/sci/ - Science & Math

nigga my car travels from my house to my office in 15 minutes that's time passing

Chris Langan is right, the universe is self-determining and self-evolving.

Can't this all be explained by a 'Minkowski' view of spacetime, though?

You posit that time should not pass in a deterministic universe, but can't we view a point particle as a 'time-less' world line?

>>11605558
Block theory of the universe IS the Minkowski's view. Einstein only entertained this idea in the formulation of GR, seriously, because it made the formulation easier. But a model isn't reality. And Einstein himself admitted that he could'nt reason from his theories why time should pass. You can put any theory in the place of X, the conclusion remains the same, the solution and final state of the universe exists in the block/crystal whatever you want, ultimately its a shape, looking at which, you cannot tell what is the "present" for any observer within it. Hence, the universe cannot have a deterministic ultimate law.

>>11605508
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OvltlOA8XE

>>11605508
The universe is not deterministic.
It is in fact a dialetheistic/paraconsistent universe. Pretty crazy stuff man

>>11605566
What do you mean Einstein couldn't reason why time should pass? Surely Einstein saw and defined time in relation to observable periodic phenomena. But how can you 'look' at the final state of the universe if it is a complete whole? There is no vantage point 'outside' to observe from? I do not see how a 'block' universe contradicts determinism. Is it not the converse? If the universe is a complete and undivided 'whole' everything is perfectly deterministic.

>>11605579
defend dialetheism
i dare you
not even a thousand burning liar sentences can excuse this heresy

>>11605566
Minkowski's "spacetime" violates Pythagoras theorem. So Minkowski-Einstein "spacetime" isn't real.

>>11605582
Particles are both spin up and not spin up
The quantum logic used to describe QM is paraconsistent and thus dialetheistic

>>11605586
Spacetime is not Euclidean, Euclidean geometry isn't real.

>>11605586
of course it violates pythagoras' theorem.

that's literally the entire point that vector (velocity) addition is not galilean in special relativity

>>11605580
>What do you mean Einstein couldn't reason why time should pass?

Minkowski spacetime points to a block universe theory known as eternalism. There is no information in a block theory model of the universe that specially includes the "present moment". It doesn't mean anything, in direct contradiction with our experience of the "current moment". Time is treated as a spatial dimension and that's the reason for why it seems confusing. Any X would have to describe a state at time 't', and doing so, any theory which describes an evolution, cannot simultaneously tell us what the "now" is. I hope you're seeing this now?

兄弟誰和妹妹如何

I will never be a vessel that failed the test of memory.

吹你的脑袋,恋童癖者

>>11605591
darn i don't know qm this is cheating
are particles really said to be both spin up and not spin up in the same sense and time? if yes then i will be upset

>>11605611
Yes.
Watch this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc

But may I ask why this upsets you?

>>11605613
how can an unrepentant contradiction not upset me? it's like asking me why wrongness feels wrong. i've been so used to treating contradictions as argument win condition that the question baffles me. if i ever had a reason to object to contradictions i must have long since absorbed it into my personality and forgotten what it was. i'm now at least 10 personality generations after the self who began the feud. i now fight for my tribe as a loyal warrior.

>>11605630
Because your own people don't listen to you either? Then why come here with your communication problems.

>>11605597
The Minkowski-Einstein "Spacetime" concept is a fallacy.

>>11605647
More on why it's completely invalid.

>>11605633
i am very good at communication, don't belittle me. i'm even obediently watching the lecture. can you give me the short story of how dialetheism is supposed to work?

how can you believe that there are some true contradictions without condemning yourself into believing that all propositions are true contradictions? and how will you respond to any number repulsive ideas generated with the use of legal contradictions?

>>11605669
In a paraconsistent logic, not all statements are both true and false. It just means that there are some statements that map to "both" as opposed to mapping to "true" or "false".
So the statement "2 +2 = 5" is always false and never true, it is not in the "both" category. But the statement "this sentence is false" does map to the "both" category.

>>11605669
Why do you speak in terms of negation requests then?

>How can you believe?
>Because I have an imagination.

>>11605519
This but unironically. Time is measured by the passage of events, which are completely allowed in a deterministic model.

>>11605705
How determined is your daughter to suck your dick for death & liberty?

>Republican T.V. show

>>11605707
>implying I or anyone here has sex
kek. also great /b/-tier post. have a /b/-tier response faggot

>>11605719
Why even bother with the word sanity when you don't even hold yourself accountable to anything?

>>11605722
I wouldn't be surprised if a bot wrote that.

>>11605738
Or that it was ever real and being the moment of presentation?

>>11605694
but how does paraconsistent logic allow for even one statement to be both true and false without creating a way to exploit the inference rules to get any statement you want to follow from it? it seems like any pair of a proposition and it's own negation contains the ingredients to cook up anything you want. there is a kind of compensatory connection between the getting to make use of one half of the pair and being denied access to the other half.

>>11605742
Well now I'm fully convinced you're a bot. Fuck off, and may your captchas forever deny you access.

>>11605747
Defending stories is a losing argument in my reality, so what happens next?

>>11605754

>>11605764
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuJaIDL3A-w

>>11605745
Paraconsistent logic doesn't include disjunction introduction or disjunctive syllogism.

>>11605697
i'm not 100% sure i understand what you mean by negation requests. i ask "how can you believe" meaning only to ask "how do you solve the problem" because i think it's impossible to maintain any contradiction without creating a whole bunch of problems for yourself.

>>11605769
You could never be as wrong as me rejecting you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g61L7Y8bkwo

>>11605769
Responding to this cleverbot is like talking to fortune cookies. Just stop.

>>11605777
A continued existence;recountable experience;or lack of translation.

>>11605777
i see, thanks for letting me know.

>>11605767
i did not expect this answer.

>>11605508
That time flows is a result of the nature of the observer not the observed; if the observer can simultaneously observe all the states of a universe change is nullified and time ceases to be. On the other hand, because observation is quantized or discretized, state continums exist, and this allows the passage of time or rather, observation of the passage of time.

>>11605817
>That time flows is a result of the nature of the observer not the observed;
isn't it more specifically that time flows as a result of change in the nature of the observer? but then the observer changing so they are in time, but then why does their time flow? is it again the result of nature of the observer? but if it's the same observer then isn't it like saying time flows as a result of time flowing? or if it's another observer then i can't wrap my head around it

>>11605861
You're kind of correct in stating that it is the change of observer itself that gives us a flow in time. However remember that any theory X, doesn't encode at which of the observer's world line will he find himself in. In my OP, I just claimed that it is impossible to make a special space for the present moment. Now the pressing question is, why is it that we find ourselves in April of 2020 and not some other time? Why is it that we need to evolve the universe to May, in order to find ourselves in may, if assuming we are alive, a person already exists who is observing in May. So why is it that we are here instead of there. This would imply that the future is necessarily indeterministic. There is no causality in the global universe as a whole, because it doesn't follow a this then that rule. Such a rule cannot exist, if the present moment exists.

>>11606529
i was just trying to create problems to what looked to me like an explanation of time as being governed by a thing that is in turn governed by time so it stealthily duplicates the thing it's trying to explain. i had difficulty following your line of reasoning to be honest. i suspect we have different ideas on what determinism is. i think you view determinism as some quality that makes the universe able to be exhaustively calculated and limits randomness but i view determinism like an a priori conceptual deadlock in your worldview that limits freedom. the way i view things there's no way to avoid determinism whether the past creates the future or if everything is random and regardless of theories on time and even if you're omnipotent it all leads back to determinism by virtue of the present moment having the quality of being "a given" in some horribly unavoidable sense which i think is enough to create all sorts of problems for people's ideas about freedom or freewill.

>>11605508
This would only hold true if our perception wasn't limited to 3 out of the 4 dimensions. If we could see through time, then yes, the universe wouldn't change (duh)

>>11605508
>Seeing from the outside you could never tell anything is flowing, and this contradicts our experience of time, we see it flowing.
>Seeing from the outside
Yes, outside of TIME you won't see time flowing..

>>11605566
This seems to me like saying that if you see a map of a route somebody travelled then, because you can see the WHOLE route, then they were never at one particular place on the route.

>>11605508
>Tfw crazy-scientest calculated the position of his wife through all of time and space using a massive super-computer coded with X and sees her spending more time getting railed by Jamal than with him
>Only scientist with enough computing power to calculate X fucking killed himself

>>11605508
You are ignoring the possibility of one of the detentions in the 4D space-ball being time. Time passing would be a representation of travel through the 4th demention, and since we are simply mortal-plebian 3D beings we cannot control our movement throught the 4th time demention, even if we still exist in and move through it. Time does exist, it's just another demention.

>>11605647
I've only really unpacked the distance argument, and it really doesn't disprove anything.

>Clearly, once again, although vt has the units >of length L, vt is not an independent >coordinate or independent dimension, even >though t is an independent dimension of >independent coordinate

S=vt is a function of time, where v is a constant. So, you input a t, and it gives you an s for a given v. This meas that although t can be represented as an "independent coordinate" you can still use vt as a given length for a point in time t, and does not invalidate the "distance formula".

>s=vt is not perpendicular to x,y, or z

This is also not necessary for it to be a "distance formula". The hypotnues is actually never perpendicular to a or b in a^2=b^2+c^2. The only thing that is important is that the various sides are perpendicular, and in this case, x,y,and z are which means that it should work.

This entire document screams none-sense written up by an overconfident crank who only has a basic algebraically-based understanding of physics and mathematics and I will assume it is such until a source for the document is provided.

>>11605508
OP maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, so please correct me if so. But a deterministic universe is not a solid state universe, time would still pass.

>>11607477
What do you mean by "solid state"? And I don't see how you arrive to that conclusion. Any deterministic law, presupposes a flow in time, without giving sufficient description for the observer himself. Where should the observer be located in the time axis, if it is a theory of everything/if the universe evolves deterministically? Can you tell me by looking at the equation x2+2ax+b = 0 , which is deterministic for x, at what point of computing that equation, I am in: i.e. whether I've already solved it or I am in the middle of it?

>>11607409
>time is a dimension
saying time = dimension just because you read it somewhere doesn't make it true

>>11607375
Exactly, let us call this God's point of view. So how would God know which is the present moment? He couldn't possibly, so we have more knowledge than God in that regard, where we know which is the present moment for us, and he doesn't, but if God exists, this contradicts the definition of God, so either God cannot exist or a deterministic theory cannot exist.

bump

Stupid question.
How does entropy increase in a deterministic universe?
We can get the final state from the initial state which means there's no additional entropy.

>>11605630
>how can an unrepentant contradiction not upset me
Welcome to quantum mechanics, your best bet is to throw all classical intuition into the garbage when thinking about it.

>>11608321
If you want to play gnosticism games god doesn't experience time. It is all a single divine moment and time is an illusion created by the demiurge to keep everyone from realizing Christ's immanent return where the veils will be torn down.
I mean by definition a gods eye pov is omnipotent and omnipresent which is a frame of reference our puny brains are not capable of conceptualizing.

>>11605861
In a sense, you reinforce what I said; if time flows, then it flows in the observer not the observed. Am considering that without a limit in perception (which happens "in" the observer), then everything "is" at once, and so no change can be perceived, and consequently no time.

>>11606529
That "we are in April" is mere convention or what reality by consensus says. Now could be any other time including the past or future. Definitely, these leaps make sense from the perspective of "reality is fundamentally subjective", once two distinct centers of awareness need to share a reference frame though, a certain order imposes itself upon reality and that's what seems to either parties as "objective reality". We could decide that time flows from the future to the past, but that awareness reads this in reverse!

>>11608309
I'm not that poster, but I'm also confused. Is looking at the material state of the universe illegal for some reason I'm missing? I don't see why a theory of everything necessarily has to possess unreasonable divination powers in order to exist and model everything about a deterministic process, but I could be missing something. A computer program can increment a time counter and display it on the screen, or gradually compute digits of pi, and for all I know we could be living in such a program, and starting tomorrow we get access to the code and that output(I don't believe in simulation theories). If I just described a logically possible world, then the logical possibility of a deterministic theory of everything is proven(which only contradicts your conclusion).

>>11605508
that's retarded. that's like saying you don't need to run computer programs because computers are deterministic

>>11610244me
(To be clear I probably agree with you that a theory of everything can't tell you the state of the universe, but I don't understand why this is a problem. All a theory is, is a set of equations describing relations between quantities. It is not a clock, why are we expecting it to tell the time?)

>>11605508
Humans don't actually have 4D perception, it's more accurate to say humans have 3.5D perception.

Humans can only ever see one temporal part of an object at a time. You can't see the past or the future of an object, you can only see it as it exists in the present. This is an incomplete view of reality, if you were to view the universe from the outside in (like God) it would just be like one static 4D object.

Imagine the end of solitaire. That's what the universe looks like to God, he can see all the individual temporal points of an objects history like slides in Final Cut Pro.

>>11605508
>the Universe in reasonable
From where do you draw this conclusion?

>>11610313
Because physics is describable in logical terms, when it clearly had the freedom not to be so.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

>>11610268
>>11610244

And that is why the theory is incomplete. Why use words like "time" in a theory that doesn't require one? Mathematical equations like the wheeler-dewitt eqn do not have any time variables in it and for good reason. There is no need from a mathematical perspective! Infact it is only in differential calculus where we write x as time in , dy/dx and then solve: because time doesn't exist in mathematics. It is only our personal experience of time that forces us to assign one of the variables to mean as time and then build models.

>>11605508
Zeno sit down

>>11608315
A dimension is an independent variable and since your position in time does not depend upon your position in space, time is a dimension.

>>11612547
That doesn't obfuscate the fact that time, is unlike any other dimension we are familiar with. Also you can give sufficient reason about your position in 3D space. You cannot say the same about your time coordinate.

>suppose you have a mathematical theory of everything for the universe
No.

The universe is indeterministic everything is ultimately based on probability.

>>11608321
God can just enter or leave the universe at will. Or exist in both states simultaneously.

>>11614252
probability is the mechanism through which determinism develops

>>11605519
Actually there is no effort or time passing because you end up in the same place you started: home.

>>11605508
You only feel time passing because you're walking in a circle. Just because you feel tired after running on a treadmill, doesn't change the fact that you never actually went anywhere. Same with the universe.Everything is already done.

>>11608315
Lol, time is a dimension...rather, time exists within this dimension...

>>11605508
Interesting. So your argument is that a requirement of true determinism in a physical universe is that the evolution of a system is predetermined not only in a predictive sense, but should also already exist on a “block universe” of spacetime manifold where the worldlines of objects are already there.

And since general relativity reduces time to just another coordinate, it would be discordant with the reality of the arrow of time we experience. And since General Relativity is a deterministic theory under that definition, it would follow that reality is not deterministic and that the usual formalism of GR is somewhat incorrect.

I imagine the next course of action would be to foliate spacetime info a family of spacelike hypersurfaces which evolve in time as is the case in the ADM formalism, but then you still run into the problem of exactly which choice you should make for that.

This is interesting, but i think you may be extrapolating too far with your concept of determinism. Philosophically speaking, you could say determinism may not require future events to physically already exist, but to be exactly predictable given suitable knowledge of initial conditions. At the end of the day i think this may be up to how you define “determinism”, but it is interesting that the usual formalism of GR is at odds with common experience in some sense, and as is well known, in contradiction to aspects of quantum theory.

>>11616769
Can you explain the contradiction?

>>11608321
By being the author of it all, God necessarily knows the created from inside (the creature perspective) and the outside (the deity perspective).

>>11605508
So what would we replace time with in equations that take it into account? Motion units? Saying time doesn't exist just sounds like semantics. You still need a way to calculate acceleration how would you don't without a time unit? Blue collar retard here please be gentle. Genuinely interesting post.

>>11610288
You underestimate some humans Kek. Equipped with a mind able to extrapolate and an idea of what plausible states a thing can assume, a human can see, perhaps even simultaneously, the past, present and future of a thing. Some humans are more than "just human" never forget that.

>>11609558
Entropy is a measure of chaos or lack thereof in a system, and this can be said of a system as a whole or in its components. So, simply because a system exhibits a kind of predictable order at the macro scale doesn't mean there isn't chaos in its guts at the micro scale for example.

>>11605591
>Particles are both spin up and not spin up
>>>/x/

>>11605508
You're assuming there aren't higher dimentions where everything that can and has occurred can be seen at once.
Time exists it's just perceived differently in other dimensions.

>>11617511
Denial of QM belongs on >>>/x/

>>11616910
There are many. It is not completely incompatible with QM as there are effective field theory models, but here are some problems that arise:

1. Quantum gravity as a Quantum Field Theory is Nonrenormalisable, where quantities in QFT that blew up to infinity could usually be neglected with the other fundamental forces, this is not possible with ordinary quantum gravity.

2. Strange behaviour at the planck scale in general relativity. Because of the uncertainty principle, a semiclassical application of general relativity would predict that localising a particle within a planck length would create a black hole, which indicates that the nature of space and time must be different around that scale.

3. The Problem of time. General Relativity reduces time to merely another coordinate, while time in QM has the privileged role of determining the evolution of quantum states.

The biggest conceptual issue seems to be that while the other quantum fields such as electromagnetism are fields DEFINED on spacetime, the field of gravity IS spacetime according to general relativity.

>>11605508
Maybe the only way for the Universe to compute this equation is through the passage of time, sure 1+1=2 is an instant calculation but how long would it take to compute RDR2 on a computer from the 90's.

My theory is that time is a function the universe uses to make things easier to compute when things are hard to process.

Theory: could thid also mean that time moved slower in the beginning of the Universe and will continue to accelerate into the future. Could this be the reason the other galaxy's seem to accelerate the further away they are?

Should I win Nobel Prize for this, keep in mind I made a 19 on the ACT.

>>11618144
particles are not spin up and spin down in QM, you’ve fallen for the popsci memes

>>11619238
(Cont.)
Time = Efficiency at which the universe is running in a relative area.

Time =! Efficiency at which Universe is running at a Objective level.

Thoughts

>>11619276
>>11619238
(Cont.)
Think of the Universe like a film that has certain amount of frames per second. The harder it is to compute the next frame, the longer it will take to compute. But the Universe has the abilty to render muiltiple frames for every single spot in the universe.

Time is effected by gravity. If you were to "see the flow of time" from afar, it would move at various speeds depending on how fast you were going or how much local gravity existed at some location. Time dilation is real.

In this way, time is a direct consequence of causality.

Time is determined, and you can control it by creating large gravity wells or going various speeds.

You can control gravity too, in the same way.

Sorry, but everything is determined.

>>11619276
>>11619291
>>11619238
I apologize for the muiltple posts but maybe the information isn't instant but a function of time itself. Maybe time (objective) is the ultimate underlying factor and information is emergent from it. That through time is the only way for the universe to calculate and that there is no end-point?

OP's post confirms that the Universe is infinite time and that there is no end-point.

>>11605508
I should also add an amazing film to watch on this subject is "Dark" on netflix it starts out slow but it is worth I promise you.

>>11617475
You should use time as it is, but know that your theory, however good it be, won't completely determine reality, because any "mathematical" theory built on logic, doesn't invoke the need for any kind of temporal evolution. We don't invent logic, but merely discover it. It exists whether or not one chooses to discover it, regardless of how "long" they take to discover it. The fundamental facts remain timeless, our universe appears to be in time, therefore our universe can't be completely factual.

>>11618129
Quite the contrary. I assumed God as a 5D being who observes the entire universe as a tea pot on his table. Looking at it from the outside, one has no "information" about what is the current now, for any observer within it. But we as beings residing in 4D space have that information, having more information being a lower dimensional being is at odds with a higher dimensional being because a higher dimension is supposed to encode more information than a lower dimension. A sphere has all possible circles but a circle cannot contain all possible spheres. This is a logical inconsistency that denies a mathematical theory of everything to be written if we are to hold on to our experience of time. One could counter this by saying that time is an illusion but then the burden of proving it so falls upon the claimer.

>>11619245
And are you saying popsci is illegitimate? Maybe you are really retarded. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402001.pdf

>>11619299
Sorry but saying time = causality is a cop out and doesn't really do much explaining but replace one word with another. I'm not interested in word games.

this is basically the achilles paradox but you're too stupid to be concise. You refuted nothing and said nothing new.

>>11619804
Not really no.

>>11619777
>Looking at it from the outside, one has no "information" about what is the current now, for any observer within it. But we as beings residing in 4D space have that information, having more information being a lower dimensional being is at odds with a higher dimensional being because a higher dimension is supposed to encode more information than a lower dimension.
>A sphere has all possible circles but a circle cannot contain all possible spheres.
What if they can decipher all the circles from the sphere because they're used to everything I higher dimensions being that way and more complex?

>>11619787
>I'm not interested in word games.
BUT I WANT TO PLAY SCRABBLE LOL

Time behaves as space, space as time, thus time passes (PBS spacetime)

>>11620107
brains work on a QM level, hus, no paradox: we are quantum pcs

>>11620107
>decipher circles from spheres
that's what we do everyday. That's not the hard part. But this had me thinking about the holographic principle, on how you can encode all the information of a 3D volume in 2D space.

>>11620135
Okay. Tell me if you actually believe that "space" is equivalent to your experience of time. If not, can you tell me how?

>>11620308
I have no idea what he means, but even in relativity time is treated somewhat differently from space. Time has a different sign in the line interval, and without it there would not be a universal speed limit.

>>11620139
>QM

"ABSOLUTELY NO!
Both relativity theory (special as well as general) and quantum field theory have a causality structure built in. This means that information processing takes place along extremely rigorous rules, and these rules include the mechanisms at work inside our brains. What is more, since our brains operate at body temperature (mine does), quantum correlations between nerve cells are washed away by thermal fluctuations, so you may even forget about quantum mechanics when you discuss the mechanisms active inside our brains ..."

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/para.html

>>11619245
Yes, they are. This is not "popsci memes" this is the objective reality of QM and what the formalism of the theory implies.