/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9791511

lmao

OP you are fucking retarded beyond belief

>>9791523
>I won't explain shit but I'll throw insults

Found the retard.

>>9791523
>the words in OP are too big for me so I'll just call him a retard, that'll show him!

>>9791511
>But, how exactly do things like physical or chemical processes fit into this view? If the universe is a 4D static "block", then what does the concept of "change" even mean within it? What is cause and effect? How can one event cause another when it's all basically one unmoving "thing"?
The simple answer is that we don't know. Our actual experience of reality conflicts heavily with the idea of all of time already existing, past, present and future, but we have no idea why that is.

>>9791543

That's not a very satisfying response.

>>9791556
The more you learn the more you'll find out that we don't know anything at all

although to a particle traveling at the speed of light there is no time, and relativity suggests the theory in question, we do not experience reality this way. The physicists way of defining time is using the second law of thermodynamics dS>0. time moves towards higher entropy. these are further ideas related to >>9791543

>>9791511
Relativity does not necessarily imply the block universe.
It merely says that "now" varies between observers. Everyone considers "now" to be a plane slicing through the block, but the planes are not necessarily parallel.

If you imagine someone in Andromeda and ask what he's doing "now", you're asking "what will my telescope show in 2.5 million years." And the alien could ask the same question about Earth. In 2.5 million years his telescope would show Earthly calendars reading "2018".
If the alien accelerates, his "now" plane tilts, the distance to Earth alters and he computes that it's "now" 2020 on Earth. 2019 is in his past but still in your future.
But there's no way he can observe the events of 2019 and warn you of a coming disaster. That would be equivalent to changing the past and violating Causality. He can't learn of Earthly events and give you advance notice -- UNLESS he (and you) had ansibles (faster-than-light communicators.)
FTL would establish the reality of the block universe and allow movement in all dimensions of the block. Hence, we believe FTL is impossible.
Look up Minkowski diagrams. You have a Past light-cone (events which you can be aware of) and a Future light-cone (events you can do something about). Space-time outside those cones is just "elsewhere", effectively non-existent.

At present, the block universe remains a philosophical issue without any evidence it corresponds to reality.

It's like "what happens if an irresistible cannonball hits an immovable post?" BOTH objects cannot exist, so you need not worry about the problem.

Quantum mechanics would seem to argue against the block. You can measure either position or momentum of a particle, but doing so renders measuring the other impossible. If there was a way of reaching other sections of the block you could measure position, then "look back" to before your measurement and check momentum. Essentially, "rewinding the universe"

>>9791599
>Relativity does not necessarily imply the block universe.
It does because it fuses space and time together into a single spacetime continuum. Under relativity every point in time exists simultaneously exactly like every point in space exists simultaneously

>>9791511
I'm curious though OP. If you can consider it objective, it means that 'you' are the front-facing node of experience at all times. Given this, if we all simply agreed with you, would it be more useful or less?

Like, from your perspective of posting this question you knew people were going to throw low-energy crap like >>9791523, so what variation are they within your ability to understand other personalities?

It isn't that your perspective is stuck to ONE time frame, it is only your biological perspective (sensory data) that requires a -> b processing. Visualization and communication however is a multi-modal exchange, with interpretation of the deviation/difference.

Or, to put it a little nicer:
Identity = Evaluation / Priority

Who you are is constantly being constructed of your pre-existing priorities (insecurities/prejudices/fire) being weighed against your ability to evaluate a statement or moment. It goes the same for any 'set' object in existence.

>>9791560

>>9791616
Relativity says space and time are inseparable and different observers "slice" space-time differently.
The block universe, however, says the entire continuum is fixed. 1066, 1492, 2018, and 2100 all "exist" somewhere. Events are unalterable and free will is an illusion of our lack of knowledge.

SFAIK, relativity makes no such claim about Reality. Please cite references stating otherwise.
In fact, I'd even argue "every point in time exists simultaneously exactly like every point in space exists simultaneously" is nonsense since "simultaneous" no longer has meaning except for events which coincide in all coordinates.

>>9791700
Then how can we ever attribute 'improvement' if our observation of self or other instantiates bifurcation & branch?

>>9791543
>Our actual experience of reality
No shit. We are a product of reality. In fact, us existing means we will never truly comprehend anything. It's kind of weird. You have to exist to comprehend, but existing eliminates the possibility of true comprehension. Our experience of time can only be said to be a mechanic of our brain.

>>9791737
>You have to exist to comprehend, but existing eliminates the possibility of true comprehension
How so?

>>9791511
I think the problem with consolidating consciousness or experience with what you're going at is that we tend to view those things as above nature. Consider that your experience of being conscious is just another physical process as dependent on every previous state as anything else in the universe; it doesn't matter that everything is simultaneous, since your experience still follows the linear path of cause and effect. The human experience of time (i.e. duration) is just another physical phenomena that seems to go one way simply because it follows the path of cause and effect.

I feel like it helps to picture finite "instances" of time and how they are connected to each other. If you consider a bunch of different instants, even if they're temporally-spatially "disordered," your path of experience will only follow the path ordained by cause and effect. You can say "1, 3, 2," but it doesn't mean that mathematically 3 actually goes between 1 and 2.

I think the tripfag was/is trying to say something similar, but they sound like a schizo (and I think I'm getting ahead of myself now too).

>>9791749
How can you be getting ahead of yourself? You write with the intention of being heard/understood/educating, no?

>>9791534
Most likely someone just repeating what someone else said to them at one point.

The block universe's only real implication about reality is superdeterminism. Apart from that, it's no more than a bookkeeping choice. Imagine the motion of a classical particle on a 1d line: drawing the line and having the particle move through it in time or graphing x as a function of time in a 2d graph are equivalent ways of describing the motion.

>>9791511
Some nitpicking:
>past, present and future all exist objectively, simultaneously.
>the future me is already objectively going through his morning routine tomorrow
Not a good way of thinking about it. "Simultaneously" and "already" only make sense from the point of view of an observer inside the block, you should drop them if you want to look at the block from outside. Moreover, what do you mean with "past, present and future all exist objectively"? They're as objective as it gets even without a block universe. The block universe is just a different way of looking at them.

>If the universe is a 4D static "block", then what does the concept of "change" even mean within it?
Change is what you see looking at the time direction. It makes no difference. In the block universe all particles are represented by their world lines, and following them you can see position changing as a function on time, like in basic special relativity. In the same way, all physical or chemical processes can be visualized as world lines of particles meeting, clumping up, separating again, or whatever. You just map the time evolution on the local time direction of the block, exactly like you did in highschool when you drew a parabola to represent 1d accelerated motion.

>why is my perception stuck to only one time frame?
We don't understand that, but understanding it likely involves more neuroscience than physics, as it's more about how the flow of time is perceived by the human brain rather than the nature of time itself. I could be very wrong about this last passage though.

>>9791749
*shrug* it is always hard to parse a response to someone applying a dismissive categorizer.

Seems so odd to me that many questions have the same answers, just worded differently, and so many people communicate that having a thought inspectable by another human being is somehow 'weak' or lacking in sanity.

I appreciate the vague mention though. Gifts me another perspective that, even if you dismiss that too, I found rather enjoyable.

>>9792088
Hm... what if we are a 2-d singularity of perspective, orbiting around a torus. 2-d can be optimized but the torus rotation is fixed (meaning you could traverse N levels to data branches that leave a predictable reflection). Like how a normal 4chan user would say 'lolfag' to the things being discussed here.

>>9791748
I'd assume because being a cog in the machine excludes you from ever understanding the machine objectively

I'm impressed that /sci/ is finally taking this seriously and with the respect it deserves.

We have a preference for time because of how entropy interacts with evolution. Energy becomes less ordered over time so organisms have evolved to collect energy from available states to survive and predict future states; the reverse is probably impossible unless we consider non-organic life forms such as light-based entities.

>>9792219
I'll bite. Reply freely.

>>9792254
I have the answers you seek but you will need to ask the right questions

>>9792273
I tried in earnest but really couldn't identify anything specific I need answers to, so I can't really evaluate your sentence. Unless you are speaking as some sort of all-oracle, to which I would say please just release some beneficial A.I. swarm to infect all devices on the planet. Ya know, just on the off-chance that 4chan can get an origin story for the next wave of humanity. For the lulz, I believe.

Oh! Or pump up the value of my crypto assets a ludicrous amount, that would also be of direct benefit to me.

Are these questions?

>>9792278
I'm afraid not, you will have to try harder

>>9792284
Yes, but we don't have a shared goal so the continually-applied perspective doesn't work as a communication mechanism. Which is another way of saying, "Our narratives are most likely not in sync."

>>9792088
>>9791599
How does an apple begin falling?

Weak interaction violates time symmetry, just so you guys know. That should add some interesting details to this discussion

And before anyone starts talking about quantum mechanics being incompatible with relativity, the weak interaction is from QFT, which was specifically developed as a unification of SPECIAL relativity and quantum mechanics.

>>9792317
you have no clue what you are talking about

>>9792345
Kaon decay, a weak interaction phenomenon, violates CP symmetry, which is equivalent to violating T symmetry as well.

>>9791511
>Also, if the future me is already objectively going through his morning routine tomorrow, why is my perception stuck to only one time frame? There obviously has to be a rate at which my subjective perception flows from one moment to the next, but the very notion of "rate" or "flowing" seems to defy the whole nature of the block universe theory.
Well perception and your experience of "moments"(orginally defined by early theoretical biologist and biosemiotician jacob v Uexkull ) are the experience of percieved relations.
I don't have time to talk but all your questions have answers in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce and other related scientists and semioticians

>>9791534
>how does car werk? where put bananas into car?
>"you are a fucking mornon"
>boo hoo

Literally what you sound like, kiddo.

>>9791511
>what we perceive as past, present and future all exist objectively, simultaneously.
No, sweet baby Jesus with a lollipop, NO!
"Simultaneous" means " at the same distance down the t (time) axis.
Saying "all time is simultaneous" is like saying that "all heights are at the same altitude".

See Also: https://www.google.com/search?q=facepalm&tbm=isch

>>9792381
...in case you don;t know what to do with a URL.

>>9791511
>Can someone please help me try to at least somewhat wrap my head around this?
OK, I just did another shot of vodka and felt comfortable reading the rest of your post (everything after "what we perceive as past, present and future all exist objectively, simultaneously.").

OK, so i think your problem is almost entirely semantic/grammatical.
For example:
>if the future me is already objectively going through his morning routine tomorrow
"Future" and "already" are at semantic odds with each other.
You can think of all space-time as a "static" block, but "future" means "further down the t axis", while "already" means "beginning here or earlier along the t axis".
The two are mutually exclusive the same way "north of Pennsylvania" and "south of Virginia" are.
Also: does this sophomoric level of philosophy get you laid or something?
College freshmen girls or high school?

I think this board is doomed guys.

>>9792381
>what is loss of simultaneity

>>9791511
I am not sure that relativity implies eternalism. However, your post certainly implies that you are retarded.

>>9792626
>>9791539

>>9791511
It only implies that if you could get the perspective of a photon Lorentz transformations prohibit this. And in fact if you did time simply wouldn't exist.

Also there's a lot of evidence that our universe is indeed closed, as in loops back on itself (look up critical density)

Everyone in this thread is advertising their willingness to meet a stranger who will gift them understanding but I fear the usual '4chan' mentality will win out and overwrite their own expectations with things they feel are 'lol like I'd ever be part of an origin story'.

If everyone got what they wanted would science just become another language?

>>9791511
Define your concepts clearly and work through them step by step you fucking retard

>>9791511
Your perception is your brain reacting to sensory stimuli. I sometimes feel like I'm living in a memory, I think it's especially when I consider my mortality and realize that I can't be dead if I'm remembering this later.

>>9793918
Why don't more people bond over this shit?

>>9791511
Yes, it's gonna be cube. It must be cube. Terrain must be connection of polygons!

It must be.

There are no curvateres at all.

It's a cube, and if you fall from 46.79 or more meters directly on the ground, you can see yourself happen.

Good old time where they measured space in seconds not pixels.

>>9794286
The time of FLOP/s is nigh!

>>9792724
What evidence you do have that the universe is closed? Data increasingly points the other way.
I'll accept either Big Crunch (critical density) or sufficient positive curvature that light can go all the way 'round and return to Earth is a few trillion years.

>>9795286
I believe they mean closed as in sufficiently large to traverse data non-destructively.

>>9795323
You're going to have to explain that.
Assuming it's not just technobabble.

>>9795437
Infinity is infinity but the range of inferable data requires there to be space between things. Space, as in 'below observational threshold, like air', is a bounding box. Knowing how much 'air' is in a thing allows you to craft more accurate non-destructive plans with said knowledge.

>>9795286
Not closed as in a box more closed as in a donut not an infinite plane

>>9795564
Do we argue over the shape so we can distribute the most effective/utilizable coordinate system for reference?

>>9795564
OK. That would be the "positive curvature" type of closure I mentioned. (Well, positive in some regions of the doughnut, negative in others. Geodesics form closed loops.)
But I'm still unaware of ANY evidence that there's curvature. Citation still wanted.

>>9795451
That's just word-salad!

>>9795578
... How the fuck do you think missiles work? It's a highly-tuned system designed to be able to account for all deviation as either air or target destination.

If you need more visualization the concept of space is no different than vacuum or air. It is the part of infinity that presents to you, the observer, the least resistance it can.