I'm neither religious, nor do i subscribe to any theological ideas, but guilty of occasionally pondering the meaning of our existence. Not against reductive thought at all, but refuse to live in a reality where all fundamental questions appear to be "answered".
-
-
Replying to @samim
I appear to have moved from an inscrutable universe of essences that animated reality, mind and consciousness into a clean one that I built from the ground up and has all the same observables as the former. Why not turn off the lights in the universe of essences?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
What's the difference? Is the new one still temporal? How does this new view change your approach going forward?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
Time is deconstructed too. Most of the fundamental questions are answered. There is no room for gnosticism and mystery. It is all fine as far as I can see in the machine universe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Sounds like your close to a breakthrough, congrats! Good to hear you've deconstructed time, very curios to find out how! Is your model testable or even implementable (or is it more a feature of your personal enlightenment) ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
I think that it is testable by implementing it. Can it reproduce the standard model and GR? At the moment it is merely a proof candidate, i.e. a family of theories that seem to be able to deal with the usual issues, and I don't know how much trouble there will be in the details.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
that time in relativity is basically space but with the opposite sign of metric tensor component. there is no change in that 4D, it is all static. how would you ever explain 'now' if that model is final truth?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Eternalist vs. momentary time does not yield different observables. On the classical theory level, it is merely a difference in notation. On the implementation level, it imposes very different demands, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Time is NOT space even they are not independent. You can think about it a bit like speed and sound. Your perception of frequency depends on the change in distance of the sound source relative to a stationary observer, but that does not make speed a true dimension of sound.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
it is in the sense that it comes as a part of same math object in the formulas. hell, just look at SI definition of meter - it's second x constant now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The dependence of space and time from the observer perspective was an important insight, but the understanding of their fundamental differences is important as well. I suppose you know how this inverted sign came to be?
-
-
obviously because of michelson test
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because Morley was twice as large as Michelson, so Michelson–Morley gives us a negative Michelson result!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.