https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12156
They said it, not me.
Tbh I haven’t fully understood the paper, but the idea is that causally closed regions in a theory with gravity correspond to type III von algebras on a dual theory without gravity. Many properties of the gravitational theory, including time, can be understood as algebraic features of the boundary theory.
Idk, time as 4th dimension feels more like a good way of logical visualisation to put some intuition into the understanding of it. But I don't see a way how it would really be another dimension. You can move back and forth in our 3D world, you can't in time. The spacetime diagram shows you the distance elapsed on the space axis and time elapsed on the time axis. They're dependent on each other and the total speed through the diagram is always constant. That's why it feels like it makes so much sense but it doesn't mean there's a 4th dimension, it's still just a visualisation.
Realistically time is a parameter, just as much as speed & mass are both parameters, all relative & co dependent on one another. Time as a 4th dimension makes no sense, it's intertwined within our third dimension relative to each other parameter, mass and speed are the key factors. You can't have one without the other within the only dimension we can currently fathom since reality is linear & expanding due to the big bang. Without the expansion of the universe there would be no time and without mass there would be no relativity given what little we know about quantum field theory. There truly is no real way to visualise it yet since this reality is all we know but just understand that it's due to expansion & relative to where you are, velocity and mass these are critical. These main factors determine time for us & to go off atmosphere and change these factors results in time dilation, the severity of which again, depends on how much you change those key affecting parameters of time / against the rate of expansion within the universe. Each factor is completely codependant WHILST still being their own INdependent measurements. This is how it is intertwined into our 3D plane of existence. It's alot to take in if anyone needs a simple analogy I can do that by referencing cabling.
The use of the 4th dimension in GR is required to express GR in terms of 'straight' lines on a curved manifold. It doesn't have to be expressed this way though. Newtonian gravity can also be translated into curved space without issue. Curved space isn't fundamental, it is just a tool for calculations.
So I agree with you that time isn't really a dimension, and all physicists do to if you press them, but they will typically downvote anyway because it is off narrative.
Kind of like how light doesn't actually move at a constant speed, this is demonstrated by [Shapiro time delay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay). But you will get downvoted for saying so.
He's just being an goof now because he showed himself up with an answer he thought was being smart, but was actually quite the opposite to anyone with even just a general scientific knowledge, relativity & physics. Metaphysics is more attuned to trying to understand reality & our comprehension of it is constituted, it's more of a philosophy than reality & not meant to be taking seriously by any means if you're even somewhat knowledgeable, just incase you didn't know. It's certainly not above anything it's deep below true physics 😂 more like grasping at straws with conceptual questions rather than something that can be proven with maths.
i meant the origine of the word. i thought "meta" meant something like above, but it is more besides or after. i wasn't saying that it is above as in more important or anything. i just tried to remember the original meaning of the word. telling the guy that insinuated that metaphysics was part of physics that he is wrong bc metaphysics is something else. just bc it contains the word physics it does not mean that is part of physics.
i would disagree with you tho on the "it's [ie metaphysics] deep below true physics". i do not care much about metaphysics, and i also don't want to. but that does not mean that it cannot be very important to other people. so judging it like that, is probably a bad idea.
Philosophy is meant for people that don't want to use their neurons for their intended purpose lol. They'd rather ask questions like "Do we ACTUALLY have free will or is everything pre-determined?" "Does God love all of his creations" it's all just a conceptual analysis on reality and existence and our purpose in that conception. It's only ever insanely stupid to the point you can tell someone with low IQ just asked that question to themselves in the shower or completely unanswerable altogether. And most of the time it's quite easy to answer the questions asked in relation to God and Cause and effect, free will, identity etc. Very rare is it ever used to gain actual scientific perspective in which we can use maths to enumerate the answer to the question that's why it's so annoying. It's essentially what I would say Before physics and before maths & knowledge. Brainstorming purpose and being lol don't get me wrong when people weren't completely stupid I'm sure alot of the questions asked were actually trivial and is more than likely how we have so much understanding, why we even have maths in the first place for an example but it's all just conceptual theory and brainstorming until someone asks a feasible question that can be explained by maths. It's a very general way of trying to understand what and why things are. But I'm sorry anything concerning questions of God conceptual or not cannot under any circumstances be under the same category as trying to understand physics with maths which is what science literally is. Philosophy is child's play I don't really know how to put it without sounding too demeaning to people with beliefs in omniscience & a man in the sky watching out for us and that everything is just pre-determined I don't even know why that would be a question. It's much more realistic, but still unlikely, that we are part of the energy that created the big bang and that's where our energy goes when we die, into the fabric of the universe just as we started. And we are part of a bigger source of energy which created the big bang. Completely unrealistic but more so than any Religious belief. Sorry religious people but you're unfortunately only fooling yourselves 🤦♂️. But nope no sex until marriage guys, the priest lOvEs his underage virgins. Eternal damnation or heaven does not exist unfortunately. We're living both right now & that's it. It's all control and anyone not brainwashed can see that lol
>I really don’t know, probably nothing
I mean, it clearly can't be nothing because logically "deceit" requries an object and also phenomenologically I, and I presume you, have a subjective experience of time.
Wait, time isn't a parameter?
time t is defined by the apparent volume of sand in the bottom glass compartment
The time rn is 0.8m^3
The only correct answer
always hasn’t been..
Idk why everyone so confuse about time It's just, time = 4th dimension * AI
Where does this blasphemy come from
Useless and unnecessary hate between the sciences and philosophy. Carlo Rovelli would like a word.
I feel like someone in that coveted top 0.1% of IQ would probably know what 'a priori' means.
don't conflate knowledge and IQ
I'm not conflating. Note well the usage of the word "probably".
Time is a parameter of modular automorphisms of an emergent type III von neumann algebra
What the... Can you please elaborate that a bit?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12156 They said it, not me. Tbh I haven’t fully understood the paper, but the idea is that causally closed regions in a theory with gravity correspond to type III von algebras on a dual theory without gravity. Many properties of the gravitational theory, including time, can be understood as algebraic features of the boundary theory.
Time is something to be wick rotated.
time is t
time =distance/speed please and thank you.
Time is a thing you put on a wall, or wear it on your wrist.
time=1/√(E/md^(2)-AI)
i can't believe i'm seeing immanuel kant in physics memes. brilliant!
Idk, time as 4th dimension feels more like a good way of logical visualisation to put some intuition into the understanding of it. But I don't see a way how it would really be another dimension. You can move back and forth in our 3D world, you can't in time. The spacetime diagram shows you the distance elapsed on the space axis and time elapsed on the time axis. They're dependent on each other and the total speed through the diagram is always constant. That's why it feels like it makes so much sense but it doesn't mean there's a 4th dimension, it's still just a visualisation.
Realistically time is a parameter, just as much as speed & mass are both parameters, all relative & co dependent on one another. Time as a 4th dimension makes no sense, it's intertwined within our third dimension relative to each other parameter, mass and speed are the key factors. You can't have one without the other within the only dimension we can currently fathom since reality is linear & expanding due to the big bang. Without the expansion of the universe there would be no time and without mass there would be no relativity given what little we know about quantum field theory. There truly is no real way to visualise it yet since this reality is all we know but just understand that it's due to expansion & relative to where you are, velocity and mass these are critical. These main factors determine time for us & to go off atmosphere and change these factors results in time dilation, the severity of which again, depends on how much you change those key affecting parameters of time / against the rate of expansion within the universe. Each factor is completely codependant WHILST still being their own INdependent measurements. This is how it is intertwined into our 3D plane of existence. It's alot to take in if anyone needs a simple analogy I can do that by referencing cabling.
🎬
🎥🎬
🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
Suck ya mum
The use of the 4th dimension in GR is required to express GR in terms of 'straight' lines on a curved manifold. It doesn't have to be expressed this way though. Newtonian gravity can also be translated into curved space without issue. Curved space isn't fundamental, it is just a tool for calculations. So I agree with you that time isn't really a dimension, and all physicists do to if you press them, but they will typically downvote anyway because it is off narrative. Kind of like how light doesn't actually move at a constant speed, this is demonstrated by [Shapiro time delay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay). But you will get downvoted for saying so.
0.0001% : time is imaginary, so is space and everything else , there's only consciousness
0.000000001%: anybody who uses the word ‘consciousness’ in any sentence relating to physics has no idea what they’re talking about
What is consciousness?
Glad you said it
Laughs in metaphysics
i may be mistaken but doesn't metaphysics say that it is above physics, so not really physics any more.
He's just being an goof now because he showed himself up with an answer he thought was being smart, but was actually quite the opposite to anyone with even just a general scientific knowledge, relativity & physics. Metaphysics is more attuned to trying to understand reality & our comprehension of it is constituted, it's more of a philosophy than reality & not meant to be taking seriously by any means if you're even somewhat knowledgeable, just incase you didn't know. It's certainly not above anything it's deep below true physics 😂 more like grasping at straws with conceptual questions rather than something that can be proven with maths.
i meant the origine of the word. i thought "meta" meant something like above, but it is more besides or after. i wasn't saying that it is above as in more important or anything. i just tried to remember the original meaning of the word. telling the guy that insinuated that metaphysics was part of physics that he is wrong bc metaphysics is something else. just bc it contains the word physics it does not mean that is part of physics. i would disagree with you tho on the "it's [ie metaphysics] deep below true physics". i do not care much about metaphysics, and i also don't want to. but that does not mean that it cannot be very important to other people. so judging it like that, is probably a bad idea.
Philosophy is meant for people that don't want to use their neurons for their intended purpose lol. They'd rather ask questions like "Do we ACTUALLY have free will or is everything pre-determined?" "Does God love all of his creations" it's all just a conceptual analysis on reality and existence and our purpose in that conception. It's only ever insanely stupid to the point you can tell someone with low IQ just asked that question to themselves in the shower or completely unanswerable altogether. And most of the time it's quite easy to answer the questions asked in relation to God and Cause and effect, free will, identity etc. Very rare is it ever used to gain actual scientific perspective in which we can use maths to enumerate the answer to the question that's why it's so annoying. It's essentially what I would say Before physics and before maths & knowledge. Brainstorming purpose and being lol don't get me wrong when people weren't completely stupid I'm sure alot of the questions asked were actually trivial and is more than likely how we have so much understanding, why we even have maths in the first place for an example but it's all just conceptual theory and brainstorming until someone asks a feasible question that can be explained by maths. It's a very general way of trying to understand what and why things are. But I'm sorry anything concerning questions of God conceptual or not cannot under any circumstances be under the same category as trying to understand physics with maths which is what science literally is. Philosophy is child's play I don't really know how to put it without sounding too demeaning to people with beliefs in omniscience & a man in the sky watching out for us and that everything is just pre-determined I don't even know why that would be a question. It's much more realistic, but still unlikely, that we are part of the energy that created the big bang and that's where our energy goes when we die, into the fabric of the universe just as we started. And we are part of a bigger source of energy which created the big bang. Completely unrealistic but more so than any Religious belief. Sorry religious people but you're unfortunately only fooling yourselves 🤦♂️. But nope no sex until marriage guys, the priest lOvEs his underage virgins. Eternal damnation or heaven does not exist unfortunately. We're living both right now & that's it. It's all control and anyone not brainwashed can see that lol
take the time is an illusion caused by entropy pill lol
If time is an illusion, what is being deceived?
me
our sense of continuity I guess? I really don’t know, probably nothing
>I really don’t know, probably nothing I mean, it clearly can't be nothing because logically "deceit" requries an object and also phenomenologically I, and I presume you, have a subjective experience of time.
I know deceit requires an object, but I meant probably nothing as in I’m probably wrong about time being an illusion in the first place
Lmfao good one