm not a physicist but that is not my understanding of the quantum world. Time may be relative but it never reverses itself, even for objects approaching the speed of light.

Well... there are "assumptions" underlying the use of f(t), yes?

Some physicists dispute that time exists at all. Some claim it is merely a projection of another spatial dimension.

We agree, that what makes it special is, we can't move around freely in it?

 

[BackAgain]

I always move only forward in time. It’s effortless.

But no matter how hard I try, I can’t go backwards in time to relive a cool moment.

I say time is a one way line. ————->

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Well... there are "assumptions" underlying the use of f(t), yes?

Some physicists dispute that time exists at all. Some claim it is merely a projection of another spatial dimension.

We agree, that what makes it special is, we can't move around freely in it?

Time for me scruff is the fact that heat and light leak from a universe into forever and that light and heat, which escapes from the weight of gravity in stars, creates functioning forward flowing. No gravity no time.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Okay - here's an idea. Physics and chemistry are all about predicting the time evolution of a system. If you could see across all possible evolutions in all possible time frames ("all possible pathways", kind of like a Feynman diagram), then in theory you'd have a complete description of the system.

The thing is, physics shows us clearly that the starting point matters. The system may have memory, but it always evolves from where it is "now". And, "now" is a state, if you could map all possible configurations "now" would be a point on the graph (in the state space).

What constrains this model is, we already know, that "now" is more than one state! The quantum theory tells us it's half one state and half another - and maybe there are more than two possibilities, maybe even an infinite number.

So then, if you're an engineer, you're interested in "coercing" these probabilities to achieve the outcome you want. That word "outcome", implies serial time. It may not be linear (it may be parabolic, like someone mentioned), but it definitely implies an ORDERING.

The basic requirement for the ordering, is the same as that in relativity - any two observers have to see the same order.

So as a suggestion to play with this, consider the well known Ising model for ferromagnetism - but apply it to TIME instead of space. So your lattice becomes like a "time crystal", where past AND FUTURE states interact with "now".

Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Square lattice Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum Quacks

I compare Postclassical Physics to Postclassical History, which meant the Dark Ages. At our feudal universities, the same regressive degenerates are in the History Department as are in the Physics Department. They've mandated that the term "Dark Ages" be banned and replaced with "Early Middle Ages." This is to hide the fact about what our PhDs are leading us into.

 

[scruffy]

Quantum Quacks

I compare Postclassical Physics to Postclassical History, which meant the Dark Ages. At our feudal universities, the same regressive degenerates are in the History Department as are in the Physics Department. They've mandated that the term "Dark Ages" be banned and replaced with "Early Middle Ages." This is to hide the fact about what our PhDs are leading us into.

Mmmm.... maybe.

However, the range of possible quantum outcomes represents "potential" - not in the sense of volts, but in the sense of possibilities.

Which, when you think about it, is no different from the range of possible futures in our consciousness.

In keeping with my previous definition of consciousness, two things are true:

a) the range of possibilities narrows as dt => 0 on the future side, and

b) the likelihood that one of the predicted futures instantiates increases (approaches 1) as dt => 0 from the future. (If it doesn't, the brain generates a P300).

 

[scruffy]

Here is Hawking's take:

Imaginary time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scruffy]

Here is a useful way of looking at it. (Neither physics nor biology do justice to this beautiful concept).

In physics, "complex time" is accomplished with a Wick rotation.

Complex spacetime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But in engineering, a Wick rotation is called a "phasor". Different concept! And a lot closer to the mark.

The phasor represents a true synthetic dimension, in the biological sense. This is because your one dimension (time, in the form of f(t)), becomes two (frequency and phase, which are conveniently represented by e^-iwt, which is the same construction found in physics).

 

[ReinyDays]

Mmmm.... maybe.

However, the range of possible quantum outcomes represents "potential" - not in the sense of volts, but in the sense of possibilities.

Which, when you think about it, is no different from the range of possible futures in our consciousness.

In keeping with my previous definition of consciousness, two things are true:

a) the range of possibilities narrows as dt => 0 on the future side, and

b) the likelihood that one of the predicted futures instantiates increases (approaches 1) as dt => 0 from the future. (If it doesn't, the brain generates a P300).

dt doesn't approach zero ... it is zero ... and redundant over the scalars ... the derivative of a constant function always equals zero, no exceptions ... the integral of zero is always zero plus a constant, no exceptions ...

Without the passage of time, there is no motion ... after zero seconds, even light travels zero inches ... so, for good or ill, Newton defined all motion with respect to time ... because a second is a second is a second everywhere in the universe in Classical Physics (except the planet Mercury) ... and from this we can derive our definition of work, and energy ... and how we account for change in motion ... which we model as a change in energy ...

... my previous definition of consciousness ...

Where would this be? ... I know there's chemistry and physics involved, but generally speaking, consciousness is a matter of biology ...

Humans require good timing for reproduction, blue-green algae doesn't ...

 

[Nobody911]

It's more of a flat circle.

“Time is a flat circle”: Here's What it Really Means

If you’re here, odds are you are a fan of the TV show “True Detective,” which features the iconic line 'Time is a flat circle.' In its first season, the protagonist Rust Cohle, portrayed by

linguaholic.com

What are the odds of you being conscious/alive now and not the massive amounts of time being dead or not even born yet?

In the trillions of years that the universe will exist, the minuscule 80-odd years you will exist on this rock just so happens to be happening right in this instant? It's just too convenient.

There is no beginning, no end. You will never know anything but consciousness in one form or another at all times.....Till you don't.

Music to ponder time by:

The idea of time being a flat circle is a concept from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who suggested that time is not linear but instead a never-ending repetition of events. However, this is just one interpretation of time and there are many other theories and perspectives on the nature of time. The nature of time is still a topic of ongoing research and discussion in various fields of study.

The concept of time being linear or not is a matter of interpretation and perspective. In the traditional sense, time is often considered to be linear, moving forward in a continuous and unidirectional manner. This is supported by the fact that we experience events in a sequential order, with the past preceding the present and the present preceding the future.

However, some theories in physics, such as Einstein's theory of relativity and the concept of spacetime, suggest that time is not as straightforward as it may seem. According to these theories, time is intertwined with space and can be influenced by factors such as gravity and velocity. This means that time can be experienced differently depending on one's relative position and motion in space.

Additionally, some philosophical and spiritual perspectives propose that time is not strictly linear, but rather exists as a simultaneous and interconnected whole. This idea is often associated with concepts such as eternalism or the idea that all moments in time exist simultaneously.

Ultimately, whether time is truly linear or not is a complex and open question that continues to be explored and debated in various fields of study. It may be a matter of personal belief or interpretation based on scientific, philosophical, or spiritual perspectives.

==>Time is money, job is life. No job, no life. What do you think? lol.

 

[52ndStreet]

Well... there are "assumptions" underlying the use of f(t), yes?

Some physicists dispute that time exists at all. Some claim it is merely a projection of another spatial dimension.

We agree, that what makes it special is, we can't move around freely in it?

The fact they dispute as to the existence of time, at all, says a lot. We as humans experience Time because of our conscious mind. Without the human mind, and human consciousness, Time can not be experienced. Yes rocks, and plants , and trees age, but they do not know why, or can not delay the experience of Time.!?? Time is a part of being in the Universe itself.
Time is interwoven within the entire Universe. You can not escape it, once you are in the Universe.

 

[scruffy]

dt doesn't approach zero ... it is zero ...

No. Provably not.

and redundant over the scalars ...

Assembly theory.

Assembly theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the derivative of a constant function always equals zero, no exceptions ... the integral of zero is always zero plus a constant, no exceptions ...

Partitions of zero, and partitions of unity

You have to expand your scope.

We're talking about synthetic dimensions.

A function that "appears" constant in one dimension may not be so in two. An example is the cosin function with a vertical Wick rotation, which changes the two dimensions into 3, and the view you get looking down at the top of the cosin is a "flat" (constant) function.

Without the passage of time, there is no motion ... after zero seconds, even light travels zero inches ... so, for good or ill, Newton defined all motion with respect to time ... because a second is a second is a second everywhere in the universe in Classical Physics (except the planet Mercury) ... and from this we can derive our definition of work, and energy ... and how we account for change in motion ... which we model as a change in energy ...

... my previous definition of consciousness ...

Where would this be? ...

In the other thread.

Someone said science can't define consciousness, and I proved them wrong.

I know there's chemistry and physics involved, but generally speaking, consciousness is a matter of biology ...

Physics.

"Supported by" biology.

Humans require good timing for reproduction, blue-green algae doesn't ...

No two brains are alike.

Your alpha rhythm, is different from mine - and the folds in your brain are different too.

Whatever mechanism is being used, had to be tolerant of these differences.

 

[ReinyDays]

No. Provably not.



Assembly theory.

Assembly theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Partitions of zero, and partitions of unity

You have to expand your scope.

We're talking about synthetic dimensions.

A function that "appears" constant in one dimension may not be so in two. An example is the cosin function with a vertical Wick rotation, which changes the two dimensions into 3, and the view you get looking down at the top of the cosin is a "flat" (constant) function.




In the other thread.

Someone said science can't define consciousness, and I proved them wrong.




Physics.

"Supported by" biology.




No two brains are alike.

Your alpha rhythm, is different from mine - and the folds in your brain are different too.

Whatever mechanism is being used, had to be tolerant of these differences.

Thank you for your responses here ... please provide the proof that dt ≠ 0 ... I would offer a simple epsilon/delta proof, when ∆e = 0, then ∆∂ = 0 ...

I'm discussing mathematical dimensions ... these "synthetic dimensions" are just make-believe philosophical arguments ... now, your example of the cosine function is strictly two dimensional ... y = cos x ... you didn't define any third dimension, all functions in x and y will appear as straight lines when observed from the z-direction ... high school algebra ...

You should know better than to use dt in three dimensional equations: ∂y/∂x = sin x; ∂z/∂x = 0 ...

We said science doesn't define consciousness ... and neither have you ... at least no better than the Bible has ... 1 Corinthians 12:12-27:

Spoiler

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Assembly Theory ... ha ha ha ha ... that's rich ... you don't know what a scalar is do you? ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Mmmm.... maybe.

However, the range of possible quantum outcomes represents "potential" - not in the sense of volts, but in the sense of possibilities.

Which, when you think about it, is no different from the range of possible futures in our consciousness.

In keeping with my previous definition of consciousness, two things are true:

a) the range of possibilities narrows as dt => 0 on the future side, and

b) the likelihood that one of the predicted futures instantiates increases (approaches 1) as dt => 0 from the future. (If it doesn't, the brain generates a P300).

God Plays With Loaded Dice

Just like the quantum outcomes, the future is dictated by outside forces limiting the results of our will.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You've read Pratchett's Weird Sisters have you!