119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"They" don't have any proof.

The person most qualified to speak on this is Sir Roger Penrose, and he believes quantum wave collapse is caused by gravity, and rather than happening faster than the speed of light it's actually reversing time and happening in the past.

That "prunes" the multiverse leaving us with one prime timeline. So the multiverse would only exist for fractions of a second before collapsing back into one retroactively before it even existed.

And I can only assume the writers of Loki knows about him and that's why it sounds like I'm just explaining the MCU.

Seriously, Penrose is basically the Einstein of this generation. He finished up a lot of Einstein's work, and has spent the last couple decades looking into this and what consciousness actually is. If it sounds like science fiction, is because writers would take the five minutes to read what the world's smartest physicist thinks.

If it sounds confusing, it's because the only thing in the universe that requires linear time in one direction is consciousness. So we only experience time like that. Everything else really doesn't give a shit about time, especially at the quantum level.

But yeah, a "bigger" infinite can exist than a "smaller" infinite. It's too confusing for me to understand, but a bunch of really really smart people have been looking into it. It's kind of the same thing. Humans are limited, and our way of expressing ideas even more so.

Eventually we might figure out a way to explain that doesn't break the brains of 99.99999999% of humans.

But if you want to try and understand, there's lots of writing on it and even a decent Netflix documentary

[-] bendak@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

the only thing in the universe that requires linear time in one direction is consciousness. So we only experience time like that. Everything else really doesn't give a shit about time

Is that really true? I feel like a lot of things thay are not consciousness still have causal relationships.

A simple example is combustion. It needs fuel and an ignition. It produces light and heat that transfer energy to its environment. This couldn't work in reverse or independent of time.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This couldn’t work in reverse or independent of time.

No, we can't make it happen in reverse in the perception of time we need to have consciousness.

It's not that everything has to confirm to how we experience it. It's that we can only observe things in the way we can experience it.

Now, while Penrose finished up Einsteins work on relativity, I get most people do t know who he is.

But even Einstein himself disagreed with you before Penrose finished it.

Einstein’s statement was not merely an attempt at consolation. Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/

Serious, if you're saying time is constant and can only flow in one direction, you're arguing with the literal foundation physics is built on.

Time just isn't a necessity for anything except consciousness.

This is crazy complicated though, and I'm not even going to pretend to understand all of it. So it's hard to explain. I'd suggest a lot of reading if you want to know more rather than me try to summarize.

But yes, if you do the actual physics of something being set on fire, the equation works just fine both ways

Instead of saying it can only work one way, it's more accurate to say a consciousness can only experience it one way. Which might not even be technically true.

A self contained universe with fixed energy and infite time will eventually see a pile of ash turned into an apple. And it wouldn't violate a damn thing with our system of physics.

Edit:

Specifically for causal stuff:

Show a person a causaul relationship out of order (acb rather than abc) and they're report that they observed abc. The conscious mind can't rationalize acb, so it overrides it

This may very well be happening constantly and we just don't even know it.

All this stuff is incredibly interesting, it's just even harder to wrap our minds around, because our minds may have evolved to handle all this stuff as a background process. Because consciousness needs to experience stuff in abc order to make any sense out of anything.

It's a real mindfuck, literally. There's a very good chance we'll never be able to understand because we're conscious

[-] Vendificate@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Einstein abandoned the static universe theory when we confirmed expansion. Time is absolutely not constant but it is unidirectional according to Einstein himself after the Hubble Telescope verified that everything everywhere is expanding. The radius of the universe depends on time.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Einstein abandoned the static universe theory when we confirmed expansion

If I showed you a 1 second video of an apple falling from a tree, would you say the apple would continue to fall forever? After all, the only evidence you have is the apple falling.

Penrose, (who again was the one to finish up and prove a lot of Einstein 's work btw) believes we're just looking at a very tiny piece of the puzzle. And Big Bangs are cyclical.

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/black-holes-prove-the-universe-keeps-exploding-claims-physicist/

https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/node/36137

Personally I think it's more like fireworks going off in the sky all over than one single repeating big bang.

But Penrose literally just won a Novel a few years ago. He's literally the person most qualified to talk about this. And he's been doing it for decades. Right after he finished up Einsteins work.

What you're doing is like insisting the sun orbits Earth because that's what accepted.

Penrose is literally bleeding edge physics. Just because he hasn't convinced everyone he's right yet, doesn't mean he's wrong. Science moves pretty fucking slow, someone next generation will.probably price Penrose right, just like Einstein wasn't proven right until Penrose and Hawking showed up to do it while working together.

It's literally how science works man...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
119 points (76.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

29240 readers
798 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS