Re:No time dimension
by atakan_gurkan on Friday May 27, 2011 @05:19AM
(#2590914)
small correction:
"the delay between e10^100 and e10^200 precisely equals that between e10^50 and e10^150"
Between e10^200 and e10^100 there are about 10^200 events, but between e10^50 and e10^150 there are only 10^150. However, I understand what you mean and it is bizarre.
Re:No time dimension
by redthrowaway on Friday May 27, 2011 @05:37AM
(#2590935)
Late night, thanks for the correction.
Let E = {e0, e1, e2, ... en} be the set of all events in the universe, ever. By this hypothesis, the temporal distance between any two adjacent events, that is, the 'amount of time' separating then, is exactly equal. If there is no substrate upon which time is measured, then you cannot say the temporal displacement between e0 and e1 is anything but identical to that between e4 and e5. For that matter, the delay between e1M and e2M precisely equals that between e10M and e11M. This seems utterly bizarre. (edit: corrected grossly mistaken arithmetic, thanks atakan)
By this hypothesis (assuming I'm understanding correctly), there is a "Planck length" of time, which is simply the separation between any adjacent events. It would be meaningless to speak of anything smaller, as there is no substrate upon which to measure the distance between them. It is simply 1. What can it mean to describe a time between two subsequent events but that there is a third between them?
This whole thing is bloody strange, and yet oddly intuitive. Substrates for which there are no direct evidence have a poor record in metaphysics, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a parsimonious rejection of time as a distinct entity follow this trend.