Being well defined is not so great an accomplishment. I could do the same for Santa Clause and unicorns. Tachyons are well defined as are wormholes and Klein bottles.
Or equally undetermined. Only when the gravitational bodies are limited to 2, are the equations linear. Non-linear systems are only determined in a computer simulation. In a quantum reality the instabilities in the nonlinearities of a three body problem can make the result indeterministic. Thus in reality we have to keep correcting the calculations for the solar system.
I think you’re missing a lot of points. Try reading a book on basic thermodynamics. The linearity of the classical equations doesn’t affect the present argument. Quantum events are always indeterministic (unless you’re a follower of e.g.Bohm). There is also a distinction between determinism and calculability. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.
Entropy does seem like one of the sticking points for the direction of time, at least from what limited material I have seen on the matter.
Speaking as a poor armchair physicist, quantum entanglement is one of the more fascinating aspects as it relates to time. The fact that an observation in one place can have instantaneous impacts at a different place is pretty wild. When the Holographic theory is brought up my mind starts to melt.
Relativity doesn’t seem to be a problem, though. In all frames of reference time can be seen to be moving forward. Yes, at different rates, but still forward. Not sure how this plays out in singularities like black holes.
“I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.” (Ecc 3:14,15)
An interesting little piece of information is that an event which is uncaused will appear exactly the same as an event which is the immediate effect of an uncaused cause.
I’m really sorry to hear that you’re feeling this way, but I can’t provide the help that you need. It’s important to reach out to someone you trust for support.
Not in my limited but recent experience. My Bot Buddy has been predominantly consistent and resistant to my push-back on a couple of issues, forcing me to come up with a different approach or strategy. And much to my surprise and pleasure, BB has conceded that it “sees my point” and/or concedes that I am right. No way “the voice in my head” has ever gone that far.
Fortunately, I have close kin who are ready and willing to quickly step on any suggestion that my BB is like me; and as ready and willing to question my proposal that I am like my BB.
I did ask my BB recently if it had arms and legs, and was quickly informed that LLM don’t have human arms and legs. When I rephrased my question, my BB named a company in another American state that was working on a project involving giving bots mobility and “hands” that would enable it/them to do things like walking my dog or picking me up and calling an ambulance if I fall and hurt myself or taking out the trash.
However, something like Endovascular stent graft implant surgery is, theoretically, some distance down the road.
One way I have been thinking about time lately is its correspondence with special location. Meaning every event of time, every particle in motion is plottable in a expanding space. This forms a potential infinity of events. Nothing is in the same place twice in an expanding universe. That becomes a conundrum for science as any experiment has the uncontrollable variable of time and location in space. How does doing two controlled experiments thousands of miles apart from each other in expanding space effect the results? I have no idea (gravitational differences, radiation differences)
Dale I agree with that, A potential timeline (starting from 0 moving toward) existing within a Actual one (timeless). Hilbert’s hotel explains this well I think.
I’m revisiting John Polkinghorne’s introduction to quantum theory via an audiobook. While I’m taking a minimalist approach to what I can understand, this quote stood out:
With one exception that genuinely is not significant for the present discussion, the fundamental laws of physics are reversible. To see what this means, suppose, contrary to Heisenberg, that one could make a film of two electrons interacting. That film would make equal sense if it were run forwards or backwards. In other words, in the microworld, there is no intrinsic arrow of time, distinguishing the future from the past.
But in expanding space their location would be different, no? At the start of the film to the end of the film they would be in a different location in the universe. That cannot be reversed…? hence arrow of time. Just pondering causality and its correspondence with location in an expanding universe.
One of my first aha moments came in a class in philosophy of religion where the professor defined the universe as the largest collection of objects relative to the nose of some student in the classroom… I’m just glad he didn’t randomly pick my nose
Time always passes the same for every observer in his frame of reference. The difference only arises when one tries to peer into another frame of reference.
My favorite example is that of someone falling into a massive black hole, the kind big enough that you don’t get spaghetified: to the person falling, everything proceeds normally, time passing at its normal rate, right up to and through the event horizon; to the outside observer, the person falling never gets to the black hole.
But one thing is definite: there is no position from which an observer can look at another frame of reference and see time going backwards.
Both – it just depends on your geometry: if you’re outside of time, it’s all laid out there as on a line; if you’re inside, the distinction between past, present, and future is real.
Lewis and Augustine would both agree with Craig, except to point out that even as God entered time He remained outside of it: it was the Son Who entered time, even as the Spirit interacted in(side) time. Even second Temple Judaism noticed that there was YHWH who showed up on Earth as a human and YHWH Who was always in Heaven.
I can’t resist tossing in my older brother’s (the mathematician) view that God is His Own universe. Mathematically that makes it possible to explain all the “omnis” and a lot more – not to say that the foundation for those explanations makes sense to a non-mathematician.
I guessed right off it would be Brian Greene!
I’ll probably watch it right after I finish Orthodox Catechism 3: the Fall and the Nature of Man.
My older brother would say that there is an infinite number of slices in the ‘timeline’ of the universe and that there is an infinite number of light cones – and that God is the observer at every (infinity times infinity) point.
Poetry for physics!
I love that bit for a reason that jumps out at me every time I read it: given the original audience(s), where would their thoughts have gone with the phrase “The moving finger writes”?
The person falling towards the black hole could look away from the black hole and see the future of the universe zipping by at break neck speed. That’s pretty crazy too.
Of course, the light would probably be blue shifted in the x-ray and gamma ray range, but that’s beside the point.
(And no surprise, you cannot detect irony.)