# Space is what time looks like

## Recommended Posts

Is Pythagoras' theorem dynamical? Does it include time?

Any equation is dynamical. You read it from left to right, or from right to left.

Like any written language.

##### Share on other sites

Any equation is dynamical. You read it from left to right, or from right to left.

Like any written language.

You are mixing mathematics, the notation of mathematics, the writing and reading of mathematics.

##### Share on other sites

Any equation is dynamical. You read it from left to right, or from right to left.

Like any written language.

Ignoring the irrelevant (and slightly silly) fact that it takes time to read it, it is a declarative statement that defines a fixed relationship. The same is true of much of mathematics - unless it explicitly includes time (or some other changing variable).

##### Share on other sites

You are mixing mathematics, the notation of mathematics, the writing and reading of mathematics.

????? Isn't that all mathematics?

Let me be wrong but I know no static language. (maybe it is worth another thread)

Ignoring the irrelevant (and slightly silly) fact that it takes time to read it, it is a declarative statement that defines a fixed relationship. The same is true of much of mathematics - unless it explicitly includes time (or some other changing variable).

I think it is wrong to consider an equation as a fixed relationship. How do you make any mathematic operation without time? Even A=B requires time. Any relation requires time. Otherwise you have A. You have B. And they are not related. Not even equal.

Edited by michel123456
##### Share on other sites

????? Isn't that all mathematics?

The universal truths of mathematics are independent of the notation used.

Let me be wrong but I know no static language. (maybe it is worth another thread)

You seem to have missed what one means in mathematics by 'dynamics'. We are not talking about how mathemaics is written. You were talking about how space and time could arise as non-fundamental features of a theory in some kind of limit - right?

##### Share on other sites

The universal truths of mathematics are independent of the notation used.

You seem to have missed what one means in mathematics by 'dynamics'. We are not talking about how mathemaics is written. You were talking about how space and time could arise as non-fundamental features of a theory in some kind of limit - right?

Yes. And you said "we don't know how to do physics (so dynamics) without time!"

My opinion is that time is inherent in mathematics and thus you must consider time as already existing when using mathematics in physics. I thought it was an evidence but now I realize it is an opinion...

-----------------

If mathematics are static, then it is also evident that you will never find emergent time from it.

If mathematics have already time in it then you can use time in physics without second thought.

Edited by michel123456
##### Share on other sites

My opinion is that time is inherent in mathematics and thus you must consider time as already existing when using mathematics in physics. I thought it was an evidence but now I realize it is an opinion...

But time is not inherent in mathematics. We can disucss mathematical theoerms that do not used the notion of time. For example, the quadratic formula itself says nothing about time - though that formula maybe useful in phsyics.

##### Share on other sites

I think it is wrong to consider an equation as a fixed relationship. How do you make any mathematic operation without time? Even A=B requires time. Any relation requires time. Otherwise you have A. You have B. And they are not related. Not even equal.

That is just nonsense. I can't think of anything else to say.

##### Share on other sites

But time is not inherent in mathematics. We can disucss mathematical theoerms that do not used the notion of time. For example, the quadratic formula itself says nothing about time - though that formula maybe useful in phsyics.

Obviously we don't understand each other.

My point is that you cannot have the slightest notion of mathematics without time.

##### Share on other sites

If mathematics are static, then it is also evident that you will never find emergent time from it.

If mathematics have already time in it then you can use time in physics without second thought.

What do you mean by static? I think we have some crossed wires here.

My point is that you cannot have the slightest notion of mathematics without time.

I cannot because I exist in a Universe that has time... but that does not mean that mathematics itself has time written into it.

Edited by ajb
##### Share on other sites

That is just nonsense. I can't think of anything else to say.

Oh you think mathematics are static?

##### Share on other sites

Oh you think mathematics are static?

This depends on what you mean... so what do you mean?

##### Share on other sites

Just because you can write down something on a piece of paper that doesn't mean it has no time in it.

Mathematics are a language. Or like music if you prefer.

you write mathematics, you read mathematics. It is a tool.

How else to say?

##### Share on other sites

Just because you can write down something on a piece of paper that doesn't mean it has no time in it.

Where is the time in

$ax^2 + bx + c =0$

Mathematics are a language. Or like music if you prefer.

More than a language I think ... but anyway what has this to do with the physical notion of time?

you write mathematics, you read mathematics.

And what has this to do with time?

What do you really mean by static? I think we are missing each other here.

Mathematicans are not static. Mathematics is not static in the sense that we do develop/discover new things as time goes on. But still, mathematics as mathematics need not say anything about time.

Mathematic is static in the sense that once a proof of a statement is given that statement is considered true for ever and was always true.

It is how we apply mathematics that may or may not say something about time.

##### Share on other sites

Where is the time in

$ax^2 + bx + c =0$

More than a language I think ... but anyway what has this to do with the physical notion of time?

And what has this to do with time?

What do you really mean by static? I think we are missing each other here.

Mathematicans are not static. Mathematics is not static in the sense that we do develop/discover new things as time goes on. But still, mathematics as mathematics need not say anything about time.

Mathematic is static in the sense that once a proof of a statement is given that statement is considered true for ever and was always true.

It is how we apply mathematics that may or may not say something about time.

$ax^2 + bx + c =0$

Each operation here contains time.

1 a multiplied by x

2 square of ax

5 equal sign

You have used time in 5 consecutive steps.

##### Share on other sites

$ax^2 + bx + c =0$

Each operation here contains time.

1 a multiplied by x

2 square of ax

5 equal sign

You have used time in 5 consecutive steps.

What?

Yes, it took me time to write that... but so what?

I wonder if you are just messing with us all now.

##### Share on other sites

$ax^2 + bx + c =0$

Each operation here contains time.

1 a multiplied by x

2 square of ax

5 equal sign

You have used time in 5 consecutive steps.

Nope. No mention of time there.

I wonder if you are just messing with us all now.

Indeed. No one could seriously believe this.

##### Share on other sites

Nope. No mention of time there.

Indeed. No one could seriously believe this.

You don't understand.

Do you agree that the operations in the example are ordered? That some operation must be done before some other?

Does the word "before" mean something to you?

##### Share on other sites

Do you agree that the operations in the example are ordered? That some operation must be done before some other?

No.

##### Share on other sites

You seem to be talking about how we do mathematics, how we write mathematics and so on... but not really the mathematics itself. Writing out some random equation does not tell us anything about time or that time is some how inherent in mathematics.

##### Share on other sites

No.

?????

How do you obtain ax^2?

Do you first make ax then square

or first x^2 and then multiply by a?

Edited by michel123456
##### Share on other sites

Sometimes the order does not matter - and when it does we pick a convention. This is again a thing to do with notation than anything deep in mathematics itself.

Still, mathematicans being subject to time does not tell us anything about time in mathematics.

##### Share on other sites

Sometimes the order does not matter - and when it does we pick a convention. This is again a thing to do with notation than anything deep in mathematics itself.

Still, mathematicans being subject to time does not tell us anything about time in mathematics.

When order does not matter it corresponds to a very special property. The basic says that order matters. Some things must be calculated before, some others after. Before & after are notions of time. Ordering is a time-related notion.

1+1=2 contains time in it.

##### Share on other sites

Some things must be calculated before, some others after. Before & after are notions of time. Ordering is a time-related notion.

Again, this is how we do mathematics and is really tied to our notation.

1+1=2 contains time in it.

I disagree.

There is a universal truth there that does not have anything to do with the physical notion of time.

The real numbers have an operation on them that we call addition - we use the notaion '+' for this. We have a specified number, that we denote as '1' and another we denote as '2'. It is a universal and unchanging truth that

1+1 =2

as we write it.

Nothing to do with time here in any deep way.

The only place where time comes into it is that I am subject to time as you are. Thus how we do mathematics is constrained by time - but not the mathematics itself. Time is not written into mathematics in any deep way.

##### Share on other sites

When order does not matter it corresponds to a very special property. The basic says that order matters. Some things must be calculated before, some others after. Before & after are notions of time. Ordering is a time-related notion.

1+1=2 contains time in it.

So the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter isn't pi before we do a calculation?

## Create an account

Register a new account