I hold that any transition is relative to an observer. If you posit transitions that are elementary, as Newton did, you need absolute time.
-
-
You can insist that this "absolute time" is not the same as the "subjective time" that I or anybody else experiences. But you still need it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vakibs
A state sequence is not the same as time, similar to how a lattice is not space. Also, you can use timeless representations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @vakibs
Of course. Nodes in a graph usually don't have coordinates.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
A graph can be defined. But a lattice can be defined ? I don't think so. We need a metric space, right ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @vakibs
Speed only comes into play when you compare different observer dependent processes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
It is a nice model for the universe :) Would you like to have a finite lattice or an infinite one?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Finite universes are preferred by computable (ie most) gods. An infinite one has literally an infinitely more expensive implementation.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.