I'm not clear what you mean by that. There's a memory of the of the state, but either way, when you say that there's the Big Bang and then there's an entropic arrow, there's a huge mystery, a mystery in physics about the arrow of time, like

what is time, and why does it move forward? Is it static like you mentioned? If we conceptualize the world in classical non-constructivist mathematics, then there's no room for time. What is time in your model? It's time fundamental. Um, I think that if you, uh, want to have

an observer, you need to have a system that is multi-stable and it, it's moving between these states, right? It needs to be able to be influenced by the environment and as a result, form some kind of memory. The memory means that as a result of an observation at the

system-made environment, it's changing its internal state in a particular deterministic way. And the way that we describe our universe, we noticed that we can describe our universe in terms of states, of which some explain this current state by being its past. You could also say, imagine you enumerate

all the possible universe states, and some of these states will look like they contain the memory of past states because they are can be the result of a state transition where you are using a permutation on previous bits. Basically, the laws of physics, and you get to the

next state, and as if you go backwards, you get a timeline, and all the possible timelines in the space of, uh, the enumeration of universe states, these are all the possible temporally extended universes from the perspective of an observer. Time is in some sense, the

rate of change in the environment as observed by the observer, which means it's relative to the rate of change in the observer. So, from the observer's perspective, time is intrinsically relativistic. From the perspective of outside the system, which we cannot take, 

time would be state transition. So, there is a way in which you would enumerate the states by defining a function that orders them. Okay, you just mentioned from the perspective of an observer outside the system. Now, in general relativity, an observer is what follows the time-like 

curve. Okay, so you're in the cone, it can't be space-like, can't be null. Now, if you ask what's what, what the heck is the experience of a photon, we can't do that because an observer is defined as what's in the time-like cone. The thing 

is, the photon is not multi-stable. The photon does not change state, right? That's why the photon is not able to observe. The photon can be absorbed and re-emitted with different properties, but by itself, the photon doesn't change. And only a system that is able to 

change state can observe. And so, whenever you have a particle system like you and me, right, a single one, a single one, though, what about a single particle? Uh, it depends what kind of particle, but uh, so in some sense you can describe every particle system as some kind of a 

compound particle, but it's basically depends on whether you can change a property of that particle without that particle changing its identity, so to speak, right? So, as soon as this model of the particle that no longer applies, you use a different description. 

What is time? Is time fundamental? - Joscha Bach

TOE Clippings

시간의 본질과 앞으로의 움직임에 대한 불확실성.

고전 수학은 시간을 설명하지 않으며, 시간의 근본에 의문을 제기합니다.

관측을 위한 다중 안정 시스템과 메모리의 필요성.

상태를 통해 우주를 설명하고, 과거의 상태를 통해 현재 상태를 설명하기도 합니다.

가능한 우주 상태와 상태 전환을 통한 과거 상태의 기억.

관찰자가 관찰한 환경 변화의 속도로서의 시간, 즉 상대주의적 특성입니다.

일반 상대성 이론의 관찰자와 시간 경험

일반 상대성 이론의 관측자는 빛의 원뿔 내에서 시간과 같은 곡선을 따릅니다.

다중 안정성이 부족하여 광자의 시간 경험을 설명할 수 없습니다.

상태 변화가 가능한 시스템만 관측할 수 있으며, 광자는 본질적으로 상태를 변화시키지 않습니다.

파티클 시스템을 컴파운드 파티클로 설명하는 것은 아이덴티티를 변경하지 않고 프로퍼티를 변경하는 기능에 따라 달라집니다.

초기 파티클 모델이 더 이상 적용되지 않을 때 다른 설명을 사용합니다.

What is time? Is time fundamental? - Joscha Bach

What is time? Is time fundamental? - Joscha Bach

스크립트