A comrade mentioned to me "infinite timelines" as one of the quantum interpretations. I knew of "multi-universes" but the comrade did not seem to recognize that one. So I was intrigued. My immediate reaction is "time is not a line"!!
we are related to our future Selves [1-5] who thrive within the future timelines
So he mentioned it was a claim in the gaming community - so it seems this "infinite timelines" claim is more of a pop gaming interpretation of quantum physics...
a sentient being sequentially spirals in time going back and forth,So this does seem like science woo woo for sure.
giving rise to the advent of torsional-helical vibration. Thus, one does
not move back and forth rectilinearly but spirals in a counterclockwise-
clockwise manner while either going forward or backward in time.
Furthermore, the sensation of progression of time that is perceived in
our consciousness is quantified via the advent of frequency of vibration
that has to do with the speed of time that is quantified through the first
differential of time and not progressing in a linear fashion. Thus, when
you go from the distant past or future to present, each timeline has a
characteristic range of frequencies in which it is commensurate with the
speed of progression of time, which has drastically changed from distant
past-future to present, making the whole process of jumping from one
timeline to another a highly nonlinear event.
Yeah the references are all woo woo!! hahaha
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00033790.2023.2289524
Did not medieval natural philosophers employ timelines, Oresme’s diagram of the mean speed theorem being the most famous case? However, as will be shown, our interpretation of his diagram is probably wrong. This insight, in turn, takes care of a third paradox, namely Galileo’s initial inability to represent the law of free fall correctly. This article will document that the timeline first emerged in the late sixteenth century in works on chronology, made its first appearance in physics in Galileo’s diagrams, and had its general breakthrough in the eighteenth century.
A few decades ago, a statistical examination showed that ‘more than 75 percent of all the graphics published [in newspapers and magazines] were time-series’, that is, graphics with a timeline functioning as the baseline.Footnote2
the French physician, botanist and polymath Barbeu-Dubourg argued that chronology ought to follow geography in representing time in spatial terms: ‘May not duration be imitated and represented as effectively and distinctly to the senses as space, and may not intervals of time be as easily counted in degrees?’Footnote11 The question had to be asked as the answer was, at the time, by no means obvious.
This ability to order change occurring in space is, for Aristotle, how the idea of time comes about. But importantly, this ordering of ‘nows’ does not yield any notion of time as independent magnitude; there is, in Edward Hussey’s words, ‘no unified, all-embracing, self-subsistent “Time”: there are just changes having greater or lesser quantities of time-length’.Footnote21
Platonic philosophy:
However, even for a demiurge, it is logically impossible to create something that is eternal: after all, if it is created, it cannot be everlasting. Moreover, if eternity means changelessness, then a universe made in its image would have to be frozen. This is why he formatted the universe in a manner that merely imitated eternity, and the element of imitation lay in the extraordinarily regular, circular movements of the stars.
But he took thought to make, as it were, a moving likeness [eikôn] of eternity; and, at the same time that he ordered the Heaven, he made, of eternity that abides in unity, an everlasing likeness [eikôn] moving according to number – that to which we have given the name Time.
the Platonic demiurge was merged with that of the Judeo-Christian Creator, the result was a cosmological model that was embraced from Antiquity into the early-modern period, namely of a divinity whose unchanging eternity was mirrored in the regular motions of the stars, the rotations of which in turn provided the background against which all other changes were measured. So if there had to exist a baseline for people’s intuitive mapping of change, it would not have been a rectilinear line, as is suggested by our abstract notion of the flow of time, but a circular one, representing the time-generating power of the celestial bodies. That circular line, however, would not have represented time by itself, but the basic motion from which all notions of time were derived.
These images not only avoid, but in fact exclude, the notion of an independent, forward-running timeline. Their purpose is to allow for the geometrical representation of the degrees of qualitaties for the duration in which the latter occur.
..............
Qualities are, however, always measured in static or moving bodies or spaces, but not in time. Let us once more remind ourselves that all of Oresme’s configurations are about total quantities of qualities (including speeds), and that these inhere in bodies. This total quantity, whether expressed in triangles, squares or irregular bodies and whether it concerns heat, blackness, health or speed, always measures qualities of bodily subjects. Oresme explains this as follows:
Although indivisible points, or lines, are non-existent, still it is necessary to feign them mathematically for the measures of things and for the understanding of ratios. Therefore, every intensity which can be acquired successively ought to be imagined as a straight line perpendicularly erected on some point of the space or subject of the intensible thing, e.g. a quality. For whatever ratio is found to exist between intensities of the same kind, a similar ratio is found to exist between line and line, and vice versa. […] Of course, the line of intensity of which we have just spoken is not actually extended outside of the point or subject but is only so extended in the imagination, and it could be extended in any direction whatever except that it is more fitting to imagine it standing up perpendicularly on the subject informed with the quality.Footnote50
And although a time and a line are [mutually] incompatible in quantity, still there is no ratio found as existing between time and time which is not to be found among lines, and vice versa; and it [i.e. ratio] is found originally in lines according to Aristotle in the sixth [book] of the Physics.Footnote53
Oresme does accept a line to depict duration and only duration. This is when he speaks of the soul. As the soul has no extension, being indivisible, when its accidents (such as apprehension, appetite or passion) undergo change, one can only measure them in time. ‘The time or duration of this difformity or accident is its longitude’, Oresme states in the relevant chapter.Footnote55 There, he is quite willing to quantify pain or sorrow in squares and rectangles whose horizontal lines will denote extension in time and the vertical lines the degrees in intensity.Footnote56
The first is that time was, since Aristotle, always seen as an ‘inner’ magnitude, not found in nature, but in the mind,
Oresme speaks of ‘time or duration’, he does not speak of independent or absolute time, but he means the limited duration that is correlated to a specific speed as indicated by the length of a given latitude. The best way to understand the difference between absolute time and relative duration is by looking at 18..
Figure 8. Decreasing velocities and their respective durations as a series of ‘organ pipes’; detail from Nicolas Oresme, De latitudinibus formarum, ed. Blasius of Parma (Padua: Mathaeus Cerdonis, 1486), fol. 2r.
b) Nicolas Oresme, De latitudinibus formarum, ed. Blasius of Parma (Padua: Mathaeus Cerdonis, 1486), fol. 1v-2r.
specific speeds (indicated in the latitude)
the respective durations associated with them (indicated in the longitude)
as many short durations as there are degrees of speed. To be sure, the various horizontal durations may be said to add up to one extended temporal longitude, and that is certainly the case where the speed is constant and the entire diagram is constituted, as it were, by a single, broad organ pipe.
the Aristotelian dependence of time on motion and of motion on space remains intact. Motion takes place over space (a – b), and the body d endures for a short moment (possessing the breadth of the individual ‘organ pipe’) in every given degree of speed (expressed by the altitude).
Please note that this remains true irrespective of whether we identify the element of duration with the segments of the spatial line a – b or with the upper parts of the organ pipes.... he had only two dimensions to work with, which meant that the longitude had to express both the moving subject and the durations (in case we accept a – b as indicating the durations).
from Oresme’s own words, one might also conclude that it is the upper line e – f that indicates time, so that space and time would run parallel, in the case of uniform motion, or converge, in the case of uniformly difform deceleration.Footnote58
Thanks to the invention of the mechanical clock in the later Middle Ages, much of this changed. The escapement and later the pendulum (which regulated the motion of the machinery) brought about a separation of time measurement from the solar cycle.... Philip Turetzky convincingly argues that these new clocks were ‘the first devices to mark equal abstract units of time with precision. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that conceptions of abstract uniform time develop in the same historical period as mechanical clocks’.
This difference reflects our introductory distinction between Aristotle’s notion of time as ordering observed events, and our modern, everyday intuition of events as occurring in, and being measured by, time.
the velocity of a body in free fall increases with the square of the times elapsed from the moment that the body started falling. We anachronistically associate this with the formula s = ½gt2. Given our maths and our current visual intuitions, we find it natural to draw a coordinate system with the timeline as the x-axis and the speeds plotted as a function of time on the y-axis, and trace the exponential growth by means of a curve.
eliminates the subject that undergoes change, having no place for the moving object itself. This solution resolves Oresme’s dilemma, discussed above, which consisted in the fact that he would have needed three dimensions to depict the subject undergoing change (in this case the falling body), space (in this case the space traversed) and time (in this case the time since the beginning of the movement),
As we have tried to prove, there existed no tradition of depicting time as a line, and whatever traditions there were, they in fact got Galileo initially into trouble.
...the increase in the spaces traversed occurs according to the time elapsed, that is, the speed of the falling body depends on time, not space....the degrees of velocity now made to depend on the distances, not the times.
So this is why the speed of light is assumed to be a symmetric bidirectional magnitude while spacetime is a dynamic that changes based on the framework of external measurement (observation by a clock). The clock is the symmetric bidirectional magnitude assumption arising all the way from Aristotle!!
the fundamental difference in deriving the law from a proportion of the speed of fall to the time elapsed or alternatively to the space traversed. In all authors, Schemmel writes, ‘we find the same conflation of temporal and spatial interpretation of extension’.Footnote75
in the medieval explanation, the longitude of the configuration was by no means ‘time elapsed’. In the best of cases, it was a combination of space traversed and the durations of degrees of speed, which would explain why Galileo could draw a vertical line and interpret it both as a representation of a body falling down and the time of fall.
What was instead canonical was that change takes place in space, which is exactly what Galileo’s vertical line represents.
What was instead canonical was that change takes place in space, which is exactly what Galileo’s vertical line represents.
But we have just seen that Galileo’s letter to Sarpi does make the increase of speed depend on time, and that this relation is moreover exponential. Galileo’s problem was that on empirical grounds, he had indeed discovered such a dependency, but that there was no technique available to him by which to represent it.
The very first time line ever created in Western science!!
As far as physics is concerned, it would appear that this is the very first timeline ever drawn! Figure 16. Galileo Galilei, Dialogo, 224: The ‘double distance rule’ with a genuine time line AC.
acceleration is continuous. There are thus no natural ways in which one could subdivide the degrees of speed according to a determinate number (unlike the ‘organ pipes’ in the printed Oresme edition of ). There are as many ‘moments’ (which is Galileo’s term for the unextended ‘now’) between time A (when the body begins to move) and point D (at which we can establish that the speed of the moving body can be compared to the extension HD). This is part and parcel of Galileo’s much debated analysis of extended magnitudes in terms of an infinity of unextended points, which would later result in his theory of atomi non quanti.
he prefers to establish a link between space and time by means of the total speed....
Whereas Figure 15 indicates the spatial line of fall as the basis for the increase of speed, Figure 16 now clearly indicates time as the base line. Galileo’s problem is, however, that this convention renders space invisible. The reason why his law of free fall is not proven geometrically, or illustrated, is precisely because Galileo does not know how to represent within this diagramatic mode the spaces traversed from the increase of velocities over time.
Galileo explains, AB represents ‘the time in which the space CD is traversed by a moveable in uniformly accelerated movement from rest at C’.Footnote83 Visually speaking, there is thus a space CD, and there is a time period AB in which a body moves, either constantly or in acceleration. All of this is shown in a vertical rather than horizontal direction, because in the end, it is the law of free fall that Galileo wants to establish.
we here still have a kind of Aristotelian precedence of space over motion and over the time the latter takes.
Galileo’s diagram here reproduces the doubling of space and time as parallel lines, with the difference that Oresme’s has the disadvantage of obtaining a longer timeline in the case of irregular motions, while Galileo’s diagram has the disadvantage of not linking time and space functionally, but only through numerical proportions
the doubling of the vertical into parallel lines of space and time left the two magnitudes uncomfortably disconnected, the more so because the ‘rhythms’ of the two lines are not synchronized.
Sagredo’s diagram, in Galileo’s eyes, conflated the aggregates of speed (which is that the squares represent, according to the Calculatores tradition) with the space traversed, which is clearly indicated in . Still, it had ‘the advantage of producing a clear visual representation of the odd number law by integrating it in the triangle of speeds’
Galileo did represent the passage of time by means of a straight line denoting isochronous regularity.
For the timeline to become a conventional feature of diagrams, one has to wait until the eighteenth century.
The late origins of the timeline, or: three paradoxes explained
2023
fascinating!!!
Galileo must have been relying on equal-tempered tuning for his concept of "isochronous regularity."
Isospectral but NOT isomorphic is the key to noncommutative! oops.
The timelines in our model are emergent, like the "worlds" of the Everett interpretation; they are created by quantum entanglement between the time machine and the environment. Therefore, we call them "entangled timelines" or E-CTCs. As the entanglement gradually spreads out to additional systems, the timelines spread out as well, providing a local and well-defined alternative to the naive "branching timelines" picture often presented in the literature. The E-CTC model is similar to Deutsch's familiar D-CTC model,
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07635
This theory admits solutions to the Einstein equations containing closed timelike curves (CTCs)1, which
can hypothetically be used to travel to the past and violate causality
Each timeline is not a separate universe, but rather,
a separate term in the superposition of the overall quantum state of a single universe. The chain of events within each timeline can be followed continuously via the action of an evolution operator, and each timeline can be related to the next one via the action of a correlation operator.
We interpret the states of the D-CTC model, which are mixed, as resembling reduced states (with respect to the time machine) of the pure entangled states in the E-CTC model, destroying information about the entanglement and therefore about the timelines themselves. We thus argue that our model is better suited for understanding how timelines naturally emerge
OK this is what my comrade was talking about!
the entangled timelines picture defines timelines
as emergent entities via local interactions between systems within a single non-branching spacetime.
we you said, "I can...stick" you are imposing a man-made unit as an external spatial measurement. What you didn't mention but is a deeply held Western Platonic philosophy view is that your unit assumed a symmetric spatial geometry called "commutative geometry." For example math professor Ian Stewart's book "Why Beauty is Truth: A history of symmetry" is a structural history of Western science or mathematical physics.
But what if instead you used numbers as a basis of say counting your breath with your eyes closed as you listened to the source of the sound in your head? What if you chose a unit that was based on logical inference and therefore the source of the "one" was rather a unit that you could not see but only logically infer? For example when you go into deep dreamless sleep your sense of spacetime vanishes as does your sense of perception and thinking - concepts, intentions, etc. But you can still logically infer that you still exist and therefore logically there must still be a you that you can listen to for evidence of its existence when your sense of number is gone.
So instead of repeating the number One in your head while listening to the source of it rather repeat the I-thought since it is "you" that is repeating the "one" as a word or unit in your head. If you repeat I-I-I-I but not as a meaningless mantra but instead as a listening process of logical inference - what is called "vichara" in Vedic meditation - then what will this process reveal to you? Of course others have already done this and reported their results. It turns out our body is not actually symmetric spatial geometry as Plato wrongly argued. Rather music is the definition of reality as based on complementary opposites - meaning the source of the One inherently has an overtone and undertone as 3/2 and 2/3. If we assume the One to be a C and a symmetric spatial doubling of a wavelength so that 2 is also a C as a doubling of frequency so 1/2 wavelength then 2/3 is C to F as undertone of pitch with 3/2 wavelength and 3/2 is C to G in pitch as overtone.
But we LISTEN to or hear both differences in geometry as the same frequency of "3" aka they are both the Perfect Fifth music interval in relation to the One only since 2 does not go into 3 therefore reality is inherently noncommutative and nonlocal. Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes has a lecture on youtube called "Music of Shapes" wherein he relates this music concept to Heisenberg's discovery that the order of time in relation to frequency is the definition of spectroscopy for emission and absorption of photons in matter with mass.
A great article on this is "Light is Heavy" by Nobel physics professor Gerard 't Hooft and Martin van der Mark - open access arxiv reading. They point out that all of matter is actually made of light due to the nonlocal 1/2 spin of reality (that is the same noncommutative secret I just described above also called the Dirac Dance - meaning there is an inherent twist of the future and past overlapping at every zero point of spacetime thereby creating an instantaneous nonlocality proven by Bell's Inequality). So for example math professor Louis Kauffman points out that the imaginary number is actually an infinite asymmetric algebraic process of time as X=-1/X and thus every time an external measurement of unit is made as you just described using sticks - it takes time to make such a measurement.
This external time reflects a deeper nonlocal time of the future and past overlapping that Kauffman calls "primordial time" and Roger Penrose calls "fundamental time" (from Lee Smolin) and Alain Connes calls "primitive time." Quantum physics professor Basil J. Hiley, the collaborator of David Bohm, calls this nonlocal time a newly discovered quality or force of energy that is proven to have gravitationally repulsive force in the weak measurement experiments of Yakir Aharonov's research group.
No comments:
Post a Comment