This question very important to me because I don't see a possibility that we can situate identity as existing metaphysically without quantized time. It also seems to imply to me that determinism is wrong.

But please correct me on this you big-brains I don't study quantum physics or general relativity

Also, Your brain is a time machine - Dean Buonomano

The quantum concept of time was invented by physicist Bryce DeWitt in the 1960s:[5]

"Different times are special cases of different universes."

In one view of time (“eternalism”, roughly speaking) saying “there is no change” or “no interaction” between any particles in the universe would mean that in the fixed structure of the universe of which time is a dimension, everything is constant in the direction of that dimension.

So the two statements become roughly equivalent.

What would a physical law that required a single direction look like?

That physical limitation on how fast a mass can move is what keeps causality in check and things like the grandfather paradox from being possible.

Edit: now that I think more on it, this is probably a better law that ensures causality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Second_law_of_thermody...

It's my understanding that quantum mechanics necessarily describes systems in a single inertial reference frame, so for that system, time is absolute w.r.t to both general relativity and QM.

The complexity of things - the things within things - just seems to be endless. I mean nothing is easy, nothing is simple. ~Alice Munro

0 seconds.

Time is the sequence of states every time the rules are applied, or am I missing something?

Basically the answer has to be something like: in the multiverse of possible arrangements of particles, some of them are in your past, some of them are in your future, and some are in neither, but which depends on the observer, who is inside the universe they are trying to describe, and that creates the illusion of the flow of time.

I don’t totally get it either.

In particular, the "Overturning of absolute time in general relativity" section is very hard to follow, and I suspect would only make passing sense to a reader already very familiar with the subject matter. It has a very stream-of-consciousness feel to it, it doesn't introduce concepts as it moves along, and it makes unexplained logical leaps from one idea to another.

I'm glad someone took the time to start the article and it sounds like an interesting subject; but it could certainly see improvement from someone with the right knowledge.

In my perception, even that article is such a "popularization" of the topics on which physicists work that it stopped "being even true." The Wikipedia article just continues in that direction.

The "problem" that exists should not even be present as a Wikipedia entry under that specific name. As far as I see it, even the name is wrong.

---

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Wolchover

Not meant to be snarky, and in general imho it is good the be critical always - but this should include oneself. The latter part is often lacking, and the amount of lacking very often appears to be proportional to the lack of knowledge of the commentator.

Very good: how does your comment fare using that frame?

And since you commented under my comment, what parts of my comment do you agree with and what do you thing you can correct, and based on which sources? I've given mine.

In any case, would you please explain to me how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong. It appears to me as one of the most fundamental questions in physics. The wikipedia article does - from my PoV - a reasonably good try to explain the problem at hand in laymans terms. It touches the relevant aspects of the problem (no absolute time, time/space interdependency) and expands to a more speculative theory (thermal time hypothesis).

I will not at all claim to have even a basic understanding of the covered topics, despite being an avid reader of related bloggers and papers.

I just am astonished how people disregard work of others even without (basic) knowledge of the domain. Maybe I'm wrong, but noone in this thread even tried to show her/his accomplishments in the mentioned domain.

And thanks for replying without simply downvoting.

And please don't think i automatically included you in the perceived group not having "even a basic understanding o the topic". Maybe you have, but since this is even less recognizable than the merits of the wikipedia author it is - from an outside PoV - even less credible.

Because as far as I understand it is not commonly accepted name among the physicists for the issues that prevents them developing the "Theory of Everything"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

It's just how only a few authors name their articles and books. The title would be OK if it would be a title of the article about the specific book, but not as a title for the "problem" of physics. Because, as far as I know, it's not commonly called as such among the physicists, and that's why even the very support for the whole wikipedia article is a reference to the Quanta article and not some physics textbook, and that is what then confuses readers who don't have "even a basic understanding of the covered topics."

Reducing all the issues about "TOE" to the "problem of time" is not correct, from the perspective of physics. It is probably "fun" for "philosophers" though.

We do not and cannot know that because all observations me make involve sentience. In fact, we can't even know if anything exists without sentience.

That last bit - "...we can't even know.." is sophistry.

This is why some people argue that we might be living in a simulation. Because we don't have direct (not mediated by our senses) access to the underlying reality.

The fact is, the universe operates consistent with Relativity.