Erick retweeted
Time travel presents an interesting distinction between a simulated universe and physical reality.
In a simulation, traveling backward in time could simply be a programming operation. The system could restore an earlier state, insert the traveler, and create a new branch of history. Any paradox would be avoided because the original timeline would remain intact. Of course, the simulation might not permit time travel at all.
In the physical universe, things are different. Entropy gives us the thermodynamic arrow of time, while causality creates potential paradoxes associated with traveling into the past. Neither conclusively proves backward time travel impossible, but both raise serious questions.
This connects to a more fundamental idea: time is a measure of change. In a simulation, restoring an earlier state doesn't actually reverse time in the computer running it. The computer continues changing forward while reproducing an earlier configuration.
Perhaps the same distinction is essential to understanding physical time. Recreating a previous state is not necessarily traveling into the past. It may simply be the beginning of a new sequence of changes.
The real question is whether the physical universe permits anything equivalent to restoring or revisiting an earlier state, and so far, we have no evidence that it does.
Erick retweeted
Time, Space, Change, and Existence
Time is a measurement of change, just as distance is a measurement of space.
Was there ever a state in which absolutely nothing changed? I suspect there was. But if nothing changed, there would be no way to measure time. No clocks, no events, no transitions from one state to another.
We could not even say that such a state lasted a second or a billion years, because duration itself would have no meaning. Under this interpretation, time began when change began. There was no meaningful "before," because there was no change by which time could be measured.
The same reasoning applies to space. Distance measures spatial separation. Without space, there are no distances, directions, or spatial relationships to measure.
This suggests that space and change may be more fundamental than distance and time. Distance describes relationships within space, while time describes relationships between changes.
Without space and change, the physical universe as we understand it could not exist. But this raises a deeper question: Could something exist without either?
Perhaps existence requires space and change. Or perhaps an unchanging, timeless state could exist, with change emerging from it.
The distinction matters because we should not confuse our inability to measure something with proof that it cannot exist.
My central proposition is that space and change are fundamental, while distance and time are measurements of their relationships.
Erick retweeted
Both space and its contents can change, but they change in fundamentally different ways. And I think this distinction is important to our discussion of whether time is a measure of change.
We should separate three things:
* Space: The geometry within which we describe positions, distances, and directions.
* Matter and energy: The physical contents of the universe, including particles, radiation, and fields.
* Change: Alterations in physical states, relationships, or geometry.
The question is whether space is merely the framework in which matter and energy change, or whether space itself has properties that can change independently.
According to Einstein's general relativity, the answer is that the geometry of space can change too.
Two ways space can change
1\. Cosmic expansion
As the universe expands, distances between widely separated, unbound galaxies increase. This is not simply matter flying outward through a fixed, empty container. In general relativity, the geometry used to describe those distances evolves.
Physicists commonly call this the expansion of space, although space is not literally a stretchy material.
2\. Gravitational waves
When massive objects such as black holes merge, they generate gravitational waves. These waves travel through regions containing no ordinary matter and produce measurable changes in the distances between freely moving objects.
This is particularly important: the changing geometry is not merely the motion of material particles. The gravitational field has its own dynamics, and gravitational waves carry energy.
What does this mean for the hypothesis?
We should be careful about imagining space as an empty box containing matter and energy.
Einstein's theory describes a more integrated reality: spacetime geometry and the physical contents of the universe interact. Matter and energy influence geometry, and geometry influences how matter and energy behave.
This suggests refining the original premise:
Time measures physical change, including changes in matter, energy, fields, and spacetime geometry itself.
But notice something: even when physicists describe changing geometry, they use time as a coordinate in their equations. My argument asks whether that time coordinate has any independent physical meaning without distinguishable changes.
That remains a philosophical question with implications for foundational physics.
And it brings us to something important about the original unity.
Perhaps the unity was not matter and energy inside space. Perhaps space, matter, and energy were all aspects of a more fundamental physical reality that subsequently differentiated.
That is speculative, but it avoids presupposing that space already existed as a container before the universe developed.
The question I'd investigate next is this:
Is space itself fundamental, or does space emerge from the relationships among more fundamental physical entities?
Because if space is emergent, just as I am proposing time may be, then neither space nor time necessarily existed independently of the original unity.
An interesting theory, but perhaps we're approaching time from the wrong direction. Change occurs in three spatial dimensions, and time is how we measure change. Does that mean time itself must have three dimensions? Not necessarily. Three independent directions of spatial change do not require three independent temporal dimensions.
The more fundamental question may be whether time exists independently of physical change at all. If absolutely nothing changed, what reference would establish that time was passing? Perhaps we should begin by understanding the relationship between existence, change, and time before assuming that time is the underlying structure from which space emerges.
Erick retweeted
Why did Omar report 30m in assets and then change it to near zero later.
Omar: Oops. I made a mistake. I relied on accountants. It was my husband's businesses. I basically dont know.
Me; then why can we trust ypu to vote on a budget in congress.
youtu.be/SO7s6nEgzpM?is=ceQ8…
Erick retweeted
If Ilhan Omar meant the May 1988 beginning of Somalia’s civil war when she wrote in her memoir that she was eight, and her October 4 birthday is correct, that implies she was born in 1979. She would then have been 20 or 21 when her father reportedly naturalized in 2000, too old to derive U.S. citizenship as a minor under the law in effect at that time.
Assume Ilhan Omar was referring to the gunfire she personally experienced when major fighting reached Mogadishu in December 1990–January 1991. If she was eight at that time, her reported October 4 birthday would indicate she was born in 1982. She would then have been 17 until October 3, 2000, leaving a period when her father's reported naturalization could have satisfied the under-18 requirement for derivative U.S. citizenship. However, the exact date of her father's naturalization has not been publicly established. Given the ongoing federal investigation, why hasn't this crucial date been disclosed?
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar writes in her memoir, “I was eight years old when civil war broke out in Somalia. One day everything was okay, and the next, there were bullets piercing not only buildings but also people.” While Somalia has suffered several civil wars, the chapter is entitled, “War: 1989-1991, Mogadishu, Somalia.” Mogadishu experienced severe riots in July 1989, including a mass execution that became known as the “Jazeera beach massacre.”
If, in her own words in her own autobiography, Omar was eight when this occurred in 1989, then she was born in 1981, and was 19 years old in the year 2000, when her father purportedly obtained his citizenship, not 1982 as she currently claims.
Erick retweeted
Ilhan Omar said she arrived in America Black, Muslim, and poor, and discovered that the “classless America” her father described didn't exist. Yet she rose from refugee to member of Congress. America has economic classes, but they aren't fixed castes. Doesn't her own life demonstrate the opportunity her father may have meant?
“This doesn’t look like the America you promised,” Omar recalled telling her father, Nur Omar Mohamed.
“We’re not in our America yet,” he replied to his 12-year-old daughter. In Omar’s immigrant story, America wasn’t a “city on a hill,” a haven for grateful masses fleeing war and oppression. Rather, it was a broken promise. “I arrived at the age of 12 and learned that I was the extreme other,” she often said. “I was black. I was Muslim. I also learned I was extremely poor and that the classless America that my father talked about didn’t exist.”
Washington Post, July 6, 2019, photos Ilhan Omar in high school in Minnesota
Erick retweeted
Not exactly RSI.
Its more of assisted improvements.
Erick retweeted
Who should ultimately control an international communications system when the interests of governments, individuals, and the network operator disagree?
Who should ultimately control an international communications system when the interests of governments, individuals, and the network operator disagree?
Not exactly RSI.
Its more of assisted improvements.
Ilhan Omar said she arrived in America Black, Muslim, and poor, and discovered that the “classless America” her father described didn't exist. Yet she rose from refugee to member of Congress. America has economic classes, but they aren't fixed castes. Doesn't her own life demonstrate the opportunity her father may have meant?
“This doesn’t look like the America you promised,” Omar recalled telling her father, Nur Omar Mohamed.
“We’re not in our America yet,” he replied to his 12-year-old daughter. In Omar’s immigrant story, America wasn’t a “city on a hill,” a haven for grateful masses fleeing war and oppression. Rather, it was a broken promise. “I arrived at the age of 12 and learned that I was the extreme other,” she often said. “I was black. I was Muslim. I also learned I was extremely poor and that the classless America that my father talked about didn’t exist.”
Washington Post, July 6, 2019, photos Ilhan Omar in high school in Minnesota
If Ilhan Omar meant the May 1988 beginning of Somalia’s civil war when she wrote in her memoir that she was eight, and her October 4 birthday is correct, that implies she was born in 1979. She would then have been 20 or 21 when her father reportedly naturalized in 2000, too old to derive U.S. citizenship as a minor under the law in effect at that time.
Assume Ilhan Omar was referring to the gunfire she personally experienced when major fighting reached Mogadishu in December 1990–January 1991. If she was eight at that time, her reported October 4 birthday would indicate she was born in 1982. She would then have been 17 until October 3, 2000, leaving a period when her father's reported naturalization could have satisfied the under-18 requirement for derivative U.S. citizenship. However, the exact date of her father's naturalization has not been publicly established. Given the ongoing federal investigation, why hasn't this crucial date been disclosed?
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar writes in her memoir, “I was eight years old when civil war broke out in Somalia. One day everything was okay, and the next, there were bullets piercing not only buildings but also people.” While Somalia has suffered several civil wars, the chapter is entitled, “War: 1989-1991, Mogadishu, Somalia.” Mogadishu experienced severe riots in July 1989, including a mass execution that became known as the “Jazeera beach massacre.”
If, in her own words in her own autobiography, Omar was eight when this occurred in 1989, then she was born in 1981, and was 19 years old in the year 2000, when her father purportedly obtained his citizenship, not 1982 as she currently claims.
Why did Omar report 30m in assets and then change it to near zero later.
Omar: Oops. I made a mistake. I relied on accountants. It was my husband's businesses. I basically dont know.
Me; then why can we trust ypu to vote on a budget in congress.
youtu.be/SO7s6nEgzpM?is=ceQ8…
Both space and its contents can change, but they change in fundamentally different ways. And I think this distinction is important to our discussion of whether time is a measure of change.
We should separate three things:
* Space: The geometry within which we describe positions, distances, and directions.
* Matter and energy: The physical contents of the universe, including particles, radiation, and fields.
* Change: Alterations in physical states, relationships, or geometry.
The question is whether space is merely the framework in which matter and energy change, or whether space itself has properties that can change independently.
According to Einstein's general relativity, the answer is that the geometry of space can change too.
Two ways space can change
1\. Cosmic expansion
As the universe expands, distances between widely separated, unbound galaxies increase. This is not simply matter flying outward through a fixed, empty container. In general relativity, the geometry used to describe those distances evolves.
Physicists commonly call this the expansion of space, although space is not literally a stretchy material.
2\. Gravitational waves
When massive objects such as black holes merge, they generate gravitational waves. These waves travel through regions containing no ordinary matter and produce measurable changes in the distances between freely moving objects.
This is particularly important: the changing geometry is not merely the motion of material particles. The gravitational field has its own dynamics, and gravitational waves carry energy.
What does this mean for the hypothesis?
We should be careful about imagining space as an empty box containing matter and energy.
Einstein's theory describes a more integrated reality: spacetime geometry and the physical contents of the universe interact. Matter and energy influence geometry, and geometry influences how matter and energy behave.
This suggests refining the original premise:
Time measures physical change, including changes in matter, energy, fields, and spacetime geometry itself.
But notice something: even when physicists describe changing geometry, they use time as a coordinate in their equations. My argument asks whether that time coordinate has any independent physical meaning without distinguishable changes.
That remains a philosophical question with implications for foundational physics.
And it brings us to something important about the original unity.
Perhaps the unity was not matter and energy inside space. Perhaps space, matter, and energy were all aspects of a more fundamental physical reality that subsequently differentiated.
That is speculative, but it avoids presupposing that space already existed as a container before the universe developed.
The question I'd investigate next is this:
Is space itself fundamental, or does space emerge from the relationships among more fundamental physical entities?
Because if space is emergent, just as I am proposing time may be, then neither space nor time necessarily existed independently of the original unity.
An interesting theory, but perhaps we're approaching time from the wrong direction. Change occurs in three spatial dimensions, and time is how we measure change. Does that mean time itself must have three dimensions? Not necessarily. Three independent directions of spatial change do not require three independent temporal dimensions.
The more fundamental question may be whether time exists independently of physical change at all. If absolutely nothing changed, what reference would establish that time was passing? Perhaps we should begin by understanding the relationship between existence, change, and time before assuming that time is the underlying structure from which space emerges.
Why? If the cia created the bc they could simply print it and then scan it to get rid of layers...but then maybe someone incompetent did it.
youtu.be/HiF-sfQQcJQ?is=EMht…
The problem is that its hard to understand time without change.
We imagine that if nothing changed then time is still happening. But that is wrong.
Time requires a reference, and physical references require distinguishable states or events. Without change, there is no operationally meaningful duration.
The next problem is why the first change occured.
Time is a measure of change. If there was no change, there was no meaningful time, because there were no events by which to distinguish a before from an after. This raises an interesting possibility about the origin of the universe and what we mean by God.
Perhaps God was the original unity, an undifferentiated physical reality from which all matter, energy, forces, and physical structures eventually emerged. Rather than a supernatural being existing outside the universe, God may have been the fundamental reality of existence itself.
But what was this original unity? Was it matter, energy, or something more fundamental from which both emerged? Modern physics describes matter as excitations of underlying quantum fields, while energy is a property of physical systems rather than a substance in itself. Perhaps the original unity was a single physical state containing the potential for everything that would eventually exist, governed by principles we have yet to discover.
Then came the first change, when unity began transforming into multiplicity. What we call the Big Bang may have represented an early stage of this transformation. As the universe expanded and cooled, distinct particles, atoms, stars, galaxies, and eventually life emerged. Although modern cosmology describes much of this evolution, it has not established whether the Big Bang represented the absolute beginning of change.
In this view, God did not create the universe at some particular moment in an already existing time. Rather, time itself emerged through change, as the original unity evolved into the multiplicity of things that constitute our universe.
Creation was not necessarily an act performed by a supernatural being separate from existence. It was the transformation of the original physical reality we call God. The universe was not necessarily created from nothing; instead, what existed in unity gradually became the diversity of matter, energy, and structures we observe today.
This interpretation suggests three fundamental concepts: existence, change, and time. Existence is fundamental. Change is a potential or property of existence. Time is how we describe and measure the sequence and duration of changes.
But this leaves a fundamental question: Why did the original unity change?
Perhaps the capacity for change was always inherent in the nature of existence itself. If so, change would not require an external creator or cause. It would simply be a fundamental property of reality, and time would emerge as that reality underwent transformation.
There is also the possibility that the original unity was never truly changeless, but that time, as we understand it, emerged only when distinguishable physical states and events became possible.
Under this hypothesis, God and the universe would not be two separate things. God would be the original unity of existence, and the universe would be its continuing transformation into multiplicity.
Perhaps creation was not the beginning of existence, but the beginning of change as we understand it. And perhaps what we call God is not something beyond physical reality, but the fundamental reality from which everything emerged.
Erick retweeted
AI - will replace investment firms in my opinion.
xitter.cf/Erickschultz11/status/…
