/sci/ - Science & Math

Time is literally the rate at which things happen, so 'how fast does time go' is a stupid question. Obviously it would be planck time regardless of whether fundamental time exists or some other permutation.

>>15918839
Things happen at a rate of 0 tho, there is no division between one moment and the next

>>15918839
But if it's fundamental,
A->B->C->D->E all happen one after another, your life would start and happen instantly and you would have already lived it.

If it's fundamental, it suggests either all moments happened instantly one after another and you are long dead, or there is a subjective rate to objective time, and that's nonsense.

>typical wolfram talk
"me", "myself" "I did" "I discovered" "I thought

>reality
he hasn't EVER done shit for science

but if you say perfectly still you start racing at the speed of light, through time.
any motion makes for time to "appear"

>>15918838
>Time must be emergent
Emergent of what? Entropy? Does the entropy of a system 6 light years away slow down immediately because you moved faster?

>how fucking fast does it go?
Speed is defined as a function of space and time (S=D/T), what would D be? 1 second? Then its 1s/1s.

>>15918854
>Emergent of what? Entropy?

By it being emergent I only am saying that the past does not stop existing and the future does not start existing. Moments must exist in a higher structure, somehow causally connected, but eternal.

You are talking about THE ARROW of time emerging from entropy.
No, because Gravity follows an arrow of time and doesn't change in systems that have a locally reversed entropy.
So scientist who say that the arrow of time emerges from entropy are also, in fact, huge faggots.

I don't have much time, anyone else has any questions for an actual genius who visited this board?

I don't know shit about what Wolfram is doing, but if he believes that spacetime and all of physics emerges from an iterated hypergraph, perhaps his concept of "fundamental time" means something different to the "time" in "spacetime". Is OP perhaps screeching about nothing?

>>15918862
He could mean that there is simply no further physics beyond the causal connection is his hypergraph, but that "ruliad" is still ethernal...
Oh well, he still LOOKS LIKE A FAGGOOOOOOOOT! WHOOOO! UP TOP ANON.

>>15918900
>ruliad
does this really help anyone achieve any insights in physics or is it michio kaku tier waste of time?

>>15918920
I've seen collectively maybe 5 hrs of interviews with him, and the short answer is: waste of time.
Some insights the guy has on entropy being actually connected to computational limitations of humans and other stuff like that are very interesting. But if his theory provided something useful, you'd know by now.
So far he just claims that stuff that resembles real physics magically emerges from his calculations. So string theory all over, until it's proven otherwise.

>>15918838
That's not how change and multiverse work.

>>15918964
Some of the thread is jokes and trolling.
On the multiverse part, please actually elaborate.

>>15918838
emergent time doesn't imply the multiverse, but it does imply determinism. the future already being decided. wolfram rejects determinism for no good reason.

>>15918838
>how fucking fast does it go?
At a rate of 1 second per second

>>15918838
>He's wrong because it makes no sense to me
>It has to be emergent because... it just has to be okay??
Cool argument.

At the speed of light, which is about this fast:
wwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I believe time is fundamental and not emergent. I don't have any kind of fondness for Mr Wolfram either. It does have one dependency, which is that existence exists, but if existence exists then time exists, otherwise existence could not progress. So time doesn't emerge, it's just there from the start

An analogy is a movie playing on a television. When you press play on the VCR the movie starts progressing. The time in this case is not what you are experiencing, but it's what the people inside the movie are experiencing. If you slow the movie down by half then you see it going half speed but the people in the movie don't perceive any change because their perception is also slowed down by half. If you pause the movie that is like time freezing. If you take the movie out of the VCR that's like existence being turned off. The "present" for the people in the movie is just what's being shown on your TV at any point, the past being the part of the movie the people in the movie have experienced and the future is the part they haven't yet been through. In this analogy, you as the viewer are almost like God, outside of time, experiencing your own kind of timeline independent of the the timeline the people in the movie are experiencing

>>15919116
Well said

>>15918838
Imagine believing spacetime is relative.
Fucking retard apes.

>>15918838
>>15918964
Again, if the quantum multiverse is real, why wouldn't it be the case that universes without quantum theory exists? In some universes, these quantum experiments just had the WRONG statistical outcome. Like winning some anti-lottery.
Why would I not spontaneously teleport to mars through quantum tunneling on some other universes?

>>15919029
>>15919045
wow, incredible amount of cretins in this thread.
Time flowing is a perception. If time was fundamental, the "time distance" between events does not matter.
You have a movie with many frames. Emergent time implies those frames just exist. Fundamental time implies someone plays those frames. HOW FAST WOULD YOU PLAY THAT MOVIE AND HOW WOULD THAT MAKE ANY SENSE WITHOUT OBSERVER?

Fucking morons.

>>15920697
>"it just is, okay???" argument
>others are cretins
Sure thing, buddy. Your guy feeling bears no merit, no matter how large your guts are.

>>15918838
>If time was fundamental and "the present" was a real thing, than (sic) the universe would have to start and end instantly, because the rate of time is a sensation humans have.
If it were just a sensation humans have, that would make it emergent rather than fundamental.

>>15918845
>A->B->C->D->E all happen one after another, your life would start and happen instantly and you would have already lived it.
No, if it happened instantly, it would just be A, there would be no progression.

>>15918838
>here's my theory of everything bro
>*no math included*
Tooker was a better physicist then this dude

>>15918838
Some of the dumbest logical jumps ever

>>15920697
>Time flowing is a perception.
Source?
>If time was fundamental, the "time distance" between events does not matter.
Why?
>You have a movie with many frames. Emergent time implies those frames just exist. Fundamental time implies someone plays those frames.
How?
>cretins
Yeah, all of them are (you).

>>15920965
He has the maths, just not publishing sorry lol

>>15920697
>HOW WOULD THAT MAKE ANY SENSE WITHOUT OBSERVER
Where are you coming up with the idea that there isn't an observer?

>>15921019
>>Time flowing is a perception.
>Source?
>>15921019
>>Time flowing is a perception.
>Source?
Lmao. Get anesthetics for surgery. Time travel post surgery. Move fast. Others seem to move slow. Take psychedelics. Walk great distance with few steps. Wait for dentist. Seconds are slower than inclined to count. Hurry to next appointed. Seconds are faster than inclined to count. No subject is entitled to a third person view. You're not a god. You can't observe objective time. Even a god outside the universe is a subject. These billions of years before you were born? You can't objectively know how fast or slow these events happened other than projecting your current experience. NTA btw.

>>15918838
>fundamental time makes no sense
How does fundamental time make no sense?

>>15918838
>There is an even smaller fraction of universes, where earth just randomly froze, because the nuclear fusion in the sun just stopped happening in most of it's atoms, by random chance.
None of this is true. The many worlds itnerpretation of QM does not imply that any conceivable universe exists. What it actually says is that QM is probabilistic, so given any configuration of a system, there are multiple distinct way that system could evolve through time, in a manner consistent with the probability distributions of the particle in the system. Hence, given any set of inital conditions for some quantum system, there are multiple ways that set of initial conditions can evolve through time. The many worlds interpretation implies that given an initial configuration of the universe, any potential future state of the system that consistent with the initial configuration and the laws of QM will arise in some other universe. It does not imply that everything exists in some universe or that anything you can imagine in true is some other universe. Every possible quantum mechanical outcome consistent with the laws of physics and the initial configuration of the system will hold in some universe. That does not imply that anything you can imagine is real in some other universe. Ir you're retarded soi boy pop sci fantasies are not compatible with the initial configuration of the universe, then they are not predicted by the many world interpretation.

Also the shit you said about emergence and fundamental reality are non-sequiters. You should take an into phil of science class because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about either in terms of philosophy or physics.

>>15918838
For OP it is rope time.

about 1 second per second

>>15921311
The good stuff

>>15921115
That's not time you're describing, schizo. This board really became utter shit.

>>15921115
That's your perception of time retard, it does not have anything to do with the verbal concept of objective time which isn't probably even in the realm of science or epistemology, its almost a religious belief at this point. There's really no way to distinguish btn emergence and fundamental as you so desperately try to put it.

>>15918838
If he came to my same conclusions, then this "fundamental time" is simply the evolution of states, an accumulation of steps.
It's not what we would consider as "time" but is what causes "time" to flow.

The problem with finding a better model is that the universe appear to have more than just one layer.
Wolfram at least is making an effort unlike others who just keep jerking each others off.

Even Gary's excel spreadshits are a step in the right direction. Of course the universe is not organized in uniform cells, and the evolution of the lattice is the most crippling lack in those simulations.
More likely every single cell of the automata running reality is interconnected, and acting as a circuit. This is necessary to reproduce properties like the speed of light meaning different distances, and time slowing down the more denser matter is in a localized space.

But I can't figure out which rules would govern the lattice evolution... and even that would likely be incomplete.

There are theories like "morphogenetic fields" that appear to be retarded nonsense, but if you dig deeper you realize you can't discard them with certainty.
For what we know, whatever intelligence is behind our creation, they might have rigged multiverses to self-generate randomness in a way that promotes certain feedbacks.

>how fast does time go
one second per second
>the universe has to start and end instantly
there's no time in that instant moron, you still have seconds left to second, and as seconds pass at one second per second and we have many more seconds remaining to second, there will be additional seconds until the end.
>it has to be emergent
you're a moron
>by deduction
from your words one can only deduce that you are a moron