Time isn't a dimension as such, like a distance, it's the change (in dimension).

We think of a time Tn, so we can think of a time Tn+1, or Tn+m. But there is no idea of stasis without an idea of change, or at least of movement towards a stasis or equilibrium.

I think the idea with "thermal time" is that we notice change, because we don't notice "everything": if we did notice, or observe everything (apart from the sensory and neural apparatus requirements), we wouldn't notice any change, just all the detail. This is the thrust of the "thermal time hypothesis".

Maybe someone else (other than that zephir dude), is also interested in certain (contemporary) ideas and hypotheses about the subject of Time, and whether it exists.

P.S. There is a formula that measures interaction independently of time.

What's the formula ?

If you are, in fact, interested, there's a publication by Rovelli: "Quantum Gravity"; or just google "timeless interaction quantum gravity". It's derived from the Wheeler-De Witt formalism. Schrodinger's work is in there too, somewhere (there's a time-independent form of his wave-equation).

Frud---apologies for closing your other thread. If you want, I will clean it up and reopen it, or we can just continue the discussion here.

Your coice.

Oh yeah, and you and Rovelli are wrong about time. I don't subscribe to New Scientist, so maybe you can read and sumarize what he says?

When you say "I and Rovelli are wrong", is this a refutation? It doesn't look like much of one. But I have tried to understand what Mr Moti is saying. He always does seem to take the high road when he encounters what he describes as "psuedoscience".

Odd that Rovelli has managed to publish as many papers, with others, seeing as he's wrong about so much of it.

Can we expect (royally or otherwise), a more definitive exposition than: "you are wrong"?

P.S. Closing the other thread is no biggie; I'd go with the path of least resistance, and it was running into a bit of rough territory.

Frud---

I don't really know what Rovelli is talking about, but one of the tenets of science (specifically GR) is that time and space are to be treated equally. Treating them unequally (i.e. time is not a dimension) completely kills the idea behind GR.

I may be mistaken, which is why I'd like for you to read the New Scientist article and report on it, if you can. I would be interested to see how Rovelli justifies this.

Odd that Rovelli has managed to publish as many papers, with others, seeing as he's wrong about so much of it.

It's not hard to publish papers. I think that much of Rovelii's work is not on the nature of time, so his publication list is not really relevant, unless to point out that Rovelli is a good physicist, which we already know. But good physicists can be wrong, too---just look at Einstein, who pretty much ignored QM in his later life.

Since that other thread was vandalized by hawkers of pseudoscience, I will recap my posts in that thread here.

That time is an illusion is a new Internet meme spurred in part by a very recent (Jan 19, 2008) article in New Scientist on the work of physicists Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes on the thermal time hypothesis. The underlying concept of the thermal time hypothesis is that time is not fundamental but is rather an emergent thermodynamic property, much like temperature and pressure. Based on this unproven conjecture, New Scientist (and possibly Rovelli and Connes themselves) have made the untenable jump to claiming that time is an illusion. This is an untenable jump for several reasons. First and foremost, this jump is predicated on an unproven conjecture. Deriving big sweeping sensationalistic conclusions from an unproven conjecture is, well, a bit stupid.

For the sake of argument, suppose time is not a fundamental property. That does not mean time is an illusion any more than is temperature. A hot pan will still burn you, and jumping into the Arctic for a nude swim remains a very stupid idea even though temperature is "just" an emergent property rather than a fundamental property of physics.

A fundamental property is merely something that remains axiomatic. Time and distance are axiomatic concepts in physics today. Maybe time and distance won't be axiomatic in the future after some well-grounded (i.e., not conjectural) new physics is formed in which these concepts are derived from some deeper concept. My point: That discovery will not make time and distance illusionary any more than statistical mechanics and thermodynamics make the concept of temperature illusionary. As I said above, temperature remains a very real and very viable concept. So does time.

Even worse, the conjecture is wrong, IMHO. The thermal time hypothesis makes the analogy that if we perfect knew the state of every atom/molecule in a collection of gas that temperature would not exist. We would instead have a massive, time-varying state model. It furthermore claims that if we knew the state of every atom/molecule in a gas, time itself wouldn't exist. Just because we know the state of every atom/molecule in a collection does not mean that higher level abstractions such as temperature (and possibly, time) have no meaning and do not exist. It just means they are high-level abstractions. A hot frying pot still burns even though temperature is merely a composite measure of the random kinetic energy of the metal atoms that comprise the frying pan.

Even worse, the conjecture is inherently unprovable. There simply is no way to perfectly know the state of one atom/molecule in a collection of gas. I will grant that this is possible for the sake of argument. Even granting this, we could never, ever have perfect knowledge of every one of the 6*1026 atom/molecule that comprise a typical collection of gas. The thermal time hypothesis is not only not right, its not even wrong.

There simply is no way to perfectly know the state of one atom/molecule in a collection of gas. I will grant that this is possible for the sake of argument. Even granting this, we could never, ever have perfect knowledge of every one of the 6*1026 atom/molecule that comprise a typical collection of gas. The thermal time hypothesis is not only not right, its not even wrong.
The point, as the NS article tries to make (and here I go again), is that complete knowledge of the state of every molecule (if this were possible) would mean that no change would be noticed, because there would be a continuous pattern.

Because we don't (and can't) do this, there are plenty of gaps in our observations, so different patterns are noticed. If we "recorded", or remembered all of it, it would be a single (no differences) pattern that we notice.

Observation is what we notice (remember, experience, measure), and what we don't. I can't put it any plainer than that. Nor can I see why the idea is so "dangerous", or "misconceived", or even "hard to follow".

For example: in today's labs they can measure very small intervals of time and distance; there are femto- and atto-second pulses of light from lasers, new kinds of interferometers, etc.
At small scales and lengths, time starts to get "fuzzy", this is well-known; at very small distances, they abandon time and measure wavelength. So the idea of time becoming meaningless at more detail of scale, or approaching zero meaning (non-existence), when sufficient detail is observable (not that this is acheivable, because of thermodynamic interactions and the requirement of transfer of energy to measure anything), time "disappears". Like numbers disappear when you get to infinity, say (that's an analogy, btw).

The idea is misconceived for the simple reason that it is (a) pure conjecture, (b) flies in the face of things like the uncertainty principle, and (c) utterly untestable. Which do you prefer: well-reasoned and rigorously-tested theories, or untestable, out of the blue conjectures that fly in the face of these well-reasoned and rigorously-tested theories?

Keep saying all that, if it seems comforting.

Unfortunately, the idea has already been tested (this is in the NS article too). Again, what's so strange about the idea? Can you come up with anything more convincing than invective?

When it comes to time, there is no phenomena independant of some observer - so the reality of time is very real to us anyway.

The very nature of time could be more dubious. It might even consist of two time dimensions; i'm not referring to F-Theory here, but rather the notion that the unfixed time dimension is somehow attatched to another time dimension that is absolute.

I like this idea, and have even developed math on it to help decribe them as normal vectors onto space. Suffice to say, there is probably no way to find this out though, unless accepted as some mathematical certainty, like inflation.

Unfortunately, the idea has already been tested (this is in the NS article too).

Frud---why don't you sumarize the article for us here, or link to it. Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion on the topic.

The point, as the NS article tries to make (and here I go again), is that complete knowledge of the state of every molecule (if this were possible) would mean that no change would be noticed, because there would be a continuous pattern.
Hypothesizing perfect knowledge is an unachievable goal. Any hypothesis that starts with this is doomed from the onset. Next, you used the word "continuous". Continuity with respect to what? Time? Something else? If this something else is not time, then what?

Even granting every single one of their flawed conjectures (and I do that only for the sake of argument) does not make time "illusionary". It becomes an emergent property rather than a fundamental one. So what? Chemistry is an emergent property of physics, life is an emergent property of chemistry, and intelligence is an emergent property of life. That does not mean that combustion, the dog I just took for a walk, or me typing this post are illusions.

...time isn't a dimension as such, like a distance, it's the change (in dimension)...
Without dimensions concept you cannot understand the significance of multiple dimensions of time, Frud11 (1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/10/scitime110.xml), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-theory) and others..).

You can stay in your belief of reality, neverthelles the predictability of more advanced theories will remain richer. It's like the belief in 4D space-time with compare to belief in 12D space-time.

Ben-the-man,

Why are you so reluctant to accept time as being nothing more than a measuring tool or a mere consequence of energy/matter existing? Why do you need time to exist? You have energy and matter which exists in abundance throughout the universe and we know we can use certain bits of this matter to “compare” against other bits of matter.

We just take a piece of matter, which happens to deliver a convenient arbitrarily chosen regular “beat”, and use it to “measure” other bits of matter. You crunch a few numbers and call your answer time. So what! All you’re doing is making comparisons between the behaviour of real, physical things. These physical bits of matter you are measuring (or using to measure with) don’t require time to exist, they just exist and behave in accordance with all the other stuff which they interact with. Time is a mathematical tool – not real – it’s a consequence of how matter and energy is organised across the fabric of the universe and the fact that events can be located and ordered relative to an observer, who funnily enough must also be made of matter.

A caesium atom will oscillate differently depending on where it is located in the fabric of space and how fast it is travelling through it. Then we do a few experiments and attribute our comparative analysis calcs as being related to time dilating rather than accepting that the atom might actually behave differently depending on its interaction with space fabric.

It all seems very simple to me and I suggest that the word “space-time” should be abolished and replaced with something more representative and meaningful. Any ideas anyone?

Does "length" exist?
Does "weight" exist?
Does "colour" exist?

I think not. They are all a "consequence" of the interaction of energy/mass. And so s time.

Why do you need time to exist?
IMO every quantity can be replaced by combination of other ones, for example the time can be replaced by the curvature of space or mass/energy density. It's just less effective, but not impossible. Geometrodynamics operates in virtual 4D space-time, where the time and space intervals are measured by the same unit, derived from speed of light. Here's virtually no difference between space and time. Bellow is the unit conversion table of geometrodynamics theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics) and SI:

http://astronuklfyzika.cz/G2-114tab.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/time_dimension.gif

The problem is, such reduction brings nothing new (the predictions in particular) into physics. It just makes some calculations more easier, while complicating the others. While the time dependent functions have no significant physical meaning in quantum theory, so the time can be replaced by the probability here without problem, in general relativity the time is the immanent dimension of space-time and it cannot be omitted from here. While the QM is atemporal in certain extent, the relativity is event (horizon) driven theory, in fact.

If time is something real, and a fundamental physical part of the universe, why isn't it like particles of matter? Or like energy? Why can't we store time particles or accelerate them in an inertial field, or an electric field? Why aren't they charged? And so on.

Why is it such a big problem when someone claims that time doesn't exist, except as a fundamental part of the observational process?
This seems a lot more rational than any belief that time is found in quantised bits, zipping around the cosmos. It's there because we don't see everything that happens. It's there because we miss most of the action, and the action looks like it's going forwards. Time-as-observation still doesn't explain why it seems to only go forwards, however.

Maybe the question should be: "how does it explain entropy, or the tendency to disperse"?

If time is something real
I'm not saying, the time dimension is more real, then the space dimensions. In fact, it just depends on the relative wavelengths size, if you will prefer the observation of spacetime by using of space or by using of time. For example, the blind bat doesn't estimate the distance by using of sound frequency in general, but by time intervals during short 5 msec pulses of FM ultrasound, similar to chattering and flicking (the real sound sample is linked below the waveform). So we can say, the bat perceives the distances just by some abstract time intervals. Only relativelly large speed of light prohibits us to navigate in space-time by bat's way.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/bat_echo.gif http://www.zool.unizh.ch/static/animal_behaviour/people/safi/diss/sound-file.gif (http://www.sound-effect.com/sounds/animal/batsounds/bat1.wav)

If you'll navigate across dark room, you can still estimate its distances by measuring of time intervals between touching of walls. Your perception of space will be completely converted into measurement of time intervals.

"how does it explain entropy, or the tendency to disperse"?..
The entropy has nothing to do with time, but with probability of different symmetry states. Here are number time arrows definitions in physics (the radiation, imaginary, cosmological, psychological time arrows) - the thermodynamics one is just a one of many definitions of time. By my opinion the time is just the more flat dimension of space-time and nothing exceptional is about it. The choice of time or space dimensions is completely arbitrary - the space-time gradient itself is what is real here, not the choice of coordinate system for it's description. By my opinion the Universe has no single past and future, beginning and end - but as many time dimensions (i.e. the histories and futures), as space dimensions. The Universe has no apparent tendency to collapse or disperse, the Universe is one huge random sh*t without any apparent order - a random combination of states.

Because we are just a tiny part of Universe, we are seeing it by biased way. We don't see a white noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise), but a Gaussian (so called Perlin or Brownian) noise, because the tiny fluctuation cannot interact with all the others with the same probability. This gives us an illusion of Maxwell gas distribution and the inertial nature of space-time, composed of particles, which are following the Boltzmann statistics laws. It contains the density fluctuations, which are gradually collapsing and dissolving by the slower speed, the larger part of Universe they're involving. Therefore we can see usually the smaller objects dissolving and the larger ones collapsing as a general rule. But such rule is just an anthropocentric illusion of reality. From global perspective, in Universe no preffered entropy arrow exists, the time arrow the less.

If time is something real, and a fundamental physical part of the universe, why isn't it like particles of matter? Or like energy?
So what? We can't store spatial dimension, either. The answer is, we don't know. To claim that we do know what time is based on an untenable, untestable, and unusable conjecture is ludicrous.

Frud, you have not addressed one single request for information made by Ben or addressed one single counterclaim made by me. Instead you attack those who doubt this hypothesis as stupid. This is how crackpots act. I suggest that you change your ways if you do not want to be labeled as one and if you don't want your threads in this forum to be deleted or moved to a forum more appropriate for psychoceramic ramblings.

..why can't we store time particles or accelerate them in an inertial field, or an electric field..
Because we can't do the same with the space particles either. After all, what are you calling the "particles of time" exactly? The bosons?

that the word “space-time” should be abolished
You can use the "gradient", "manifold" or "brane" words. For example, the water surface can serve as a pretty example of local space-time. In fact's it's just a density gradient of another density gradients.

A summary of the NS article may follow, in bits and pieces. Since we can't get past the premise that it's based on: "time is imaginary or illusory", and what is meant by that, I'm not feeling confident...

Anyway, the preamble in the article, starting on p26, is about how physicists are looking for an answer to some of the questions we all have at some stage. Some suspect that "time is not a fundamental feature,,,but rather an artefact of our perception". It goes on to discuss the incompatibilities between General Relativity and QM, and how the QM model "divides the universe into two parts: the quantum system being observed, and the classical world outside".

Julian Barbour's 1990's suggestion that time is non-existent in a universal quantum theory is mentioned. Then the need for a way "to do quantum mechanics in the absence of time".

Then the article gets into Rovelli's work. It's one of many approaches to "dealing with" time, and a way of uniting GR and gravity with quantum behaviour. Quantum gravity theories seem to keep bumping up against the time barrier.

I don't seriously think they're going to listen very hard to any of us, especially if we say things like: "any hypothesis is doomed from the start", etc.

Next, you used the word "continuous". Continuity with respect to what? Time? Something else? If this something else is not time, then what?For someone who appears to profess understanding of mathematics and set theory, this is a bit surprising.
Continuity is continuity. Why does something continuous have to be continuous "with respect to" something else? This is a non-argument, which you appear to have based on a deliberately false premise.

A continuous pattern, is a pattern that is self-identical, i.e. it repeats itself continuously. Try to imagine a featureless room with no corners, with a sort of vague, beige background colour. Think fractals, or read up on a bit more math, maybe.

P.S. You have made rather sweeping and general claims about the thermal time hypothesis. However, just saying shit and not providing any reasons, nor any scientific arguments, but simply ranting away, is pretty crackpot-looking.
Making claims like: "it flies in the face of the Uncertainty Principle", but not showing or arguing why it does, looks quite ludicrous. Are you going to substantiate any of the wild claims you keep making? I can keep calling your ideas a crock, if you'd prefer.

Frud---

However, just saying shit and not providing any reasons, nor any scientific arguments, but simply ranting away, is pretty crackpot-looking.

You have been doing this for a while now. This is the last request. We can discuss the nature of time vis a vis the New Scientist article, which you can link to or sumarize for us, or I can lock the thread again.

Others:

As of yet, there have been no convincing arguments as to why time is not to be considered as it has been since Einstein. Specifically, comments like this:

Why are you so reluctant to accept time as being nothing more than a measuring tool or a mere consequence of energy/matter existing?

are COMPLETELY outside of the spirit of science. Your new theory of time has to be better than the old theory, it has to explain more, and it has to convince ME (i.e. other scientists).

So, Frud---
link to the article or tell me what it says. What we have now is just a bunch of people talking about nothing in particular.

For someone who appears to profess understanding of mathematics and set theory, this is a bit surprising.
Continuity is continuity. Why does something continuous ...
Continuity is not a fundamental property. It is a well defined concept in math and physics. A function f(x) is continuous at a point p if for every \epsilon>0 there exists a \delta>0 such that f(x)\in N(\epsilon,f(p)) for all x\in N(\delta,p). A multivariate function can be continuous with respect to one variable but discontinuous with respect to another. So, to repeat, continuous with respect to what? What exactly does this article mean by the state of a particle? (Typically, state means position and momentum, or some other canonically conjugate pair of variables.) If not time, what is/are the independent variables with respect to which the state is continuous?
However, just saying shit and not providing any reasons, nor any scientific arguments ...
I have made many specific claims. You have not addressed one.
The jump from non-fundamental to illusionary is untenable. I will grant that future physicists may develop some new physics in which space-time is not a fundamental property of the universe (i.e., derived from something more basic). That future development will not mean that space-time is illusionary. The analogy from temperature in classical thermodynamics to energy in statistical mechanics is quite apt here. Temperature remains a very valid and very real thing, even though it is an emergent property rather than a fundamental one.
The basic premise is fatally flawed. One cannot have perfect knowledge of the state (a canonically conjugate pair of variables) of one particle. To say otherwise flies in the face of the very well-tested uncertainty principle.
The basic premise is deeply flawed. Even granting the ability to have perfect knowledge of the state of one particle, there is no way to obtain the knowledge of the 6*1026 particles that comprise a typical macro collection of particles.


Making claims like: "it flies in the face of the Uncertainty Principle", but not showing or arguing why it does, looks quite ludicrous.
I would have thought that, since you are making pronouncements on very advanced concepts in physics, that you would know what the uncertainty principle is. OK then. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle states that a pair of canonically conjugate variables (e.g., position and momentum; basically, any two representations of state whose product has units of energy) have an inherent and insurmountable uncertainty due to wave-particle duality. You cannot have perfect knowledge of a particle's state.

So, to repeat, continuous with respect to what?And to repeat. with respect to itself.

Frud, I am not the one making claims of continuity and rejecting the concept of time. You are. If time is not the independent variable against which you are claiming the state of a particle is continuous, then what is the independent variable?

* The jump from non-fundamental to illusionary is untenable.Not to a bunch of physicists, it isn't.

I will grant that future physicists may develop some new physics in which space-time is not a fundamental property of the universe (i.e., derived from something more basic).
That future development will not mean that space-time is illusionary.Good for you. But, the article is about the illusion of time, not spacetime
The analogy from temperature in classical thermodynamics to energy in statistical mechanics is quite apt here. Temperature remains a very valid and very real thing, even though it is an emergent property rather than a fundamental one.But time isn't, or can't be an emergent property, analogous to temperature: the "thermal time hypothesis"?
* The basic premise is fatally flawed. One cannot have perfect knowledge of the state (a canonically conjugate pair of variables) of one particle. Not according to that well-tested principle that Heisenberg coined. But that DOES NOT MEAN, that you can't conceive of having complete information, or "perfect knowledge". We cannot have complete knowledge of anything--this is provable mathematically.
* The basic premise is deeply flawed. Even granting the ability to have perfect knowledge of the state of one particle, there is no way to obtain the knowledge of the 6*1026 particles that comprise a typical macro collection of particles.Argument from fallacy of the precedent--something the Greeks understood as an invalid argument form. There is nothing "deeply flawed" about the premise, at all.

I am not the one making claims of continuity and rejecting the concept of time.

Nor am I rejecting the concept of time. What I said was: if you could see enough detail, you would see a continuous pattern, and time would not exist (at that level of detail).
I said nothing about continuous states of particles, or relative continuity. A pattern is continuous if it is self-relative and repeated. If you repeat the same pattern everywhere, you have a continuous pattern.
Try it sometime, or read up about fractal geometry and the meaning of: "recursively defined".

The atemporal concept is nothing new in the physics, by the same way, like the multidimensional time concept (1 (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9902037), 2 (http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v28/215.pdf),3 (http://www.sastpc.org/internal/PRECARD.pdf), 4 (http://afmayer.net/),5 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985NCimL..42...35Z&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=), 6 (http://www.draaisma.net/rudi/science_cosmology/3-dimensional_time.html), 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperwarp_6D),8 (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0404033), 9 (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127),10 (http://hypercomplex.xpsweb.com/articles/151/en/pdf/01-03-e.pdf), 11 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301003),12 (http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~amt6eac/SixDee.html), 13 (http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv3i9p35.pdf),14 (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/eindex.html),15 (http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/PIRT2002/Guy%20Pirt%202.doc),16 (http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/PIRT2004/Guy%20Pirt%20IX.doc),17 (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0007/0007028.pdf),18 (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/barashenkov_multidim.time.pdf),19 (http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-99-23-5/fiz-23-5-2-9902-3.pdf),20 (http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-99-23-5/fiz-23-5-2-9902-3.pdf),21 (http://www1.jinr.ru/Pepan_letters/panl_6_2002/04_bar.pdf), 22 (http://www1.jinr.ru/Pepan_letters/panl_2_2004/2_2004_06_bar.pdf) .. etc)). I don't think, the J.A. Wheeler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamic), D. Bohm (http://www.answers.com/topic/implicate-and-explicate-order-according-to-david-bohm), J. Barbour (http://www.platonia.com/), P.Yourgrau (http://www.friesian.com/goedel.htm), Dennis A. Wright (http://www.cgold.com.au/prophecyline/wright.htm), P. Lynds (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html), Ron Larther (http://www.btinternet.com/~author.ron/general_hypothesis_1.htm) and many others proponents of atemporal concepts are the victims of establishment. For example the J.A.Wheeler or D.Bohm in particular were well respected representatives of mainstream science, but the generally low interest of mainstream science community about atemporal concept is given by the low usefulness and non-testability of this concept.

But time isn't, or can't be an emergent property, analogous to temperature: the "thermal time hypothesis"?
That is exactly what the thermal time hypothesis says time is: an emergent property, rather than a fundamental one.
Not according to that well-tested principle that Heisenberg coined. But that DOES NOT MEAN, that you can't conceive of having complete information, or "perfect knowledge".
This is physics, not philosophy. Philosophers can conjecture perfect knowledge. Physicists cannot, at least not until they disprove the uncertainty principle.
There is nothing "deeply flawed" about the premise, at all.It is deeply flawed in the sense that no viable physics claims to proceed from the micro world to the macro world with a single hand wave. How exactly do you purport to assess the state of a collection of 6*1026 particles? Do you even know why I keep repeating that number?

What I said was: if you could see enough detail, you would see a continuous pattern, and time would not exist (at that level of detail).
What do you mean by "continuous"?

what the thermal time hypothesis says time is: an emergent property, rather than a fundamental one
This is just a matter of perspective. The physicists are surprisingly naive at this point. They're don't understand the nature of temperature, but they're speculating about temperature as about fundamental quantity. But the temperature concept itself relies on the presence of massive particles which are colliding mutually. An the concept of such particles relies on the existence of space-time gradients/curvature again on the background.

This is the similar problem, like the hope of some naive theorists, the physics can be explained by informational theory or by differentiable math or by algebra calculus. But the information is always carried by inertial matter/energy, the differential math is based on the inertial gradients and the algebra is based on the existence of countable objects, i.e. the particles. Here's uncrossable barrier between abstract world of math and the real world of physics - and the time concept is the barrier of the physics and the abstract math reconciliation, because it can't be derived from abstract math by any way. The existence of math laws and/or information is the consequence of physical reality, not vice-versa.

What do you mean by "continuous"?A continuous pattern, is a pattern that looks the same in all directions, or from all angles. A pattern is not continuous with respect to, or relative to, anything but itself.

Because we know what the number 1 is, does that mean we have "complete" knowledge of every real value between 0 and 1? On that continuous line thingamy--the real number line?
What is the real number line continuous on, or with respect to?

What you just said is complete hogwash. You haven't the foggiest notion what continuity means, do you?

What you just said is complete hogwash. You haven't the foggiest notion what continuity means, do you?

I believe I am of the same mind.

Frud, despite repeated requests to provide us with a summary of the article, you have chosen to pursue something besides science here.

Thread locked.