The h Bar

Put down the chocolate-covered banana and step away from the European currency systems

what's hard about it @Secret

There's one now, and anything outside of it does not exist. Is this now subjective, or basically act like a scanner and runs along events turning them from yet to exist to present to ceased to exist?

the point of presentism is that it is objective

interesting read @BernardoMeurer

12:26 PM

Consider a sequence of events ABCDEFG. Depending on where the now is, A can be past, present or future. So do we start the analysis with A is past, present or future. where should I position this now if it is objective?

@Secret how can it be like a scanner?

@Kenshin It's one of my very favorite links on the internet

A scanner implies there is other stuff to scan

but presentism implies there is nothing else to scan

only the present is real

So how do we decide when we start analysing events in presentism, whether we start with A is past, or A is present, or A is future?

@Secret there is only one present

that is right now

so if A was before right now, then A is past

and thus A doesn'te xist

the effects of A might tho

12:29 PM

Presentism isn't "hard", it's just that in that branch of "philosophy", people quibble about the "existence" of things would ever bothering to stop and think whether they do have a coherent notion of what it means for something to "exist".

I've never heard any sort of satisfactory explanation of what presentism and eternalism actually disagree about except the ill-defined notion of whether or not the past/future "exists".

@Kenshin But if I have two presentist analysing the same sequence of event, and guy 1 deduce that A is before now thus A is past (does not exist), but guy 2 deduce A is after now thus it is the future (does not exist). Since the now is objective, who is right, guy1 or guy 2?

And if there is nothing else they disagree about - no differing predictions about how the world behaves - then the issue is not whether the past/future "exists", but that that's a completely meaningless question to being with.

@ACuriousMind You think too much, maybe you should start to wear more nike clothing

@Secret you're presupposing there are in fact two guys

in presentism, only one of these guys actually exists

With that said, you are all crazy

12:32 PM

@BernardoMeurer what

ty

@ACuriousMind Just do it

@Kenshin so you mean if I agree that guy 1 exists, then A is past, and if I agree instead that guy 2 exist, then A is future. Thus where A is relative to now depends on which guy I treat as existing?

@Secret let's clarify the thought experiment

So we are in the here and now

and there are two guys , G1 and G2 also in the here and now?

@BernardoMeurer Oh. Heh.

12:34 PM

is this correct @Secret

@Kenshin What does "here and now" mean given the relativity of simultaneity?

@ACuriousMind we will assume they are both stationary relative to each other

You guys are worse than Hegel, good lord

@Kenshin yeah, that's the most extreme possible case, so G1 and G2 basically have opposite deduction on where A is relative to the now

@Secret well one is wrong, simplez

If person A believes in flying pigs and person B doesn't, do flying pigs exist? no they don't

person A is wrong

12:36 PM

@Bernardo I got a notification saying my SAT scores are available. dun dun duuuuun

similarly, why isn't it just that one of the two people in your case is wrong @Secret?

@JaimeGallego DONT OPEN YET

::crosses finger::

Okay, go open

@JaimeGallego wait

WAIT

::crosses toes::

@Kenshin because I am trying to figure out how presentist work out where things are relative to the now, and then my eeternalist mindset stump me cause I cannot imagine anything that does not look like phase space

12:37 PM

go

first what is a good SAT score?

@Kenshin > 2000

ok

go

For the old one at least

750 on both sections!

12:37 PM

New one IDK

so that's 1500

@JaimeGallego Sweet man!

is that good?

good job if good

commiserations if not good

Ah, the essay is gone

The max is 800

12:38 PM

@Kenshin He got 750/800 on the two parts

It's very good

that's pretty good

u gonna be doctor now?

@JaimeGallego You can thank my finger crossing, you're welcome

Basically, the reason why eternalism is easier to me than presentism is because when in doubt, I can plot a timeline and then everything will look like space on paper

and I can see where things are

@Secret presentists don't care about where things are relative to now, because only now exists. If A isn't now, it odesn't exist

Anonymous

@JaimeGallego Congrats :)

12:39 PM

@Kenshin but they need to know whether something is or is not in the now in order to deduce it does or does not exist?

@Secret eternalism is of course better than presentism because eternalism is our cognitive model for understanding sequence of events, cause and effect etc. Cognitive models should make things easier

@Kenshin @Secret Can either of you actually explain what "presentism" and "eternalism" actually disagree about?

@Secret yes but you simply observe around you to see if it is in the now or not

Anonymous

I think you need to make some settings on your College Board page so that your marks are sent to universities of your choice and also prepare the common application form. Good luck @JaimeGallego You got a good score.

Anonymous

What do you want to study btw? CS?

12:41 PM

"They differ about whether or not past events exist" is not an acceptable answer because it is not clear at all to me what the notion of existence for a past event is supposed to mean.

@JaimeGallego do you want to do cog neuro?

For things in the present, I can touch or interact with them to confirm their existence. What criterion does one use to decide whether past things "exist"?

@ACuriousMind exist means exist

@ACuriousMind the past exists if your past you can confirm their existence

Ugh! The essay was not so good. 5/4/5 out of 8/8/8

@Kenshin But what if my past me didn't confirm their existence?

12:42 PM

unlucky bro

@ACuriousMind what if the present you don't confirm existence? Do you believe pluto exists?

Anonymous

@Kenshin lol :P Is that the new cool subject?

yeah bro

the subject to end all subs

AI will rule

@Kenshin does existence of something necessary objective, given how it does not depend on other things to er, exist?

@Kenshin Positing counterfactuals like "you could have done X" are not testable assertions; statements like "you could point a telescope of the following specifications at the following coordinates to observe Pluto" are testable.

@ACuriousMind only testable in the future

does pluto exist right now @ACuriousMind or only when you point the telescope at it and look at it?

I thin k there is an objective reality that "exists" outside our observation

and I think therefore existence doesn't require observation

12:44 PM

@Kenshin It very likely exists since other people have confirmed its existence in the past and there's no reason to believe it has stopped existing.

therefore I think there could be a difference between eternalism and presentism

@Kenshin But what is that difference?

@ACuriousMind one where the present and past exist simultanously and one where they don't

one where my past is living right now

and my future is living right now

Can you point to a single observable thing that would differ in the world if presentism were true as opposed to eternalism?

@ACuriousMind there isn't an experiment to differentiate them at present

12:46 PM

But is there one in principle?

but @ACuriousMind a wormhole for example may confirm eternalism

@blue Physics

because it shows the past exists and is a point where you can go back to

but presentism would mean you can't access points in the distant present or future because only the present exists

Anonymous

@JaimeGallego Nice

Anonymous

All the best :)

12:47 PM

@Kenshin In a universe with wormholes, I question that you can even meaningfully define the notions of "past" and "future".

@Acuriousmind Using what @Kenshin said, I am guessing a past event exists if it is objectively verifiable by some physical experiment or logical chain of reasoning, if something is only true subjectively (i.e. only holds for a finite number of perspectives), then it is likely a product of imagination and hence does not exist except as a mental image

@JaimeGallego What? I thought you wanted CS

You cheated me

In fact, once you start with wormholes, you have to face relativity: There is no unique "present", and there are conceivably observers for whom your past is currently the present.

So I guess whether something exists depends on whether it is objective

@BernardoMeurer I never said anything of the sort

12:48 PM

@ACuriousMind well doesn't htat show already then that presentism is false?

@JaimeGallego Your eyes did

@Kenshin No, it would show it's not a meanngful notion to begin with.

It's not even wrong.

@ACuriousMind It's a chocolate covered banana

Q: Presentism and simultaneity

8

Presentism is the position that all that exists, exists in the present. Though one can speak of the past, and of events in the past, strictly speaking (in this position), there is no temporal event located there, that we are strictly referring to (as opposed to a memory of); and the same, or so f...

ontology philosophy-of-physics causality

@BernardoMeurer sometimes we need them in the interim while we progress

12:50 PM

Behold my handwriting

The clothes-on-fire one

I can read it

it has good character in it mate

@JaimeGallego What'd that for?

I'l show you mine, lol

That's the essay scan

@Secret Dear god, three answers and none that actually answers the question fo what the present is in an intellegible way.

The first is correct, but does nothing to define "the present" presentism talks about.

@JaimeGallego Essay for what?

12:53 PM

The SAT one

They give me the scans

It's fine to post it here, don't worry

The second seems to imply that the notion of simultaneity of some observer is "the present", but does not explain at all how that is reconciled with different observers differing on their notions of simultaneity.

And the third is just gibberish.

@JaimeGallego I thought the new SAT didn't have an essay for some reason

@ACuriousMind that's philosophy SE for u

12:55 PM

@ACuriousMind that is one of the motivation that caused me to ask that "which present" PhSE question and also ask Kenshin abour presentism.

now u know why I ask my philosophy questions here

I really need to harmonize notation

because (at least to me), I have trouble comprehending any concept that cannot be drawn like a phase space of parameters

Sometimes I write vectors as $u$, $X$, $U$, $v$

I upvoted the last answer because it suits the site

12:56 PM

Depending on which source I steal from

I mean

Not steal from

@Secret broaden ur mind

Hello!

Anyway, is the following as a definition for existence a good one?

Hi @nbro

whato dyou want?

@Secret Well, but your newer question explicitly discounts relativity, which to me seems like a cop-out.

12:57 PM

@Secret I don't see the definition

How can you be certain that other observers exist, though, @ACuriousMind

Suppose we have two 3D vectors. We know they MUST have at least one coordinate (i.e. x, y or z) which is positive. We don’t know which one. This is info is given by the user of a certain program. These two vectors actually represent the same vector, but seen from different coordinate systems (or local frames). What can we say about the orientation of these two coordinate systems? Can we say something about how they are orientated with respect to each other?

Seems to me like quite a bold philosophical assumption

@Slereah Presentist solipsism. Nice :D

In other words, if we know that two vectors which actually represent the same vector seen from different coordinate systems have a certain range of coordinates, can we say something about their coordinate systems, i.e. their relation?

12:59 PM

@ACuriousMind I need to understand how the notion of now works in the more fundamental, non relativistic case in order to help me to figure out how it can work in the relativistic case. This is because presentism when it initially developed know nothing about relativity

@nbro yes

their magnitude is the same

Given a single foliation of a spacetime all predictions are perfectly fine

There's no need to assume a different foliation

It may not be the ideal foliation for all observers but of course that's another issue

@Kenshin I know that's actually true, but can you give me more details about that statement? It would be ok to point me to a resource talking about that.

@nbro I don't think you can say anything about the coordinate systems. Consider the case where the vector is (1,0,-1), then you can easily arrage the coordinate system to be left- instead of right-handed by reflecting the second basis vector without changing the vector at all, so they don't even need to have the same handedness.

@nbro x^2 + y^2 + z^2 will be equal for both vectors, because one is a rotation of the other

1:01 PM

Anyway, I was more interested in knowing if there's a relation or what relation there is between the orientation of the coordinate systems.

> An entity is said to exist if the all its defining properties can be objectively verified to be true. Example of a process that can be used to objectively verify something includes physical experiments and (for concepts and statements), a consistent logical chain of reasoning. Otherwise the entity is said to be subjective, and hence may not exist under some perspectives or conditions. This definition relies on that an objective reality is a truth statement of our world

@ACuriousMind Let's suppose both coordinate systems are right-handed. Sorry, I forgot that detail.

@nbro Uh, well, what sort of relation between the coordinate systems are you looking for?

I'm looking for a relation between the verses of the axes of both coordinate systems...

I mean, all coordinate systems are related by some transformation matrix. The vector having a single positive entry does not really restrict much about that matrix

@nbro I don't know what "verses of the axes" are.

1:04 PM

@ACuriousMind I think he's asking, given a particular rotation of view, how does the vector coordinates change

(verses and orientation)

@Secret as good as any, but I"m not sure we can really define things as existing or not

@kenshin Sorry for typing slow for that definition. I was torn between multiple chat conversation streams

ok

@nbro A 'verse' is a line of a poem - I think you're looking for another word there

@ACuriousMind I meant "sense" (i.e. where the "head" of the vector is)

1:06 PM

but then

what is the

More generally, I tend to have a more operational approach in defining concepts. A concept is A if when it interact with other concepts B,C,D etc. in ways that defines A

UNIVERSE

@nbro Oh, you mean its 'direction'!

Not just the direction

@Secret yeah I htink that is a good approach

@Secret because many abstract concepts don't really exist in the physical sense, but they do in the relational sense

1:07 PM

also where the axes are pointing

Length and direction are all the properties a vector has.

Q: What is the sense of a vector?

2

Is the sense the same thing as the direction of a vector? If yes, why should we use the term sense instead of direction? Can anyone illustrate it?

terminology vectors mathematics

@nbro "where it is pointing" is the direction!

@Kenshin and that can answer @EmilioPisanty 's question on why I seemed to have such a liberal notion of existence and interaction

@Secret take a photon. Does a photon actually exist? Maybe not, but in our model of physics it is very conveneint to assume it does exist in such that it interacts in particular ways with the rest of our physical model

1:08 PM

I'm a photon

What are you saying

Then we expect you to become a rainbow when I stuff you through a glass prism :P

@nbro I...am afraid I have never heard that term before.

Obviously not

A photon is a single wavelength

can't form a rainbow

@Kenshin My problem is actually reversed. I know I can correct the sense of the mentioned vectors by knowing that a coordinate of those vectors is positive...

I think "sense" is a bad translation from french "sens"

1:09 PM

And even after reading @JohnRennie's answer, I still have no idea what the "sense" actually is in proper mathematical terms.

It vaguely sounds like the "sense" is something you get when you think that "orientation" does not distinguish between a vector and its negative, so it would effectively be the sign.

yeah I think that would be it

@ACuriousMind Exactly, you can think of it as the sign

Which still doesn't really get me closer to what @nbro's actual question is

You've got a vector in two different coordinate systems, and you know in each, there is one positive coordinate.

Direction would be the image of the vector in the projective vector space while the sens would be the unit vector

@Bernardo I usually write with a fancy Lamy fountain pen if I can.

1:11 PM

So to summarise, when people hear me saying that "I can touch and mix concepts" as if they are physical things, it is because my notion of existence is usually done in the relational level.

I can mentally move concepts around as if they are physical objects if I understood what will happen when I put them together in certain ways

If the question is what you then can say about the relation between the coordinate systems, I think the answer is "nothing at all" - one coordinate being positive is simply not enough information to say anything.

@ACuriousMind Yes, exactly.

@JaimeGallego r u girl or boy

@JaimeGallego Lamy isn't a fancy pen :P

It's made by pesky Germans

@ACuriousMind I can try to give more details regarding my concrete problem, if you want.

1:13 PM

::looks at ACM::

@Slereah Huh. I'd always have defined the direction to be the unit vector.

Which explains why "sense" makes no sense to me :P

Language differences, I suppose

@nbro Sure, go ahead

@nbro I will help but I will charge a fee

Verse and universe are the same root, but you have to go quite far back

1:15 PM

Essentially, I'm exploiting certain kinematic constraints represented mathematically as $\| g_1 \times j_1 \| - \| g_2 \times j_2 \| = 0$.

Both are from verto, "to turn"

So far, does this make any sense to you?

Ignore what the vectors are. I will explain them next, eventually.

@nbro Well, I have no idea what you're doing or what the $g_i $ or $j_i$ are, but I can accept that a constraint on them may look like that.

@ACuriousMind Ok. Let me continue then.

(In a few sec, a pics of an attempted infographic at philosophy of time will show up)

1:18 PM

I'm using that equation, which holds for every time t, to find $j_1$ and $j_2$ (i.e. the vectors I mentioned above).

Those string theory notes have big [CHECK] annotations

I do the same thing~

So, $j_1$ and $j_2$ represent actually the same vector, but seen from different coordinate systems.

hello

@heather Darkness my old friend

Heaveno

1:21 PM

halo @heather

Now, the kinematic constraint above does not actually take into account the sign of $j_1$ and $j_2$, i.e. that constraint is invariant under changes of sign, because we have a cross product...

@Bernardo craziness my old friend

@heather I'm trying to run Linux on my boots

@Secret my philosophy of time is that we can only know what we know scientifically. Any other quesitons should be left in the "we don't know" basket at least for now

@heather If I move to SB when will you come visit me and DS again :P

1:22 PM

@ACuriousMind Are you managing to follow?

@BernardoMeurer that is awesome! =D i was actually considering having some fun with my bike (aka, lights/music, repaint possibly) - maybe i should try to get linux to run on it =) ::bikes through town - sudo library::

@nbro That makes little sense to me

@heather I LOVE BIKE MODS

The equation as written is coordinate-free.

MY BIKE BACK AT HOME RUNS LINUX

1:23 PM

@BernardoMeurer well, that depends on whether i have a legitimate excuse. it would be awesome to visit again, but that depends on my parents, of course.

And it has lasers

It's the best

0_0 i want lasers on my bike

If $j_1$ and $j_2$ "represent the same vector", why are you denoting it with different symbols?

@ACuriousMind because they're in different coordinate systems.

@heather Make sure you control the power delivery to the lasers correctly, otherwise you overdrive the lasers when you bike too fast and they start burning people :)

1:25 PM

@nbro I do not understand how the same vector can appear in one equation in different coordinate systems.

maybe i should decorate it to look like a Star Wars fighter of some sort, and then add lasers (like toy laser pointers) for the cannon, just for kicks

@ACuriousMind Well, that's the kinematic constraint...

who's looking forward to Comey's testimoney

@Bernardo heheh, i will try not to overdrive the lasers then =)

@heather Oh, I bought some bigass lasers on ebay

This way people saw me when I biked at night

1:26 PM

my parents would not be happy if i did that.

@nbro I highly doubt the validity of this constraint then.

An equation involving the same vector in two different coordinate systems simply does not make much sense to me.

@ACuriousMind It's a "paper-tested" constrain, i.e. it was first proposed in a scientific paper.

@heather Hehehe, my parents did not care for these things

i already am adding lights, remember? for the spokes (tons of LEDs in sync with music)

they also don't know much about lasers at all

Do you have a generator on your pedals?

1:27 PM

@nbro Can you give me a link to that paper? I want to see this monstrosity with my own eyes.

no. i'm just dreaming about what i could do to it right now =)

@heather Well, the first step is getting the generator installed

@ACuriousMind Here you have it: control.tu-berlin.de/images/2/22/seel2012_msc.pdf

then get a nice battery pack to sustain operation

@ACuriousMind Not super easy to follow if you're not familiar with the concepts, as I wasn't.

1:29 PM

Then buy the largest lasers you can find on Ebay, aim them straight backwards, overdrive them and RUN

LASER PROPULSION

lol

Okay, I see what's going on

The notion is completely cluttered and these people seem to not know much about linear algebra :P

@Kenshin That reminded me of this scene :P

@ACuriousMind Why do you say that?

But what's happening is this: The statement is simply that in whatever coordinate system, you have $\lvert\lvert g_1\times j\rvert\rvert - \lvert\lvert g_2\times j \rvert\rvert = 0$, where $g_1,g_2,j$ are the gyroscope vectors and the joint vector.

@ACuriousMind Yes, I know the paper.

1:32 PM

@nbro Read carefully what I wrote: I am not restricting the coordinate system at all, and there is no need to measure $j$ in the coordinate system of the first gyroscope in the first expression and in the system of the second in the second expression. You can just measure all three vectors in the same coordinate system and you're fine.

Now, it just happens that in the algorithm, if you know one coordinate of $j_1$ and $j_2$ must be positive, then you can change the sign of $j_1$ and $j_2$ during the iterations, so that at the end the estimates $j_1$ and $j_2$ have the correct sign. I was wondering what's the relation between this change of sign during the iterations and the orienation of their coordinate systems.

@ACuriousMind No.

Yes.

@Bernardo -_- i want to do that but my parents would never let me

@ACuriousMind Read the paper carefully.

$\lvert\lvert \bullet\rvert\rvert$ is a frame invariant, it does not make one whit of a difference in what coordinate system you're measuring what's inside.

1:34 PM

@heather It is also very much illegal :)

Which is why it's so fun!

So their choice to measure the content of the first norm in one system and of the second norm in another is idiosyncratic (and does not produce a wrong result), but it is not necessary at all.

@BernardoMeurer reported

@Kenshin Huh?

@ACuriousMind Do you know what $\| g_1 \times j_1 \|$ stand for?

1:36 PM

And, in fact, treating $j_1$ and $j_2$ as different vectors articificially doubles the number of variables. In "truth", there is only one vector $j$.

@ACuriousMind Yes, but $g_1$ and $g_2$ are necessarily given in different coordinate systems, that's why we need both $j_1$ and $j_2$

@nbro It's the are of the parallelogram spanned by $g_1$ and $j$.

and that's why there's a different of the lengths, which must be equal to $0$.

Yashas

is it aromatic?

@nbro My point is that $\lvert\lvert g_i \times j_i\rvert\rvert$ does not depend on the coordinate system at all!

1:38 PM

looks like that hexagon is sick

As long as you measure $g_i$ and $j_i$ in the same coordinate system, it does not matter at all whether that coordinate system is the "natural" one for $g_i$ or not

@ACuriousMind The difference, in theory, should be $0$, but, in practice, it isn't (always). We don't know if it's positive or negative.

@ACuriousMind ok

Balarka Sen

@Slereah Fantastic work of art, isn't it?

ebay.com/itm/…

@ACuriousMind If you read all the paper, you will see that there's the "problem" of determinig the correct signs of $j_1$ and $j_2$ at the end of the algorithm.

1:42 PM

@BalarkaSen That art is obviously not my taste. Too "simple"

So, let's go back to my original question.

@ACuriousMind where does the giant number of compactification people throw around come from anyway

Is it the number of compact 6-manifolds?

Given that we know that one of the coordinates of $j_1$ and $j_2$ must be positive and, during the iteration of the algorithm that estimates $j_1$ and $j_2$, we fix the sign of $j_1$ and $j_2$ accordingly, can we say something about the orientation of the coordinate systems where $j_1$ and $j_2$ are being estimated?

Any info regarding the coordinate systems (that currently I'm not visualizing) would be helpful.

Yeah, I still think the answer to that is "no". One coordinate being positive is simply not enough information to say something useful.

@ACuriousMind But then how is that possible I can fix the signs of $j_1$ and $j_2$ based on the fact that one coordinate of $j_1$ and $j_2$ must be positive?

1:47 PM

That worldsheet sure can boogie

@Slereah No, it's the number of (known) solutions to the string-theory background equations.

@nbro What do you mean by "fix the signs"?

@Kaumudi.H I've read the thread you linked. I very much understand your point of view ehere you love learning about physics, but not too keen on the research. I also will point out that psychology is a terrible degree so I'd stay clear of that.

@Kaumudi.H I definitely think you're on the right track with CS/eletrical engineering. This will set you up for a great career in these fields or allow you to do neuro research. Note I think AI and deep learning are the future of understanding how the mind works (as opposed to the biological elements).

Fairly large number

Kudos to the grad student who had to calculate those $10^{800}$ solutions

@ACuriousMind I can do something of the form "if j1.z < 0, then j1 = -j1" during the iterations of the algorithm...This is just an example. But, in this case, it actually implies that coordinate z of j1 must be positive.

1:50 PM

The plane of simutaneity must exist in the present because everything on it are at the same coordinate time as determined by the given observer's frame of reference

"Mea Culpa: We’re not really supposed to do this. The whole point of the approach that we’re taking is to quantize just the physical degrees of freedom. The resulting commutation relations are not, in general, inherited from the larger theory that we started with simply by closing our eyes and forgetting about all the other fields that we’ve gauge fixed."

When will the lies stop

So, I'm wondering why I can do that.

I'm getting the suspiscion that the single string quantization is localizable, but that just like the point particle quantization, it is to be renormalized to avoid issues

@nbro Sorry, I suspect that is something very specific to the algorithm, I can't see why that would in general be allowed.

There must be a relation between the fact that one coordinate of each estimate $j_1$ and $j_2$ must be positive and their orientation with respect to each other.

1:53 PM

"After this renormalization, we're left with the answer $$\sum_{n = 1}^\infty n = -\frac1{12}$$

Nooooooooooo

Why "nooooooo"?

The point is that in such scenario, now is all the possible choices of planes of simutaneity and the presentist descriptions that follow for each choice of now. They must all be consistent with each other regardless of how the now is chosen, thus preseriving the objevtivity

It's the correct "finite part" of that sum.

I know :p

It's just one of those formula that the normal people throw around

@ACuriousMind Ok, no problem. Thanks for trying!

1:54 PM

Without understanding what it means

@Slereah Actually, there is considerable leeway in how large the number exactly is, depending on what exactly you accept as a "viable" string background (many impose various phenomenological constraints for which there is no a priori stringy reason)

Watch live: Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress

►

2

boiiiii

The way this works is that since presentism and eternalism are describing the same reality, but using different conception of time, it follows that if the things they describe are the same, the description from one camp has to be reproducible in the other camp's language

thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~weigand/Skript-strings11-12/…

This seems like a good intro

Fairly detailed for the quantization of the bosonic string

So theoretically, taking account of how events are described in the presentist viewpoint, one should be able to construct a timeline (eternalist). Likewise, an eternalist's timeline can be phrased in terms of where they are relative to the now

I am, however, not so sure if it works in the scenario of wormhole time machine metrics...

1:59 PM

@ACuriousMind One idea came to mind which could explain what I was wondering... Let me test it, and I will let you know, eventually , if you want