# Is infinitely time-dependent

### Re: A philosophical introduction: infinity

Contribution from seeker »Mon 25 Jan 2010, 9:56 pm

@Tom:
tomS wrote:If you scroll down the linked page to the bottom, you will also find my formula - with the corresponding question
I know! I just wanted to show you that I have found the question and perhaps understood it a little.
I almost feel like taking a closer look at this problem and learning it as soon as I find the time. I'm just too busy at the moment ... and there are too many very interesting topics right now. I can hardly go everywhere with you anyway.

@wilfried:
wilfried wrote:How can this change look like without space and time? Try to explain that.
You really don't make it easy for me, you really challenge me! But it's fine anyway...

So I'll try:

The point with this view would be that there is no real space or time - just movement. The movement then has to be per se be, so absolute: what does not move does not exist either. What movement is, I cannot explain any further here, I have to assume it as an axiom. That's not a problem at first - you always need axioms. From this point of view, there can also be movement (perhaps by definition) if there is no space and no time. If I now imagine that space and time only exist on large scales (caused by this movement, as secondary phenomena), then I can imagine that this does not have to be the case in the very smallest / very briefest. It is very difficult for me to imagine spacetime without. My brain wants to refuse, but why shouldn't I be able to replace space and time with movement? Space and time would emerge from a lot of movement from the very smallest, similar to how a sand castle is created from many grains of sand or a puddle of water is created from many water molecules, or the phenomenon of pressure arises from the combination of many gas molecule movements, or like many cars on the Autobahn the phenomenon of traffic jams can arise. Space and time are first of all something that you cannot even perceive or measure yourself. You can only measure things (body, light, ...). Therefore, from this point of view, they are abstractions, conclusions. We conclude that this must exist, but we do not observe it ourselves. What we observe is movement - and everything moves, including two bodies that are at rest relative to one another: They move (even when viewed from a distance) at least in time. Seen up close, there is always something moving in them, shining and doing. Then what about the quantum vacuum? There are again only things that are in motion, only apparent space, apparent time.
What happens if everything in this picture moves with maximum entropy, I don't know yet; still have to think about it. Maybe I still need orderly movement, i.e. information, so that the movement becomes real.

Second idea:

There are phenomena that are and move / change, but at least none physical Occupy space. Thoughts are e.g. such phenomena. I am now not talking about the brain or neurophysical processes, but only about the phenomenon. I'm all about the picture. Numbers would be another thing that doesn't take up space. It could be something similar with the physical universe at its core. In this picture I still have serious problems with time: At least thoughts seem to need time for their movement and there should actually be something like a "thought space" in which they can move. After all, that would be a completely (in the ordinary sense) unphysical space, something qualitatively completely different. Perhaps there can be such a space "under / behind" our universe. What then should be with time, I am still puzzling: If space and time can be transformed into one another and I can get rid of space, then must I also be able to get rid of time? What is "movement" in mathematics (I do not mean perhaps the physical description of a movement, but movement per se)? I should learn more about math ...

Third idea:

I imagine a universe that is completely simulated by a computer. The universe should of course be completely digital, i.e. quantized, otherwise my computer would have to be able to calculate infinitely fast and I want to avoid infinity wherever possible. My computer has a lot of memory, a lot of memory (not infinitely much) and it can calculate quickly, very quickly - but not infinitely fast and also not infinitely accurate. I believe there can be no infinities and no continuums in this universe, only discrete values, since my computer is also limited. Maybe I just have to teach him that he must not divide by zero and that it should not create endless loops. This computer can now perform arithmetic operations without wasting time in the simulation got to. In a sense, he has his own time. Simulated space here is nothing more than the "distance" between two numbers. If I clock down his CPU, slow him down, then the simulated beings in the simulation do not notice anything: For them, time passes as always, because absolutely everything, including their thought processes, is slowed down. Back to the Big Bang? No problem for my computer! He doesn't need to calculate the simulated space-time - it is he who creates these things.
Unfortunately, there would still be something like "overtime" (and also an "overtime"), namely the computer's own time, even if it had little to do with the inner time of the simulated universe. These "super" should not be understood in the same way as, for example, a hyperspace (simply one spatial dimension more), they would be qualitatively something completely different from simulated spacetime - to a certain extent "super real", "parareal".
Although it remains difficult, I don't seem to be able to completely get rid of the space and the time here either ...

Best regards
seeker
greetings
seeker

Critical thinking does not mean one-sidedly only getting supplies from critical sources and accepting the representations there uncritically. Many massively overestimate their own media skills. This is taken advantage of by seducers.