• palordrolap@fedia.io
    37·
    1 month ago

    All five dimensions (three space, one time, one probability) exist as a solid unchanging block, an enormous, incomprehensible overarching solution to some equally enormous, incomprehensible mathematical equation.

    And if you look at it from one particular direction it almost certainly looks like forty-two.

  • faythofdragons@slrpnk.netEnglish
    12·
    1 month ago

    inhales

    Time is a metaphor, a human construct that we’ve devised to explain how the quantum entanglements affect us. It’s like how we use color as a way to describe how we sense a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with our optical organs. Neither time nor color are “real” in the sense that you can find a physical atom of it, but still useful language to describe how we interact with the world around us.

    • MunkyNutts@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      Reminds me of Hawking’s quote, never read the book so might be out of context, but I remember hearing it and thinking

      This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. But according to the approach I described in Chapter 1, a scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds. So it is meaningless to ask: which is real, “real” or “imaginary” time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description. ― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    5·
    1 month ago

    This sounds like an idea called “eternalism” or “block time”. I tend to suspect it might be the case just because it requires assuming fewer unique properties for the time dimension that aren’t shared by space dimensions, but obviously that’s not really evidence for it as such. It can be an interesting idea to think through the implications of though, whether true or not.

    • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1·
      1 month ago

      I really tried to understand how people obviously a lot more intelligent than I am actually believe this kind is stuff. It really breaks down for me when claims are made that past, present (debated now), and more specifically future is different based on the observer. Like yeah, it takes time for signals to travel, that in no way means something that hasn’t happened already has. We can observe things in the past, we can’t observe anything in the future. There’s no evidence that anything can be viewed in the future, it doesn’t make any practical sense to me.

  • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
    5·
    1 month ago

    It’s a 5 dimensional crystal, our experience is simply the refracted result of all matter/energy in the universe swirling about like water through a stream…

    So we can all feel validated in our disappointment that our experience frequently feels like mild constipation while trying to figure out which, if any, of the yogurts offers decent nutrition and probiotics at an affordable price because your body f’n hates lettuce, which your friend tells you the doctor will tell you to eat more of and you should go see the doctor, but doctors are expensive and your insurance is a confusing pile of long-ass 20 page letters containing word salad drenched in legalese, each one telling you you are no-longer with this group, but now you are with that group and you don’t even know where your doctor’s office is anymore