The universe itself dictates the slicing or linearity of time. We are long for the ride, but that variation of that randomness is due to just the universe. It’s probably truly random because it would operate at roughly a quantum level. So it truly is that awesomeness of the universe that dictates what time will do to us and how ...it will bring us together in a part and create orbits and ultimately planets and its own solar system or galaxies even. > [!ai]+ AI > > This passage presents a poetic, though scientifically imprecise, view of time and the universe. While it evokes a sense of wonder, several of its claims are problematic from a physics perspective: > - **“The universe itself dictates the slicing or linearity of time.”** While the universe’s structure certainly influences our *perception* of time, the nature of time itself is a complex question in physics. The idea of the universe “slicing” time implies a pre-existing time that is being divided, which isn’t necessarily how physicists understand it. Furthermore, the linearity of time is also debated, with some theories suggesting possible non-linear aspects, especially at the quantum level. > - **“That variation of that randomness is due to just the universe.”** This statement is vague. While quantum mechanics introduces randomness at a fundamental level, it doesn’t explain *all* variations or changes in the universe. Many processes are governed by deterministic laws, like gravity. > - **“It’s probably truly random because it would operate at roughly a quantum level.”** While quantum events are probabilistic, not all phenomena at small scales are solely governed by quantum mechanics. Furthermore, the emergence of macroscopic order from microscopic randomness is a complex area of study. Simply attributing everything to quantum randomness is an oversimplification. > - **“...it will bring us together in a part and create orbits and ultimately planets and its own solar system or galaxies even.”** This mixes different scales and processes. While gravity is responsible for the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies, it’s not directly related to the quantum randomness mentioned earlier. The passage seems to conflate these distinct concepts. > In essence, the passage uses evocative language to connect quantum randomness with large-scale cosmic structures, but the connection it draws is tenuous and lacks scientific rigor. It captures a sense of awe about the universe but doesn’t accurately represent current scientific understanding. We’ve got the slicing wrong. The subatomic particles are no different than adding new chemicals or combining metals even. So time operates at the quantum level. And so that’s the slice there. We’re going to talk about quantum events. They’re time-based events. That’s position and spin, which gives rise to emergent geography. The physical unit first is emergent from those properties at the quantum level. > [!ai]+ AI > > [!ai]+ AI > This response attempts to clarify the previous statements but still contains conceptual inaccuracies: > - **“The subatomic particles are no different than adding new chemicals or combining metals even.”** This analogy is misleading. Chemical reactions and the mixing of metals involve the rearrangement of atoms and their electrons, governed by electromagnetic forces. Subatomic particles and their interactions are governed by different forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) and follow quantum mechanical rules, which are fundamentally different from the classical rules governing chemical and metallurgical processes. > - **“So time operates at the quantum level.”** While time is a parameter in quantum mechanics, saying it “operates” at the quantum level is vague. Quantum mechanics describes how systems evolve in time, but it doesn’t explain the nature of time itself. > - **“And so that’s the slice there.”** This phrase remains unclear. It seems to imply that quantum events are the fundamental “slices” of time, but this idea isn’t well-defined. > - **“We’re going to talk about quantum events. They’re time-based events. That’s position and spin, which gives rise to emergent geography.”** Position and spin are properties of quantum particles, and their evolution in time is described by quantum mechanics. However, to say they “give rise to emergent geography” is a significant leap. Geography, as we understand it, is a macroscopic concept related to the arrangement of landmasses, etc. While the behavior of subatomic particles ultimately underlies all physical phenomena, the connection between quantum spin and macroscopic geography is extremely complex and indirect. It’s not a direct causal relationship. > - **“The physical unit first is emergent from those properties at the quantum level.”** This is generally true in the sense that macroscopic objects are composed of subatomic particles. However, the passage still lacks clarity on how precisely these quantum properties lead to the formation of larger structures. > The core issue remains the attempt to directly link quantum phenomena with macroscopic structures and processes without acknowledging the complex intermediate steps and different levels of description involved. The language used is suggestive but lacks the precision required for a scientifically sound explanation.