This is a discussion entry: based on my fractal discoveries.
- The fractal with no observation demonstrates no-time.
- The fractal with observation demonstrates the passing of time, but not absolute time, but relative time.
It is not until a reference point is provided, an observation made - that time is time.
When we have a reference point on the fractal, we 'know' position. The modern clock itself may be a reference point - without it, we could be anywhere, or at any time. Without it, we are lost, we are in the chaos. The importance of a reference in time is just as important as any other reference – it is to 'know'.
Recently I in this blog I have been exploring two key areas of science in terms of the fractal: the expanding fractal (universe), and the de Broglie wave-function. In both of these entries I have had to action some kind of motion or classical physics mathematics: both demanded some kind of understanding of time; both showed that the time is subjective, is not fundamental. Time is external or exogenous to the fractal. See appendix for working, or see my early entries.
Time is one thing relative to another.
The fractality of time
Interestingly, time itself is also fractal in that it can be broken into ever smaller fractions or scales: the story of the universe may be described, in the same amount of time that it takes to describe any other story. All descriptions of time share basic principles: there is a beginning, and there is an end, and details in between.
While producing my expanding fractal entry and the wave equations of the fractal, I assumed time was the iteration number - the iteration rate. But is it really? As pointed out earlier, there is not reference to time on a fractal, and that using this iteration rate as the nearest thing is problematic because it is arbitrary or subjective
As I have pointed out, the fractal shows no concept of distance: so what to do, leave it?