Einstein's view of time.

File: 1499603483128.jpg (106KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 640x640px

>>9128037

There is no such thing as time brainlet.
Where is it? Can you touch it? No exactly.
Einstein stole all his work. Your living in a simulation, nothing is real. GET IT. Educate yourself.

>>9128042
>2010 ± 10
>not understanding time

time is a 4D object, we live in an infinitesimal "slice" of this 4D object (dt) and we call it present.

>>9128048
so the future already exists?

>>9128050
Not necessarily.
But this is borderline philosophy.

There are many theories, some propose a deterministic universe, where everything is defined from start to end (including this post).

In others, there is some uncertainty which allows for many possible futures.

I, (many find it laughable, and its understandable), believe in the many worlds interpretation, and I want to dedicate the rest of my life to try to prove it.

In this theory, everything that can physically happen actually happens (think Schrödinger's cat)

>>9128058
Let me ask you another question. Is presentism completely rejected by modern physics?

>>9128060
There is no consensus.
If the universe is deterministic, the past doesn't matter, neither does the present.
The outcome is fixed.

If you believe in free will, the actions of the past affect the future.

MWI is a deterministic model, but to us it seems like we can actually alter the future (and we do, in our timeline).

>>9128069
Many world view essentially just takes the most obvious interpretation of the math?

>>9128050
in GR, yes

When GR and QM finally merge though,
GR will probably be the one that will give in more than QM. This might change the 'future existing already' hypothesis.

https://youtu.be/MO_Q_f1WgQI?t=5m

>>9128048
>time is a 4D object,
What the fuck? No, no it's not. Time is a single dimension unless you're getting all timecube up in here.

>>9128073
MW is kind of a leap, really. It's quite a big point of contention, really. String theory is way more mathematical, but it's also kind of unverifiable in ways, so who knows.

>>9128073
No, there are many models that are mathematically viable some more simple.

It's based on this paper.
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf

>>9128079
GR doesn't imply future existing any more than anything else. If we're moving through time/progressing, then "future already exists"

>>9128083
>moving through time
maybe time grows like a crystal, and the future is probabilistic fuzzy mush, like a lot of other things in QM.

Physicists still use Einstein's idea of a transitive orthogonally timelike hypersurface to describe surfaces of both constant proper time and surfaces of constant absolute time.

>>9128191
This is the formal way of saying "yes, they do".

The problem is getting the standard model and QM to agree.

File: The_Living_God.png (550KB, 480x800px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 480x800px

>>9128209
I don't think that'a problem anymore since I solved it though

File: no-time.gif (12KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x480px

I don't think time exists. There are just interactions. "Order of operations" or how should I put it.

Like when you make a computer program, you just list commands. A chain of causes and effects.

But because our brain (and therefore our consciousness) exists in the universe and is a part of the chain we don't see everything happening all at once (stuff happens taking turns). Other animals probably see time a bit differently from us.

Think of those old computer games where "time" was simply due to the slowness of the CPU to run the instructions. Modern faster PCs can't really play those games without hacks because the games run way too fast (you press forward for half a second and the game character already hits some wall a mile away). If our brain was simulated inside the PC/game and not outside, there would be no difference and we could play them just fine.

"Spooky action from a distance" is probably just the universe's synchronizer and that's why some distant galaxy doesn't run its "code" out of sync with our galaxy.

>>9128087
Doesn't crystal analogy imply that past is immune to entropy? Unless it is constantly eroding.

>>9129812
I like this theory. Actually screenshot so I can ponder on it later

>>9129812
you do believe in time you just define it again and pretend it's totally different to feel special