# MSI RTX 3060 Ti VENTUS 2X 8G OCV1 LHR

Visualizing higher dimensions, 2.2 | Remove time from physics, 2

.

Mathematics is local (left brain).

Physics is global (right brain).

— Me@2017-06-22 06:16:59 PM

.

Mathematical processes, i.e. the calculations, are local.

Physical intuitions before a calculation and the interpretations after are global.

— Me@2023-01-13 07:45:24 PM

.

However, in an opposite sense, physics is local and mathematics is global.

— Me@2023-01-14 08:13:17 PM

.

Geometry is global.

Space is what we can see at once.

Dynamics is local.

Time is what we cannot see at once.

— Me@2017-02-07 10:11:34 PM

.

… math is what you get when you remove time from physics.

.

.

# Visualize

visualize ~ feel all at once

— Me@2016-09-28 08:20:18 PM

.

visual ~ same-time representation ~ spatial representation

— Me@2016-06-30 07:38:28 AM

.

.

# 數學教育 7.5.1

Genius 4.2.1 | A Fraction of Algebra, 2.1

.

.

（安：但是，這個講法可能有一個問題。

.

.

（安：去翻譯那些抽象數學概念，到其他範疇，或者日常生活。）

.

.

1. 對數學（及其他學問人生），有極大興趣；

2. 遇到合理的老師和書籍：

3. 極超大量的背誦和練習：

.

— Me@2022.05.02 11:48 PM

.

.

# Visualizing higher dimensions, 2

Geometry is global.

Space is what we can see at once.

Dynamics is local.

Time is what we cannot see at once.

— Me@2017-02-07 10:11:34 PM

.

If we could see, for example, several minutes at once, that several minutes would become a spatial dimension.

In other words, that dimension is visualized for us.

— Me@2017-02-03 07:31:25 AM

.

.

# 龍珠 3

On knowledge independent vectors:

When you already have a complete set of vectors in $n$ dimensional space, you have to go up one extra dimension in order to find a new independent vector.

— Me@2011.08.27

.

.

# Meta-time 7

Two dimensional time, 6

.

y is meta x

~ y is the next dimension of x

.

y is meta-time

~ y is the second dimension of time

— Me@2017-07-10 06:12:08 PM

— Me@2021-03-26 06:00:45 PM

.

.

# Feeling

feeling ~ receiving data non-sequentially

— Me@2017-06-03 02:53:16 PM

.

feeling

~ receiving data in parallel

~ receiving data at once

— Me@2021-01-27 08:19:33 PM

.

For example, you would not feel that it is actually that the air molecules keep hitting you. You would not feel the speed and force of each individual particle. Instead, you have overall feelings of “pressure” and “temperature”.

Actually, you do not feel the temperature. Instead, you feel “cold”, “cool”, “warm”, or “hot”, etc.

— Me@2021-01-27 08:19:33 PM

.

feeling

~ turning data into information

~ statistics in real time

— Me@2021-01-27 08:47:39 PM

.

.

# Two dimensional time 5.2.3

The first time direction is uncontrollable; the second is controlled by making choices, traveling through different realities. Future is a set of parallel universes.

— Me@2017-12-15 10:59:49 AM

.

The first time direction, which is along the timeline, is uncontrollable, because one can only travel from the past to the future, not the opposite.

The second direction, which is across different timelines, is controlled by making choices, forming different realities.

— Me@2019-12-21 11:03:23 PM

.

.

# Two dimensional time 5.2.2

time direction ~ direction of change

multiple time directions ~ multiple directions of change

— Me@2019-12-22 04:38:47 PM

.

the first dimension of time ~ direction of change

the second dimension of time ~ direction of change of changes

— Me@2019-12-22 04:46:47 PM

.

.

# Visualizing higher dimensions

The trick of visualizing higher dimension is: not to visualize it.

— Wikipedia

— Me@2011.08.19

.

Besides trying to visualize, there are other methods to understand higher dimensions.

— Me@2018-10-28 04:28:01 PM

.

.

What is the meaning of visualization?

— Me@2018-09-02 4:35 pm

.

feel ~ receive all the data at once

(This definition is not totally correct, but is useful in the meantime.)

visual ~ feel at once through eyes

.

you can visualize a 3D object ~ you can see all of a 3D object at once

you cannot visualize a 4D object ~ you cannot see all of a 4D object at once

.

Actually, you can only visualize a 2D object, such as a square.

You cannot visualize a 3D object, such as a cube.

That’s why the screen of any computer monitor is 2 dimensional, not 3.

— Me@2018-10-28 04:32:41 PM

.

.

# Juan Maldacena 2

What is the difference between 10 and 11?

The simplest string theory is ten dimensional. Strings can interact with each other. If the interaction among strings is large, the theory is hard to describe. It turns out that when strings interact very, very strongly, something surprising happens. A new dimension opens up and we have a theory in eleven dimensions, the ten we started with plus an extra circle. In eleven dimensions we do not have strings, we have membranes. Membranes wrapped along the 11th dimension give rise to strings.

— Who’s Counting? Is it 10 or 11? (dimensions, that is — M Theory is making me Manic!)

— Prof. Juan Maldacena

2013.09.01 Sunday ACHK

# Juan Maldacena

We do not know yet whether a description in terms of 10 or 11 dimensions is more appropriate for the universe where we live in. But these two possibilities are continuously connected. They are simply different possibilities for the internal geometry. Since the geometry of the internal space is quantum mechanical, asking what its dimension is might not be the right question.

In summary, in a quantum spacetime the dimension might not be a well defined notion. When the space in question is small, it can interpolate continuously between different dimensions.

— Who’s Counting? Is it 10 or 11? (dimensions, that is — M Theory is making me Manic!)

— Prof. Juan Maldacena

2013.08.29 Thursday ACHK

# Meta-time 6

In a computer simulation, the causal chain is fake or artificial. Therefore, “time”-travel is possible.

In reality, time-travel is logically impossible.

— Me@2012.07.05

— Me@2013-07-09 11:30:15 AM

— Me@2013-07-15 02:33:03 PM

# Meta-time 5

Two dimensional time 5 | 二次元時間 5

You are the main author of your future.

In a special sense, the real-present is the meta-time of the potential future timelines, selecting the future among multiple possible timelines.

— Me@2013-07-11 3:48 PM

# Looper, 5.4

Paradox 5.5 | Meta-time 4.5 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.5 | Two dimensional time 4.4 | 二次元時間 4.4

To be logically consistent WITHIN the movie’s story, Young Joe (in the year 2044) should not be able to influence Old Joe, who had time-travelled to the year 2044 from the year 2074，because that Old Joe is from another timeline. The proof is that Young Joe’s experience in the year 2044 is different from Old Joe’s experience in the year 2044 when he was young.

They are not the same person, nor the same person at different ages within the same timeline. At most, they are different versions of the “same” person from two different timelines (aka “parallel universes” or “histories”).

Young Joe’s changes should affect the same-timeline-Old-Joe, but not any Old Joe’s from any other timelines. So the Old Joe within the movie should not have been affected when Young Joe hurt himself.

Also, the changes of the same-timeline-Old-Joe due to the actions of Young Joe should be seen only by the author (meta-time), but not by Young Joe until he has become that Old Joe 30 years later.

The author unintentionally, or intentionally, has confused two story timelines. Moreover, the author unintentionally, or intentionally, has confused the story-time and its meta-time.

— Me@2013-07-05 10:32 PM

# Looper, 5.3

Paradox 5.4 | Meta-time 4.4 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.4 | Two dimensional time 4.3 | 二次元時間 4.3

In a single-mutable-timeline time travel story, the two dimensional time is not due to the internal causal structure of the story. Instead, it is due to the author’s timeline (aka meta-time). The author’s timeline is the second time dimension (aka independent direction).

The single-mutable-timeline model of time travel is not logically consistent within the story. If it is “mutable”, it is not “single”.

The single-mutable-timeline model of time travel is logically consistent only outside the story, from the perspective of the story’s author.

— Me@2013-07-02 3:47 PM

# Looper, 5.2

Paradox 5.3 | Meta-time 4.3 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.3 | Two dimensional time 4.2 | 二次元時間 4.2

In the movie Looper, Young Joe (in the year 2044) influences Old Joe (in the year 2074) in the sense that Young Joe’s every action affects the state of Old Joe, because Old Joe is Young Joe’s future self.

For example, after Young Joe had hurt his own arm, the corresponding wound also appeared on Old Joe’s arm, even though Old Joe had already time-travelled back to the year 2044.

All of Young Joe’s actions are the causes of Old Joe’s state. Young Joe is in the past of Old Joe.

Old Joe (2074-Joe) = [ …, Young Joe (2044-Joe), … ]

B = [ …, A, … ]

However, Old Joe (2074-Joe) had time-travelled back to the year 2044, meeting the Young Joe.

So, some of Old Joe’s actions would affect Young Joe’s decisions on his own actions. In this sense, Old Joe also influences Young Joe indirectly. Some of Old Joe’s actions are the causes of Young Joe’s state. Part of Old Joe is also in the past of Young Joe.

Young Joe (2044-Joe) = [ …, Old Joe (2074-Joe), … ]

A = [ …, B, … ]

However, it is logically impossible to have both

B is in the past of A

and

A is in the past of B

just as it is logically almost impossible to have both

D is a part of C

and

C is a part of D

If you insist that it is the case, the only possibility is that

C = D

In this analogy, neither C nor D is really a “part” of another. In the time travel case, neither A nor B is really in the past of another. In other words, A (Young Joe) and B (Old Joe) have no time relationship. Neither’s actions are the causes of the state of another.

The real causes of Young Joe or Old Joe’s states are actually not within the movie story’s timeline. The real causes are the decisions of the author of the story.

— Me@2013-07-03 6:19 PM

# Looper, 5

Paradox 5.2 | Meta-time 4.2 | Cumulative concept of time, 13.2 | Two dimensional time 4.1 | 二次元時間 4.1

In a “if and only if” case, there is no time.

If A is a necessary condition of B, we say “A is a cause of B“. In other words, A is in the past of B.

However, in some time travel story, it is “possible” to have both

A is a cause of B

(A is a necessary condition of B)

(B -> A)

and

B is a cause of A

(B is also a necessary condition of A)

(A -> B)

In this case, A and B are just equivalent.

(A B)

Neither is in the past of another. A and B have no causal relationship. In this sense, there is no time.

— Me@2013-07-03 6:19 PM