From Philosophical Research
------
(response) [cr. 2025-05-10T22:23:01Z]
This quantum handshake model really makes me think of general relativity. [*h]
The point of relativity was that you can view the universe from any reference frame and it still makes sense, even if the contents of the universe are stretched out enough that when you stand in one of the reference frames light has so much trouble getting to the other part that the two parts experience time differently. For both reference frames to experience time passing there effectively has to be a "handshake" between them.
So the issue here might be that we should be thinking of the future spatially, where each reference frame is the other reference frame's future, just because one definition of physics is the exchange of fundamental interactions between separate objects. It doesn't matter if the exchange of interactions is some mess of virtual particles that's hard to study directly. It matters that the photons or gauge bosons or virtual particles, etc., are going back and forth in the space between two interacting objects. And we may discover that time is nothing more than that: time is created because interactions happen, _out of_ interactions plus relativity, because for some unknown reason exchanging things between reference frames always happens in time.
As for the mathematics? Maybe physicists have to find some relativistic counterpart to differential equations.
------
[cr. 2025-05-11T03:41:34Z]
a differential equation is a field of changes that can be used to solve for a particular physics equation.
ordinary physics equations typically describe the relationship between two quantities at each point in time over time. but it is often easier to measure how a quantity changes at each moment relative to another quantity, producing a field of changes which can then become the derivative for the ordinary equation that predicts that process.
this is the part of differential equations that is relatively simple. what is not simple is what they actually mean and how we are supposed to interpret them.
it is very tempting to say that because a differential equation integrates into a function over time, that this time-function represents the actual material reality. but this may be misleading.
Einstein was able to show that the local experience of time stretches or contracts depending on the speed things are traveling at, and it is generally not possible to speak of time as passing consistently across the universe without reference to some particular point experiencing an event at some other point.
having this knowledge about what time really appears to be, it is strange we still all put up with zeroth-order physics equations tracing events "through time" as if time were a universal thing.
perhaps there is a reason that differential equations are more intuitive for directly modeling reality than time equations. maybe the interactions between things are as important to understanding how systems evolve as the path objects take through time in some particular reference frame.
"determinism" is already a fuzzy thing. it's only the simplified regression line for the real-world interactions between two or more objects that we actually observe.
objects are often predictable, even though their exact movements can be chaotic, and chaotic even though their overall track can be predictable.
this leads to some very strange and possibly nonsensical questions
what if a time equation actually had some sort of relativistic data structure below it — in general, one example of a "relativistic" object or function is a Lorentz transform.
do relativistic data structures have derivatives/integrals? is there a way to squash particularly simple interactions into a time equation anyway, even if it won't work for every kind of interaction?
what would it be like if you tried to express the event of something hitting a wavefunction and changing the quantum object using relativistic data structures? is the whole problem with "measurements" that we are trying to put multiple objects into one equation that best describes a single object?
------
=> youtube.com/watch?v=zS2WMCimRRY *h. Teleology: Rethinking How We Do Physics - Hossenfelder 2025 ;
;
=> 1733514347 v5.2 chapters/ relativity ; 1101 relativity
=> 1743656980 v5.2 revision scraps/ "free will"/ determinism in physics ; 1111 AE shenlong FreeWill
:: cr. 2025-05-11T03:41:34Z
; 1746934894
:: t. differentiate
:: t. v5-1_1101r_differentiate
; v5.1 scraps/ differential equations and relativity
