In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:12:28 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Our live is covered/maintained by faint fluctuations on top of highly >stable matter that does not feel time at all.
I think supernovas would imply otherwise. I think what you are trying to say is that nuclear matter is very stable in time, but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, it just means that it's very stable and undergoes few changes. Well most of it anyway. Radioisotopes are an exception. > >Of course these small fluctations are highly dependent on time but this >does not imply that time exist for the universe! It's just us that want >to believe that there is time for everything. Our live temperature range BTW "time for everything" usually means "plenty of time in which to do everything", whereas I suspect you mean that we think that everything experiences time, and you contend that nuclear matter does not. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that, and I think the Americium in the smoke detector on your ceiling does too. ;) >is given by about 0.14eV. This shows how important we are for the universe. :) > >If you go to higher dimensions e.g. 8 then you can reintroduce a global >time and *global causality* but not for the small part of the world we >live in - the 0.14eV range that clearly shows stochastic behavior. I think better wording might be "small part of the thermal spectrum"? While I agree with you that is where most of the action is, I don't agree that action defines time. Even if it did, time would still exist at all levels, since none are without action. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
