I was thinking about it, and even thought about coding something. I was thinking about time dimensions in a very similar way to this video, but from a simplified step-based physics way, not linguistics. After watching the video, I lost inspiration for pursuing this. I just gonna bake my brain if I try.
@@arcturuslight_ Ive tried coding something like this before, and yeah, it baked my brain. There's no way to "experience" time like the beings in this world that would make sense to us.
There's a puzzle game which explores this concept actually! "Entwined Time" has you controlling two robots who each move in time dimensions perpendicular to one another. Which not an "accurate" implementation of dual-time, it's still interesting to explore. Here's a link to a playthrough if you're interested ua-cam.com/video/PS7uEzrTj6c/v-deo.htmlsi=URM5qpH3De8KWkF3
i talked(prin, before) to someone random on the street and he said "i herd(prin) a lecture awhile back about the philosophy of light". i said "so what was the conclusion" and he said "it hasn't finished yet".then i waits 30 second in after. and he said "oh it's finish".
I mean you wouldn't really; you might have to restate some words around the misspeaking, which happens in linear languages anyway. now it is generally _worse_ to misspeak in languages with higher dimensions because in those languages more neighbors are going to be affected, but you wouldn't have to resay an entire paragraph.
@htspencer9084 not really. But it may cause you to lose more time (sorta). Lateral and vertical times are independent (sorta). For example, you may start with saying phoneme/word/sentence 1, which is followed by sound 2 after it, and sound 3 katopin it. Sound 4 is katopin 2 and after 3, which are both causes of it. If you stutter in the beginning of saying 3, it just moves the proper pronunciation of 3 laterally more katopin, and as such, 4 will also occur more katopin, while still at the intended time vertically. It will however create awkward silence vertically after the place where you stuttered, katopin 2. You may fill that space by saying something, adding to 2. Or you may not. I'm not sure. Technically, nothing may be stopping you from making an informationally sparse language in that universe, where the sentence only lasts laterally for one phoneme, and katopin you stay silent, instead speaking after the first phoneme vertically for some time, and then switch to speaking purely laterally. Or speak at an angle, but only along a line that continues for one phoneme across. Now that'll be a true linear speech, a cursed conlang in-universe.
Physicists: You cannot have complex life with more than one time dimension, that means you don't have causality! Linguist: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! I can tell this is impressive, but it breaks my brain.
Reminds me of the light cone when you visualize 2-D Time that way. The Partial Future looks like the area outside the light cone. And now all I have to do is to figure out which word/glyph/waveform corresponds to the word "Edward" just to express my name in Saj. Great. And yeah, we still can't speak Saj with 1-D Audio that we can hear, right? lol
I translated "Edward" as "wealth guard" since that's what the name means etymologically. you can find the glyphs for it if you match up the gloss with the writing at the final example
I'm only at 7:39, but I'm not convinced that the two time dimensions need to be functionally different in behavior. They just need to contain different stuff. An object's momentum in one time axis being different from its momentum in the other is sufficient to differenciate the two, for example.
I've had that thought too, and yes it is not _strictly_ necessary for them to act differently, but making them act differently is an easy way to get different stuff to happen on both.
while it may look superficially similar, it's not the same thing. on a spacetime diagram you have one axis for space and one for time; on a timeplane both are time axes. while yes, you can't affect something outside of your light cone, if you try to draw any other similarities the comparison falls apart.
There is a branch of quantum mechanics that operates under 3 space and 3 time dimensions. The extra time dimensions provide uncertainty in superposed states, but as you show they always lead to one absolute future (the collapsed state)
This makes me wonder how would these creatures speak this language? Speaking this language would require that you can make sounds which propagate along one axis, but not the other, and by simultaneously speaking the two axes of the sentence, while themselves moving diagonally, they make the rectangular area which constitutes the sentence. This would imply that, somehow, they can choose the direction in which the sound travels in time. But how would they do that? How does choosing to move through time work?
first of all, they don't "move diagonally"; you need to stop thinking of it linearly. at all points within the area of an entity's lifetime they exist, and there's two future directions that they're moving in (it's very hard to wrap your mind around, I know). sounds would propagate across _both_ time directions, it's just that if you sample linearly, going forward in either time direction, it sounds like the entity is producing either component of a phoneme. but of course, an entity experiences the entire plane, and so they experience the phonemes more or less as one sound. now, most likely, that double pronounciation would alter the quality of the other phoneme (which is why some combinations are disallowed in the first place; since they'd be too hard to actually put together) but to go farther then saying that would probably require me to do some actual physics and I'm too stupid for that
@@thezipcreator I think I get it, more or less. The place where my confusion stemmed from was the idea that the "present" in this space is a singular point, and thus the trajectory of a being's life is the line that it traces through time. I realize in the video you stated lines don't exist in here, but for me it was the only way I could interpret it. Sorry. Given this explanation though, the way I am seeing it now is that there is 2 "presents", corresponding to the current moment for each axis, independently. In theory there is still an "absolute present" where these two presents intersect, which WOULD be a point, but the absolute present wouldn't be a very useful construct, sense the two other presents are much more important. Did I get it right? Even if I didn't, I find this really interesting and I think I will look into this further. Any places you recommend looking into to learn more about this? You aren't obligated to do anything, I will search regardless, you just might have a better idea of where to start.
@Ethan-lx1vv I think you're doing the equivalent of applying graduate level theoretical physics to a rhetorical question by OUR logic and OUR math what you're saying makes sense, but in a universe with two temporal dimensions it probably doesn't work out the way we'd expect. also this is a conlang and OP presumably isn't in the business of understanding things literally beyond human comprehension
@@Ethan-lx1vv The current present is still a point in time; you could draw future lines from the present I guess but the present is still a point. there's no universal "current moment for each axis" since you could start measuring from anywhere (since planes have translational symmetry, this is analogous to the fact that in 1d time we can set "year 1" to anything and different cultures have assigned it different times); so if your time coordinates are (t,u) whatever points (t,0) and (0,u) happen to be is probably not particularly relevant, especially if (0,0) was a long time ago. I wish I had resources to give you but I don't because I don't think anyone has really conceptualized of 2d time in this way, as far as I know. if I do a follow-up video I will definitely try to clear up things, however
Wouldn’t you just make your speaker-membrane (or vocal cords or whatever) oscillate with a frequency that is fully in one time direction? (Or, like, I guess the frequency is in frequency space, not in time, but there’s a clear correspondence in the directions, even if not in the scales, so whatever) If the membrane only oscillates along that axis, then the wave it produces should also only oscillate along that axis.
I've said it before and I'll say it again The shape of time itself can be boiled down to the Cyrillic letter Ж Glad the idea of orthogonal time is finally reaching the conlang sphere
I think it would feel better for the 2D vector comunication using the lateral mouth, (I will use x and y as the acus bc i forgot the name of the other future) like in the "futureX" you know what the posX of the event is, in the futureY you know the posY, and in absolute future you know the absolute pos of the event, this is really cool because you can imagine walking to the event in the two separates timenlines and meeting at the same point in the timeplane
it kinda does work like that; for small numbers (as shown in the video) it kinda just looks like one block but when you get to bigger numbers it does sorta separate into two lines across both axes.
I PROMISE you if you up your microphone quality/speech clarity a bit and work on your audio mixing you will explode in size. This is so high quality and had me hooked
what's specifically wrong with the audio mixing? I tried to make the music volume lower if that's what the issue is. also not really sure what to do about mic quality; I bought a new microphone because people were complaining on some of my older videos (and I started using audacity's noise removal properly) so I think I've done everything I've can there but idk
@@thezipcreator there's a lot of points with peaking and strong sharp sounds. If you don't have a pop filter I recommend getting one. In my personal taste opinion, so take this as a super grain of salt, I think when the music isn't being used as part of a transition it should be barely audible, right now it sounds like it's like 60% as loud as your voice in some parts. I want to be clear you have a really good voice and grasp on what your narration sounds like but it feels a little fast, like you're stumbling over some words or phrases. I feel like slowing back a little bit could help a bit. Again I really liked your style and it was super clean and still was a great listen overall, and I am just one youtube comment who has only watched this one video.
Since this is an area of time, and the axes shift according to individual perception or entropy progression along the diagonal, this means all partial futures collapse into the absolute past eventually, and the superposition of existence ceases to become a superposition the instant it becomes a memory. The partial futures and partial pasts likely exist in the form of semi-memory what-ifs.
Of course it's been an extremely long time katopin the submission timeframe and that's why he managed to come up with all of it before it's 10 years after the CCC3 and they're running CCC8 or something And this guy is secretly a bitemponian passing through the tempolinear realm
You could translate the sentence into a graph where nodes are events and lines represent causality This would also allow for a greater generalization of graph time languages where events can cause any other event arbitraraly of course, this breaks causality, so you could limit it to only acyclic graphs This allows for some things impossible in Saj (or other 2D languages): A causes B A causes C B causes D C does not cause D If you were to build it like: ^BD |AC then, C would cause D
ooh, that's a cool idea. the thing is with 2d time is that it is still continuous, so maybe you could formulate it as a limit of planar graphs that are more and more dense? that makes me curious about the limits of other graph constructions now too... allowing cyclic graphs could be interesting also; those would represent "time loops" I guess. (and I suppose that it means that everything in a time loop causes everything else?)
@@thezipcreatorOne interesting thing is that, it turns out that a lot of stuff about spacetime can be reconstructed from just the partial order on events? Apparently if two Lorentzian manifolds have isomorphic partial orders (where the partial order is “is timelike-before”), then they are related by a conformal map, and so in a sense differ only by how much volume things have? Or something like that. You can talk about “chains”, sequences of events where each in the sequence is timelike-before the next one in the sequence, and can define things like geodesics and such, and I think an analogy to Cauchy-hypersurfaces, etc. Though, it kinda seems to me like this might always result in a at most single time dimension?? The notion of a geodesic in the "causal sets" program, seems to apply to any locally finite poset… though, maybe that's just because the definitions were chosen to produce a single time dimension. Maybe if instead of a path being a *sequence* of events, we could consider a set of events such that there exists a partial-order-preserving map from it into R^2 (with the ordering you used on R^2) (or, we could have a type of chain for any fixed poset, where the usual notion of a chain would be an R-chain, and where they are mapped to R^2 would be an R^2-chain) And we could talk about what R^2-chains within a given set are maximal, or which can’t have additional elements from the larger power added to it which are strictly between elements already in it while still being an R^2-chain ? Maybe this would work to generalize the concept of causal sets to a version with multiple time dimensions? (Or possibly even to a not-an-integer-number-of time-dimensions??) So, then, one could maybe view the same poset as if it was a causal set for one time dimension, but could also view it in the context of multiple time dimensions? (… another thing that could maybe be an option could be to try to generalize the concept of a partial order to, instead of a relation on two inputs, a relation on 3 or more inputs? There are cyclical orders, but maybe there is something more beyond that.)
Amazing, understandable from the semantic (the meaning of and what we are trying to say) point of view and quite a challenge to overcome if you do not have any backgrounds in this field of study... but it is amazing. Perfectly explained in an old fashioned style of screen displays and a funny use of subtitles. I don't know if it is going into nguh's competition because of the scarcity of a more dense matrix of features and more cursed stuff even if it would distract them from the original intended thing, but I see isolated and developed ideas that could be integrated perfectly in another creation or be taken as a paradigm for the creation of other Cursed Conlang Mechanic or Feature (call it as you will), ever improving the conglang landscape. I repeat, amazing. The other thing that I loved is the fact that it makes an attempt at defining an untranslatability to linear languages. I have never seen anyone trying to create barriers between classical or traditional kinds of languages and conlangs and these non-linear languages. It makes me truly wonder what are the limits in the imagination of these creators and how could they sustain such claims and make them look cool as this one, without too much of a science or math-logic jargon included in the script. I simply stand in awe and in hope you continue your project, even if presented in such a modest way and manner. Overrated? My take, it is. And that, dear creator, is what I call my next suscription. Keep up the good work.
@@thezipcreator It's not exactly metaphor but more a scenario. And I also got a little bit lost when you started writting phrases. The idea is you'd have 2 people, one of them runs to the right grabs an apple an throws back, the second one runs to the left set up a target which is going to be hit by the apple. The events 'setting a target' and 'throwing an apple' can be considered in this new past future tense one for another. It's not that hard to see that each person can have a little degree of freedom to when they're going to perform these actions. And if you're kinda used to relativity you can even imagine being able to switch the order of these events by simply being closer to one than another; since the light from it will get to you first. I know it looks like I just used space to mock a situation, but in reality what I'm thinking here is the space is used to create this disconnection from A to B while the actual timelines we want to think about is each person perspective. Person A doesn't care when person B does it's thing; as long as they finish before having to interact. Person A at some moment can look at what person B did and decide react after the fact. Person B at moments can do the same thing to person A. No this does not create a paradox because this moment needs one of them to take action first then it won't be able to change it; if both parties decide to wait the other to create the paradox they'll wait and do nothing; until one of them breaks the rule, act first and makes it impossible to undo. The only way then to really be capable of choosing and changing the order of events is if both of them hasn't seen the other's action before acting himself; then for sure somewhere between both events they happened at the same time and in each side you have the closer event happening first. What this means is any 2 events that are disconnected by causation can be seen existing in a 'different time'. ex.: these people -> ran to the left -> threw an apple ran to the right in the direction of the target set up a target -> got an apple thrown -> which hit bullseye;
What impressed me was that because the entire concept of 2D time is being presented from the context of a _language,_ it automatically becomes somehow easier to wrap one's head around. It really shows just how much language is tied to intuition and understanding of anything... and makes me think of the difficulty people have explaining and understanding things like quantum physics... it's weird and hard to comprehend, maybe _exactly because_ we don't have the right tools in our languages to properly talk about it.
I'm absoluted freaked up and the beginning music sounds like the wide putin song mene thing from like 4 years ago, why do I even remember that no eay thats the definition of hypnosis
As someone working on a 3 dimensional time traveling story, I am trying my best to develop some sort of 3-dimensional time language. I am excited if you have anything to expand on this towards 3-D time.
this language doesn't really have anything to do with time travel or multiple timelines, so I'm not sure anything here would be particularly helpful for your project.
thinking about extra spatial dimensions a lot eventually got me curious about extra time dimensions, and this is just my specific instantiation of that idea. then the CCC3 started and I was like "oh I could make a very cursed conlang around this idea"
I've done a bit of thinking about 2D time. I Framing I can't things never overstate in had how terms such cool of a this multiple clear is. axes intuition. of causality is such a good way to visualize things really makes it more concrete This video expanded my brain, haha! Awesome!!
you can't make an ordered field from a vector space, but I don't really need that for this to work. the ordering defined in the video is partial anyway, as shown in the chapter "Untranslatability to Linear Languages".
I mean he kinda of says exactly this. We can't order it because our concept of causality is one dimensional. But the inhabitants of this world have no such limitations.
Hard for me to follow you here but I will be thinking in terms of temporal, causal, and percipience measured axes of experience. The trick is scalar spatial convolution as always 😂
This is indeed a very cursed conlang also I wonder how is this system of 2 time dimensions would differ to a 1+1D spacetime in terms of the physics? They both seem to have the same rules of causality, like total past seems to be the past light cone, the partial futures are the two disconnected portions of the spatially separated points and the total future is the future light cone. If I were to try interpret the example you gave at 9:31 this way (where the partial-future direction going diagonally down-right is thought of as a spatial direction), the ball is a noodle in this which starts off in the air, hits the ground (one side falls into a hole while the other side doesn't) and a person picks it up afterwards.
I've responded to a similar observation in some other comments; you can go find those. Otherwise, you can wait for the followup video where I'll address it also.
@@thezipcreator Unfortunately I can't seem to find much on how this 2d time system differs. I wonder how a metric/spacetime interval is defined on this (if it's even possible), you'd need to have the total past and future be nonnegative while the partial futures be negative to match the rules of causality. Regardless I am looking forward to the followup!
special relativity already has the three kinds of regions: the past and future are called "light cones" and everything outside them is what you called the "partial future".
sort of? the thing is even if physics was purely newtonian, in a 2d time universe you still wouldn't be able to affect a partial future. it doesn't really have anything to do with relativity; it just happens that relativity has a different notion of "future you can't affect".
@@htspencer9084 well, spacetime in our universe if four-dimensional, and since we're adding another time dimension that brings it to five. really though, I'm not sure if the concept of "spacetime" as we know it would really translate in such a universe; it'd probably need entirely different physics in order for life to be able to evolve.
I don't understand why the Katopin Past is "partial future: things that have not occurred yet but you can't currently affect". My simple brain tells me that should be "partial past: things that have occurred but you can affect"
from one's point of view, there is no knowledge of any events that occurred in a partial future (hence "have not occurred yet") and they're also in a region that can not be said to be caused by anything in the present or total future (hence "can't affect").
Very interesting material! You should turn down the background music, it's distractingly loud in some spots. Btw:I suspect you could view your two timelines moving at different velocities as something like the spectral decomposition of one intervoven timeline where events occuring at different rates can't influence eachother but are well ordered.
This doesn't explain how one HEARS something in Saj, only how they would say it. When you hear someone speak, you can only hear things from the past (to the before direction) as if they are said in your future, then you have not heard them yet. So if something was said in the Prin-Past then you've probably heard it, If something is said in your Katopin-Future, you cannot know it because it has not been said yet. But what if it is being said in your Prin-Future or Katopin-Past? Can you hear it? Can you hear only part of it? What does it sound like? Is it something where you understand part of it, but the rest is it like a garbled mess. But then as time moves forward-katopin and you continue the conversation you begin to understand what was said earlier and that garbled mess, you begin to realize, was in response to a comment you made pren-after the other person said it? Do you hear only the parts of the sentence that were said towards your temporal direction? Does the rest get heard instantaniously? But then that raises the question, where were you a few seconds prin-future ago? Does a person's conscious mind exist as a single point in 2-D time, Are they multiple points simultaniously? Are they a line? If you choose to seek your future and your friend chooses to follow their Katopin, will you ever see your friend again?
Partial futures are still in the future, so anything said in a partial future would still not yet be audible to the other person (since it, y'know, hasn't happened yet and can't cause anything in the present according to the causality rules I defined). To answer your second question, if we think of ourselves as a line (in a Block Universe way; if you don't know what that is I don't really feel like explaining it so look it up), then the creatures occupying this reality are a plane.
i have no clue how you managed to construct this so convincingly, its simultaneously unprovable and very clear you have done this correctly, or maybe more accurately these two statements are true on their respective timeline, coinciding in this timesquare
It’s not about being proven or not. All language models reality- this system provides a way to describe the interrelation between events based on causality. Interesting stuff!
If both times move continuously in one direction as our time does, the combined flow of both will create a linear time, with value y=ax, where 'a' is the difference in velocity of flow among the two time dimensions. Even if their relative velocity change and oscilate, how could anyone inside it notice? Maybe we are already living in a universe with multiple time dimensions, but we only experience the combined flows as a single one.
in your equation, y is only dependent on a single variable x (since a is a constant). in 2d time, your current position would actually be dependent on two variables, not one, which are your coordinates in time (so your present is a 2d vector). an observer in this universe is not just tracing a 1d path though a 2d space; their existence _occupies_ a 2d space.
Imagine yourself riding a motorized cart on an infinite flat courtyard. You are carried along at the same speed and you cannot control your path. You do notice that the cart never turns around. Your x & y coordinates are always increasing, never decreasing. Would it be correct to say that the direction the cart travels is meaningless because you ultimately forge a single path? No, because as a 2+ dimensional being you are not forging a single path, you are forging a single *area*. A possibility space to which you have full domain. We are but dots on a temporal line. It's hard to imagine being a line on a temporal plane.
@@thezipcreator If time flows continuously, having two time dimensions is like turning both knobs of am Etch a Sketch at the same time. You don't end up with a polygon, you end up with a line.
@@brenorocha6687 you're thinking of this too linearly. yes, if time was still linear and you were tracing out a line through a two-dimensional space, and each x and y coordinate was increasing, you would just get a slanted line. However, what's happening here is more akin to extruding a line into the second dimension, thereby making a plane. All points of those plane exist; all points on the timeplane exist. There are two futures and they're orthogonal to eachother.
I think it’s more like instead of a point moving forward along a timeline and hitting event regions, it’s that along two orthogonal timelines: a point starting at (0,0) and always moving in a (+,+) direction. This still gives plenty of room for squiggle, letting you choose whether event A or A’s prin-after sibling event B is subjectively first.
I understood barely anything, but its a great video anyway. Great concept and execution! also are the music subtitles ispired by philosophytube ones? it might be an accidental similarity but they really have the same vibe
Giving 2 or more temporal directions causality is impossible. This is analogous to the fact that complex numbers are unordered; you can’t say whether two complex numbers cannot be compared whether one is bigger or not.
you can define an ordering on any set, if you want. since you mentioned complex numbers, you could, for example, order them by their modulus (one of many possible orderings). here I chose a different ordering and if you were to map that to ℂ it would look like real(a)≤real(b)∧imaginary(a)≤imaginary(b). of course, you get elements that are not always comparable, as is shown in chapter "Untranslatability to Linear Languages". this is still an ordering, just not a _total_ ordering, which is another way to express the result found in the aforementioned chapter. now, you're right in that ℂ can not form an _ordered field_ , but that's not necessary in this case because we don't even really need a total ordering much less something as strict as an ordered field.
Ordering implies a one dimensional list. We only think of causality as being one dimensional because we live in one dimensional time. But it's not a gaurentee.
Do both dimensions pass at the same "rate". Would be hella cursed if somehow they didn't. But that might mess with your rotation mutations as it would also have a scale element. Hmmm... Would anyone even be able to tell if they did pass at different rates? Unless they were some kind of 3d time observer I suppose not right?
Mu. Asking about the ratio of how quickly one passes compared to the other, is an invalid/incorrect question. It seems that you are imagining a 1-d path through the 2D space of times here, and that this path would be the order of events for some observer. That isn’t how time works for the inhabitants of the described universe. As they remember their past, it isn’t parameterized by a single number, but by a pair of numbers.
I’m not sure I understand how the two dimensions are actually separate. Like, wouldn’t time move upward/rightward on y=x with events on each side of the line occurring simultaneously? Idk I’m gonna have to watch this again. Fascinating video btw!
this seems to be a common misconception (probably because I explained it badly) but in short, no; time here is planar, not linear. things aren't just mapped onto a line and then time works as we're used to, time works fundamentally differently, and so does the conscious experience of observers in this universe. basically, every point influences the point immediately katopin and the point immediately after, but those two points don't influence eachother. those points influence their neighbors katopin and after, and so on. each point here is its own point in time, and creatures in the universe would experience them as they are: on a plane. I don't really know if that clarified things; in the followup video I'll think of a better way to explain it.
@@thezipcreator so like. An event occuring at (0,0) will lead to an event at (1,0) (which leads to events (2,1) and (1,1)) and (0,1) (which leads to events at (1,1) and (0,2))? And y=x itself would be a timeline but everything that happens during it propagates out into different timelines? But the entites within this universe perceive all of this as a single thing? Also I don’t blame you for having trouble explaining it. This isn’t really something the human brain is meant to understand easily.
@@marumaru2105 the y=x line is irrelevant and arbitrary; the beings in the universe just experience a plane of time. as for the event causal relations: (0, 0) causes (0, 1) and (1, 0) (0, 1) causes (1, 1) and (1, 2) (1, 0) causes (2, 0) and (1, 1) and so on. note how (1, 1) is caused by two different points; in general a point (i, j) is caused by (i-ε, j) and (i, j-ε), where ε is any positive real number (in the case of the previous points listed, it was 1). the points at (x, x) where x is a number (aka the y=x line) isn't particularly special. we could set any point to be our origin (thereby changing which points fall on the y=x line) and everything would work the same, just with points labelled differently (like how we can set any year to be "year 0" on our calendar and time works the same, but years would be labelled differently). all of these points are experienced as-is; they aren't projected onto a timeline or anything. they also aren't experienced "at once"; "at once" means the same time, and they're at different times.
this describes the reality we live in now though, consider we aretwo beings that are moving at relativistic speed. in that scenario, there are events in both our pasts, events that have happened for me but not for you yet, events that have happend for you but not for me yet, and events that have happened for neither of us. the "timeplane" just describes a depiction of events the happen in a interation with more than a single observer.
uh no, not really. it really doesn't have anything to do with special relativity. under SR, you still have a single _worldline_ that you trace through time, and a lightcone. in here, if we graph the two time axes orthogonal to a spatial axis, you'll trace out a _worldarea_ ; the experience of time is planar, not linear. also, while it is true that the timeplane regions superficially resemble regions on a lightcone, they're really not the same thing. you could've only ever existed inside your past lightcone, but in 2d time you can exist outside of your total past & total future. In fact, you most likely would unless you died in those regions.
@@joshuathomasbird ok, let me re-explain from scratch. let's say we're building a discrete simulation of a universe with 2d time. Every state of this system is uniquely determined by the state before (below) and prin (left) of it. We can make a matrix of states M indexed by [i, j] where i, j ∈ ℕ. we then define a function f : S² → S where S is a set of all possible states; this represents computing a "timestep" of our simulation. To get M[i, j] we take f(M[i-1, j], M[i, j-1]). If you take the limit as you define f for smaller and smaller timesteps, you get what I've defined as two-dimensional time. Explain to me how special relativity jumps out of this structure.
You're talking about spacetime. He's talking about just time. Eigenvectors are a completely different concept. Maybe you should read up on some SR mate.
Is the perception of someone in this universe some diagonal line or something? how exactly does the 2d speaking work? Maybe more like an infinite version of yourself sampled at points along both time axis, self adding into the future so that yourself in time converges into understanding once the length of yourself has passed? but then you would need infinite time to understand anything, or only a section of you in time ever actually perceives anything at all? which makes even less sense tbh. idk ima keep watching maybe ill understand at some point
the perception of someone in this universe takes the form of an area. the second thing you said is almost right, except it's finite. you start existing along a _line_ in time, (and then before and prin that line you have no understanding of the past, except of course what you've learned from other people).
@@thezipcreatorso er... How are you born? And it's not like you're experience time "twice" tho is it, you're experiencing it over the marching line of your life's area, right? So how many events are you partaking in at any "instant", when those instants are lines? Because a point is 0 dimensional, it can only represent 1 "event" or "perspective" or however we want to call it, it's discrete. But the line of any instant in the 2d time universe is continuous, how many moments are you consciously aware of at any given line moment? Does consciousness just not work how we consider it in 1D time?
Also, it appears the 2D "shape" of your life is most likely to be some kind of rectangle right? Or could it not be. Could it spiral such that you could prim exist but not past exist at a given line moment? But then future and (the opposite of prim, can't remember) you still exist. How would you perceive that? And if your life polygon is a rectangle, would your perception "expand" out as you get older but then recede once you pass middle age. Does that mean, in some capacity, if you could notice your personal "perception line" getting shorter, you would have some indication of your impending death?
@@htspencer9084 consciousness indeed would most likely _not_ work the same way as it does in 1d time. to answer how you're born, you'd be born along a line, but you could also be born at a point that then, as it influences the surrounding time regions, expands into an area (that has a line at the start of it). also, your life-area would probably be a little more complicated than a rectangle, but I'd think it would generally be of that shape. also, it's probably better to think of past perception also like an area, and in a rectangle, that would be a smaller rectangle that strictly expands over time. it's maybepossible that if you die in a partial future but then continue living into the total future? or maybe not; once you die somewhere you die everywhere after that point. to answer your question about a spiral, I don't think _that_ would occur, but if you were to graph the times in which someone is actually conscious (i.e. not sleeping) it would probably form some sort of slightly irregular checkerboard.
@@drdca8263 It would be akin to projecting down a 3D scene onto a 2D screen or 'shadow'. You do lose information, but with the right conventions in place (eg, perspective), it should be possible to make sense of it (from a very generous definition of the words 'should' and 'possible'... and 'sense')
@@drdca8263 hmm, to pronounce them all in linear sequence, yeah, I can see that happening using maybe a space-filling curve strategy, like a raster through the 2-sentence, or maybe a Morton or a Hilbert curve... As long as it follows a clear and consistent convention, it should work.
This is how someone thinks about two time dimensions without a physics background. Nice story, but "not creative enough" for a potential reality. Mathematically 2 time dims means that your metric has signature (-,-,+,+,+), and then you study how partial differential equations behave here. Certainly differently than expected from poetic considerations.
from the research I've done (since other people smarter than myself have looked into that mathematically) such a reality isn't really stable enough to host any sort of life, or even simple atoms. as such, I've decided "fuck it" and rolled with what I think it would be like.
ive been extremely interested in multiple temporal dimensions, but I've never seen anyone mess around with the concept. This is awesome.
I think I saw a video on this topic before which I want to recommend, but I forgot what the title of the video was haha
same
I was thinking about it, and even thought about coding something. I was thinking about time dimensions in a very similar way to this video, but from a simplified step-based physics way, not linguistics.
After watching the video, I lost inspiration for pursuing this. I just gonna bake my brain if I try.
@@arcturuslight_ Ive tried coding something like this before, and yeah, it baked my brain. There's no way to "experience" time like the beings in this world that would make sense to us.
There's a puzzle game which explores this concept actually! "Entwined Time" has you controlling two robots who each move in time dimensions perpendicular to one another. Which not an "accurate" implementation of dual-time, it's still interesting to explore. Here's a link to a playthrough if you're interested ua-cam.com/video/PS7uEzrTj6c/v-deo.htmlsi=URM5qpH3De8KWkF3
i talked(prin, before) to someone random on the street and he said "i herd(prin) a lecture awhile back about the philosophy of light". i said "so what was the conclusion" and he said "it hasn't finished yet".then i waits 30 second in after. and he said "oh it's finish".
Saj speakers when they stutter or mispronounce anything and now must restate the entire fucking paragraph
I mean you wouldn't really; you might have to restate some words around the misspeaking, which happens in linear languages anyway.
now it is generally _worse_ to misspeak in languages with higher dimensions because in those languages more neighbors are going to be affected, but you wouldn't have to resay an entire paragraph.
Yeah can you desync with yourself?
@htspencer9084 not really. But it may cause you to lose more time (sorta). Lateral and vertical times are independent (sorta). For example, you may start with saying phoneme/word/sentence 1, which is followed by sound 2 after it, and sound 3 katopin it. Sound 4 is katopin 2 and after 3, which are both causes of it. If you stutter in the beginning of saying 3, it just moves the proper pronunciation of 3 laterally more katopin, and as such, 4 will also occur more katopin, while still at the intended time vertically. It will however create awkward silence vertically after the place where you stuttered, katopin 2. You may fill that space by saying something, adding to 2.
Or you may not. I'm not sure. Technically, nothing may be stopping you from making an informationally sparse language in that universe, where the sentence only lasts laterally for one phoneme, and katopin you stay silent, instead speaking after the first phoneme vertically for some time, and then switch to speaking purely laterally. Or speak at an angle, but only along a line that continues for one phoneme across. Now that'll be a true linear speech, a cursed conlang in-universe.
I once saw a batshit crank physics theory that had 3 time dimensions. I think the dude is still screaming about it here on UA-cam.
physics crackpots are an interesting breed
Did they get into the formality of what the second and third time dimension would actually represent?
Physicists: You cannot have complex life with more than one time dimension, that means you don't have causality!
Linguist: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
I can tell this is impressive, but it breaks my brain.
what physicist said that :|
Reminds me of the light cone when you visualize 2-D Time that way. The Partial Future looks like the area outside the light cone.
And now all I have to do is to figure out which word/glyph/waveform corresponds to the word "Edward" just to express my name in Saj. Great. And yeah, we still can't speak Saj with 1-D Audio that we can hear, right? lol
I translated "Edward" as "wealth guard" since that's what the name means etymologically. you can find the glyphs for it if you match up the gloss with the writing at the final example
you frighten me.
I'm only at 7:39, but I'm not convinced that the two time dimensions need to be functionally different in behavior. They just need to contain different stuff. An object's momentum in one time axis being different from its momentum in the other is sufficient to differenciate the two, for example.
I've had that thought too, and yes it is not _strictly_ necessary for them to act differently, but making them act differently is an easy way to get different stuff to happen on both.
Rotate your time plane 45° and you get a time-space diagram with causality limited by a constant speed (such as the speed of light)
while it may look superficially similar, it's not the same thing. on a spacetime diagram you have one axis for space and one for time; on a timeplane both are time axes. while yes, you can't affect something outside of your light cone, if you try to draw any other similarities the comparison falls apart.
There is a branch of quantum mechanics that operates under 3 space and 3 time dimensions. The extra time dimensions provide uncertainty in superposed states, but as you show they always lead to one absolute future (the collapsed state)
No there isn’t.
this is definitely one of the videos of all (both) time(s)
I clicked because the thumbnail seemed like this language existed with real human natural speakers.
ah, I'll add conlang to the title. sorry for disappointing
@thezipcreator you don't have to change the title, just practice until you're a natural speaker :)
holy shit the script looks so cool
- script enjoyer
This makes me wonder how would these creatures speak this language? Speaking this language would require that you can make sounds which propagate along one axis, but not the other, and by simultaneously speaking the two axes of the sentence, while themselves moving diagonally, they make the rectangular area which constitutes the sentence. This would imply that, somehow, they can choose the direction in which the sound travels in time. But how would they do that? How does choosing to move through time work?
first of all, they don't "move diagonally"; you need to stop thinking of it linearly. at all points within the area of an entity's lifetime they exist, and there's two future directions that they're moving in (it's very hard to wrap your mind around, I know). sounds would propagate across _both_ time directions, it's just that if you sample linearly, going forward in either time direction, it sounds like the entity is producing either component of a phoneme. but of course, an entity experiences the entire plane, and so they experience the phonemes more or less as one sound.
now, most likely, that double pronounciation would alter the quality of the other phoneme (which is why some combinations are disallowed in the first place; since they'd be too hard to actually put together) but to go farther then saying that would probably require me to do some actual physics and I'm too stupid for that
@@thezipcreator I think I get it, more or less. The place where my confusion stemmed from was the idea that the "present" in this space is a singular point, and thus the trajectory of a being's life is the line that it traces through time. I realize in the video you stated lines don't exist in here, but for me it was the only way I could interpret it. Sorry.
Given this explanation though, the way I am seeing it now is that there is 2 "presents", corresponding to the current moment for each axis, independently. In theory there is still an "absolute present" where these two presents intersect, which WOULD be a point, but the absolute present wouldn't be a very useful construct, sense the two other presents are much more important.
Did I get it right?
Even if I didn't, I find this really interesting and I think I will look into this further. Any places you recommend looking into to learn more about this? You aren't obligated to do anything, I will search regardless, you just might have a better idea of where to start.
@Ethan-lx1vv I think you're doing the equivalent of applying graduate level theoretical physics to a rhetorical question
by OUR logic and OUR math what you're saying makes sense, but in a universe with two temporal dimensions it probably doesn't work out the way we'd expect.
also this is a conlang and OP presumably isn't in the business of understanding things literally beyond human comprehension
@@Ethan-lx1vv The current present is still a point in time; you could draw future lines from the present I guess but the present is still a point. there's no universal "current moment for each axis" since you could start measuring from anywhere (since planes have translational symmetry, this is analogous to the fact that in 1d time we can set "year 1" to anything and different cultures have assigned it different times); so if your time coordinates are (t,u) whatever points (t,0) and (0,u) happen to be is probably not particularly relevant, especially if (0,0) was a long time ago.
I wish I had resources to give you but I don't because I don't think anyone has really conceptualized of 2d time in this way, as far as I know. if I do a follow-up video I will definitely try to clear up things, however
Wouldn’t you just make your speaker-membrane (or vocal cords or whatever) oscillate with a frequency that is fully in one time direction? (Or, like, I guess the frequency is in frequency space, not in time, but there’s a clear correspondence in the directions, even if not in the scales, so whatever)
If the membrane only oscillates along that axis, then the wave it produces should also only oscillate along that axis.
its actually crazy that you only have 260 subs, youre gonna blow up one day your videos are so high quality!!!!!
sir, this is a wendy's
sir, this is the ccc3
I didn’t understand that at all. It was incredible 10/10
sir, this is is a wendy's.
will
katopin
you
be
ordering
something?
Lazy joke!
I've said it before and I'll say it again
The shape of time itself can be boiled down to the Cyrillic letter Ж
Glad the idea of orthogonal time is finally reaching the conlang sphere
The style for this is absolutely perfect. 467th sub
Forget 4 dimensional space, bruh just invented 2 dimensional time 💀💀💀
Btw i love your unique video style!
I think it would feel better for the 2D vector comunication using the lateral mouth, (I will use x and y as the acus bc i forgot the name of the other future) like in the "futureX" you know what the posX of the event is, in the futureY you know the posY, and in absolute future you know the absolute pos of the event, this is really cool because you can imagine walking to the event in the two separates timenlines and meeting at the same point in the timeplane
it kinda does work like that; for small numbers (as shown in the video) it kinda just looks like one block but when you get to bigger numbers it does sorta separate into two lines across both axes.
I PROMISE you if you up your microphone quality/speech clarity a bit and work on your audio mixing you will explode in size. This is so high quality and had me hooked
what's specifically wrong with the audio mixing? I tried to make the music volume lower if that's what the issue is.
also not really sure what to do about mic quality; I bought a new microphone because people were complaining on some of my older videos (and I started using audacity's noise removal properly) so I think I've done everything I've can there but idk
@@thezipcreator there's a lot of points with peaking and strong sharp sounds. If you don't have a pop filter I recommend getting one.
In my personal taste opinion, so take this as a super grain of salt, I think when the music isn't being used as part of a transition it should be barely audible, right now it sounds like it's like 60% as loud as your voice in some parts.
I want to be clear you have a really good voice and grasp on what your narration sounds like but it feels a little fast, like you're stumbling over some words or phrases. I feel like slowing back a little bit could help a bit.
Again I really liked your style and it was super clean and still was a great listen overall, and I am just one youtube comment who has only watched this one video.
glad to see you came back for CCC3 :3, good luck
Since this is an area of time, and the axes shift according to individual perception or entropy progression along the diagonal, this means all partial futures collapse into the absolute past eventually, and the superposition of existence ceases to become a superposition the instant it becomes a memory. The partial futures and partial pasts likely exist in the form of semi-memory what-ifs.
Of course it's been an extremely long time katopin the submission timeframe and that's why he managed to come up with all of it before it's 10 years after the CCC3 and they're running CCC8 or something
And this guy is secretly a bitemponian passing through the tempolinear realm
love the DOS style of this video, keep that up dood!
You could translate the sentence into a graph where nodes are events and lines represent causality
This would also allow for a greater generalization of graph time languages where events can cause any other event arbitraraly
of course, this breaks causality, so you could limit it to only acyclic graphs
This allows for some things impossible in Saj (or other 2D languages):
A causes B
A causes C
B causes D
C does not cause D
If you were to build it like:
^BD
|AC
then, C would cause D
ooh, that's a cool idea. the thing is with 2d time is that it is still continuous, so maybe you could formulate it as a limit of planar graphs that are more and more dense?
that makes me curious about the limits of other graph constructions now too...
allowing cyclic graphs could be interesting also; those would represent "time loops" I guess. (and I suppose that it means that everything in a time loop causes everything else?)
@@thezipcreatorOne interesting thing is that, it turns out that a lot of stuff about spacetime can be reconstructed from just the partial order on events?
Apparently if two Lorentzian manifolds have isomorphic partial orders (where the partial order is “is timelike-before”), then they are related by a conformal map, and so in a sense differ only by how much volume things have? Or something like that.
You can talk about “chains”, sequences of events where each in the sequence is timelike-before the next one in the sequence,
and can define things like geodesics and such, and I think an analogy to Cauchy-hypersurfaces, etc.
Though, it kinda seems to me like this might always result in a at most single time dimension??
The notion of a geodesic in the "causal sets" program, seems to apply to any locally finite poset…
though, maybe that's just because the definitions were chosen to produce a single time dimension.
Maybe if instead of a path being a *sequence* of events, we could consider a set of events such that there exists a partial-order-preserving map from it into R^2 (with the ordering you used on R^2) (or, we could have a type of chain for any fixed poset, where the usual notion of a chain would be an R-chain, and where they are mapped to R^2 would be an R^2-chain)
And we could talk about what R^2-chains within a given set are maximal, or which can’t have additional elements from the larger power added to it which are strictly between elements already in it while still being an R^2-chain ?
Maybe this would work to generalize the concept of causal sets to a version with multiple time dimensions? (Or possibly even to a not-an-integer-number-of time-dimensions??)
So, then, one could maybe view the same poset as if it was a causal set for one time dimension, but could also view it in the context of multiple time dimensions?
(… another thing that could maybe be an option could be to try to generalize the concept of a partial order to, instead of a relation on two inputs, a relation on 3 or more inputs? There are cyclical orders, but maybe there is something more beyond that.)
This is gonna blow up mark my words
I'm just gonna trust that this makes sense
i also understood nothing and sent to a friend that knows abt this kind of things more XD
but i watched the whole thing trying to get it at least
The creator of the CCC2’s BFB Bleh-esque lang has returned
Amazing, understandable from the semantic (the meaning of and what we are trying to say) point of view and quite a challenge to overcome if you do not have any backgrounds in this field of study... but it is amazing. Perfectly explained in an old fashioned style of screen displays and a funny use of subtitles. I don't know if it is going into nguh's competition because of the scarcity of a more dense matrix of features and more cursed stuff even if it would distract them from the original intended thing, but I see isolated and developed ideas that could be integrated perfectly in another creation or be taken as a paradigm for the creation of other Cursed Conlang Mechanic or Feature (call it as you will), ever improving the conglang landscape. I repeat, amazing.
The other thing that I loved is the fact that it makes an attempt at defining an untranslatability to linear languages. I have never seen anyone trying to create barriers between classical or traditional kinds of languages and conlangs and these non-linear languages. It makes me truly wonder what are the limits in the imagination of these creators and how could they sustain such claims and make them look cool as this one, without too much of a science or math-logic jargon included in the script. I simply stand in awe and in hope you continue your project, even if presented in such a modest way and manner.
Overrated? My take, it is.
And that, dear creator, is what I call my next suscription. Keep up the good work.
I need to go outside and touch some grass rn sorry
you use your time better than me
@@thezipcreatormaybe you touched grass in the other past, wait for the katopin future (i might be butchering the concept)
Don’t think I didn’t notice that Boisian editing! This came out really good!
this just sounds like a fancy spatial dimension ngl
8:48 - it's impressive how this is not weird to think at all; I can imagine real life metaphors to represent and understand all of those scenarios.
interesting; I often have trouble explaining the concept to people due to a _lack_ of metaphors, so I'd like to hear some.
@@thezipcreator It's not exactly metaphor but more a scenario. And I also got a little bit lost when you started writting phrases.
The idea is you'd have 2 people, one of them runs to the right grabs an apple an throws back, the second one runs to the left set up a target which is going to be hit by the apple. The events 'setting a target' and 'throwing an apple' can be considered in this new past future tense one for another.
It's not that hard to see that each person can have a little degree of freedom to when they're going to perform these actions. And if you're kinda used to relativity you can even imagine being able to switch the order of these events by simply being closer to one than another; since the light from it will get to you first.
I know it looks like I just used space to mock a situation, but in reality what I'm thinking here is the space is used to create this disconnection from A to B while the actual timelines we want to think about is each person perspective.
Person A doesn't care when person B does it's thing; as long as they finish before having to interact.
Person A at some moment can look at what person B did and decide react after the fact.
Person B at moments can do the same thing to person A.
No this does not create a paradox because this moment needs one of them to take action first then it won't be able to change it; if both parties decide to wait the other to create the paradox they'll wait and do nothing; until one of them breaks the rule, act first and makes it impossible to undo.
The only way then to really be capable of choosing and changing the order of events is if both of them hasn't seen the other's action before acting himself; then for sure somewhere between both events they happened at the same time and in each side you have the closer event happening first.
What this means is any 2 events that are disconnected by causation can be seen existing in a 'different time'.
ex.:
these people -> ran to the left -> threw an apple
ran to the right in the direction of the target
set up a target -> got an apple thrown -> which hit bullseye;
bro is used to living in two times
What impressed me was that because the entire concept of 2D time is being presented from the context of a _language,_ it automatically becomes somehow easier to wrap one's head around. It really shows just how much language is tied to intuition and understanding of anything... and makes me think of the difficulty people have explaining and understanding things like quantum physics... it's weird and hard to comprehend, maybe _exactly because_ we don't have the right tools in our languages to properly talk about it.
I'm absoluted freaked up and the beginning music sounds like the wide putin song mene thing from like 4 years ago, why do I even remember that no eay thats the definition of hypnosis
As someone working on a 3 dimensional time traveling story, I am trying my best to develop some sort of 3-dimensional time language. I am excited if you have anything to expand on this towards 3-D time.
this language doesn't really have anything to do with time travel or multiple timelines, so I'm not sure anything here would be particularly helpful for your project.
@@thezipcreator My bad, I may have misunderstood the scope here, and maybe also where/when the creatures of this language exist
good gods man, how did you even think of this
thinking about extra spatial dimensions a lot eventually got me curious about extra time dimensions, and this is just my specific instantiation of that idea. then the CCC3 started and I was like "oh I could make a very cursed conlang around this idea"
me listening to my two-dimensional music playlist
i will suffer for eternity in both time dimensions for enjoying this work
Our brain broke. 10/10. -Ian
This is fascinating and useless and I bet it was super fun to design.
I've done a bit of thinking about 2D time.
I Framing I
can't things never
overstate in had
how terms such
cool of a
this multiple clear
is. axes intuition.
of
causality is such a good way to visualize things
really
makes
it
more
concrete This video expanded my brain, haha!
Awesome!!
You cant order vectors unless you wanna get weird shenanigans (the relation becomes something else)
you can't make an ordered field from a vector space, but I don't really need that for this to work. the ordering defined in the video is partial anyway, as shown in the chapter "Untranslatability to Linear Languages".
I mean he kinda of says exactly this. We can't order it because our concept of causality is one dimensional. But the inhabitants of this world have no such limitations.
Hard for me to follow you here but I will be thinking in terms of temporal, causal, and percipience measured axes of experience.
The trick is scalar spatial convolution as always 😂
This is indeed a very cursed conlang
also I wonder how is this system of 2 time dimensions would differ to a 1+1D spacetime in terms of the physics? They both seem to have the same rules of causality, like total past seems to be the past light cone, the partial futures are the two disconnected portions of the spatially separated points and the total future is the future light cone.
If I were to try interpret the example you gave at 9:31 this way (where the partial-future direction going diagonally down-right is thought of as a spatial direction), the ball is a noodle in this which starts off in the air, hits the ground (one side falls into a hole while the other side doesn't) and a person picks it up afterwards.
I've responded to a similar observation in some other comments; you can go find those. Otherwise, you can wait for the followup video where I'll address it also.
@@thezipcreator Unfortunately I can't seem to find much on how this 2d time system differs. I wonder how a metric/spacetime interval is defined on this (if it's even possible), you'd need to have the total past and future be nonnegative while the partial futures be negative to match the rules of causality. Regardless I am looking forward to the followup!
This is amazing, I love it
Very cool, I might steal some of your ideas
please do! it'd be cool to see what other people come up with with this concept
I always made fun of the Flatlanders, only to discover that I am a Flattimer.
Everyone not in Hilbert space is already a flatlander really
I feel like this needs a university course to understand
special relativity already has the three kinds of regions: the past and future are called "light cones" and everything outside them is what you called the "partial future".
sort of? the thing is even if physics was purely newtonian, in a 2d time universe you still wouldn't be able to affect a partial future. it doesn't really have anything to do with relativity; it just happens that relativity has a different notion of "future you can't affect".
This isn't spacetime, it's just time time. So spacetime in this universe would be three dimensional perhaps?
@@htspencer9084 well, spacetime in our universe if four-dimensional, and since we're adding another time dimension that brings it to five. really though, I'm not sure if the concept of "spacetime" as we know it would really translate in such a universe; it'd probably need entirely different physics in order for life to be able to evolve.
More youtube videos should have that ending, instead of Like & Subscribe nonsense
I don't understand why the Katopin Past is "partial future: things that have not occurred yet but you can't currently affect". My simple brain tells me that should be "partial past: things that have occurred but you can affect"
from one's point of view, there is no knowledge of any events that occurred in a partial future (hence "have not occurred yet") and they're also in a region that can not be said to be caused by anything in the present or total future (hence "can't affect").
CCC3 might just be the most insane one yet....
Very interesting material!
You should turn down the background music, it's distractingly loud in some spots.
Btw:I suspect you could view your two timelines moving at different velocities as something like the spectral decomposition of one intervoven timeline where events occuring at different rates can't influence eachother but are well ordered.
This doesn't explain how one HEARS something in Saj, only how they would say it. When you hear someone speak, you can only hear things from the past (to the before direction) as if they are said in your future, then you have not heard them yet. So if something was said in the Prin-Past then you've probably heard it, If something is said in your Katopin-Future, you cannot know it because it has not been said yet. But what if it is being said in your Prin-Future or Katopin-Past? Can you hear it? Can you hear only part of it? What does it sound like?
Is it something where you understand part of it, but the rest is it like a garbled mess. But then as time moves forward-katopin and you continue the conversation you begin to understand what was said earlier and that garbled mess, you begin to realize, was in response to a comment you made pren-after the other person said it?
Do you hear only the parts of the sentence that were said towards your temporal direction? Does the rest get heard instantaniously?
But then that raises the question, where were you a few seconds prin-future ago? Does a person's conscious mind exist as a single point in 2-D time, Are they multiple points simultaniously? Are they a line? If you choose to seek your future and your friend chooses to follow their Katopin, will you ever see your friend again?
Partial futures are still in the future, so anything said in a partial future would still not yet be audible to the other person (since it, y'know, hasn't happened yet and can't cause anything in the present according to the causality rules I defined).
To answer your second question, if we think of ourselves as a line (in a Block Universe way; if you don't know what that is I don't really feel like explaining it so look it up), then the creatures occupying this reality are a plane.
i have no clue how you managed to construct this so convincingly, its simultaneously unprovable and very clear you have done this correctly, or maybe more accurately these two statements are true on their respective timeline, coinciding in this timesquare
there's no "correct" way to do this, really. I mean, I didn't even make physics or anything, this is at most a vague idea of how it would work.
It’s not about being proven or not.
All language models reality- this system provides a way to describe the interrelation between events based on causality. Interesting stuff!
If both times move continuously in one direction as our time does, the combined flow of both will create a linear time, with value y=ax, where 'a' is the difference in velocity of flow among the two time dimensions. Even if their relative velocity change and oscilate, how could anyone inside it notice?
Maybe we are already living in a universe with multiple time dimensions, but we only experience the combined flows as a single one.
in your equation, y is only dependent on a single variable x (since a is a constant). in 2d time, your current position would actually be dependent on two variables, not one, which are your coordinates in time (so your present is a 2d vector). an observer in this universe is not just tracing a 1d path though a 2d space; their existence _occupies_ a 2d space.
Imagine yourself riding a motorized cart on an infinite flat courtyard. You are carried along at the same speed and you cannot control your path. You do notice that the cart never turns around. Your x & y coordinates are always increasing, never decreasing.
Would it be correct to say that the direction the cart travels is meaningless because you ultimately forge a single path?
No, because as a 2+ dimensional being you are not forging a single path, you are forging a single *area*. A possibility space to which you have full domain.
We are but dots on a temporal line. It's hard to imagine being a line on a temporal plane.
@@thezipcreator If time flows continuously, having two time dimensions is like turning both knobs of am Etch a Sketch at the same time. You don't end up with a polygon, you end up with a line.
@@brenorocha6687 you're thinking of this too linearly. yes, if time was still linear and you were tracing out a line through a two-dimensional space, and each x and y coordinate was increasing, you would just get a slanted line. However, what's happening here is more akin to extruding a line into the second dimension, thereby making a plane. All points of those plane exist; all points on the timeplane exist. There are two futures and they're orthogonal to eachother.
I think it’s more like instead of a point moving forward along a timeline and hitting event regions, it’s that along two orthogonal timelines: a point starting at (0,0) and always moving in a (+,+) direction. This still gives plenty of room for squiggle, letting you choose whether event A or A’s prin-after sibling event B is subjectively first.
I understood barely anything, but its a great video anyway. Great concept and execution! also are the music subtitles ispired by philosophytube ones? it might be an accidental similarity but they really have the same vibe
yeah, they are inspired by the philosophytube ones. I thought it was funny so I stole it
Giving 2 or more temporal directions causality is impossible. This is analogous to the fact that complex numbers are unordered; you can’t say whether two complex numbers cannot be compared whether one is bigger or not.
you can define an ordering on any set, if you want. since you mentioned complex numbers, you could, for example, order them by their modulus (one of many possible orderings). here I chose a different ordering and if you were to map that to ℂ it would look like real(a)≤real(b)∧imaginary(a)≤imaginary(b). of course, you get elements that are not always comparable, as is shown in chapter "Untranslatability to Linear Languages". this is still an ordering, just not a _total_ ordering, which is another way to express the result found in the aforementioned chapter.
now, you're right in that ℂ can not form an _ordered field_ , but that's not necessary in this case because we don't even really need a total ordering much less something as strict as an ordered field.
Ordering implies a one dimensional list. We only think of causality as being one dimensional because we live in one dimensional time. But it's not a gaurentee.
Bobby Broccoli editing! love it
yeah his style was a big inspiration for mine
opus magnum soundtrack!!?!???!
This is a super cool video, but the loud music makes it hard to understand at times
Do both dimensions pass at the same "rate". Would be hella cursed if somehow they didn't. But that might mess with your rotation mutations as it would also have a scale element.
Hmmm... Would anyone even be able to tell if they did pass at different rates? Unless they were some kind of 3d time observer I suppose not right?
Mu. Asking about the ratio of how quickly one passes compared to the other, is an invalid/incorrect question.
It seems that you are imagining a 1-d path through the 2D space of times here, and that this path would be the order of events for some observer. That isn’t how time works for the inhabitants of the described universe. As they remember their past, it isn’t parameterized by a single number, but by a pair of numbers.
There is a second dimension of time, eternity. There's also hyparxis where only the present exists so it's not a dimension.
So what you're saying is, ℵ=i?
Huh... Imagine how that number system would work
I'm so lost
So does that mean every event has two independant causes? And that for an event to occur it needs both, or can causality still occur orthogonally?
events can have any amount of causes from the total past region. same holds in 1d time, except that the "total past" is just the past.
I’m not sure I understand how the two dimensions are actually separate.
Like, wouldn’t time move upward/rightward on y=x with events on each side of the line occurring simultaneously?
Idk I’m gonna have to watch this again.
Fascinating video btw!
this seems to be a common misconception (probably because I explained it badly) but in short, no; time here is planar, not linear. things aren't just mapped onto a line and then time works as we're used to, time works fundamentally differently, and so does the conscious experience of observers in this universe. basically, every point influences the point immediately katopin and the point immediately after, but those two points don't influence eachother. those points influence their neighbors katopin and after, and so on. each point here is its own point in time, and creatures in the universe would experience them as they are: on a plane.
I don't really know if that clarified things; in the followup video I'll think of a better way to explain it.
@@thezipcreator so like. An event occuring at (0,0) will lead to an event at (1,0) (which leads to events (2,1) and (1,1)) and (0,1) (which leads to events at (1,1) and (0,2))?
And y=x itself would be a timeline but everything that happens during it propagates out into different timelines? But the entites within this universe perceive all of this as a single thing?
Also I don’t blame you for having trouble explaining it. This isn’t really something the human brain is meant to understand easily.
@@marumaru2105 the y=x line is irrelevant and arbitrary; the beings in the universe just experience a plane of time. as for the event causal relations:
(0, 0) causes (0, 1) and (1, 0)
(0, 1) causes (1, 1) and (1, 2)
(1, 0) causes (2, 0) and (1, 1)
and so on. note how (1, 1) is caused by two different points; in general a point (i, j) is caused by (i-ε, j) and (i, j-ε), where ε is any positive real number (in the case of the previous points listed, it was 1).
the points at (x, x) where x is a number (aka the y=x line) isn't particularly special. we could set any point to be our origin (thereby changing which points fall on the y=x line) and everything would work the same, just with points labelled differently (like how we can set any year to be "year 0" on our calendar and time works the same, but years would be labelled differently).
all of these points are experienced as-is; they aren't projected onto a timeline or anything. they also aren't experienced "at once"; "at once" means the same time, and they're at different times.
yeah so you lost me at about 11 min in, but honestly wow, didnt think id make it that far
this describes the reality we live in now though, consider we aretwo beings that are moving at relativistic speed. in that scenario, there are events in both our pasts, events that have happened for me but not for you yet, events that have happend for you but not for me yet, and events that have happened for neither of us. the "timeplane" just describes a depiction of events the happen in a interation with more than a single observer.
uh no, not really. it really doesn't have anything to do with special relativity. under SR, you still have a single _worldline_ that you trace through time, and a lightcone. in here, if we graph the two time axes orthogonal to a spatial axis, you'll trace out a _worldarea_ ; the experience of time is planar, not linear. also, while it is true that the timeplane regions superficially resemble regions on a lightcone, they're really not the same thing. you could've only ever existed inside your past lightcone, but in 2d time you can exist outside of your total past & total future. In fact, you most likely would unless you died in those regions.
@@thezipcreator ok... read my comment again, look up relativity of simultaneity, and think about it more i guess.
@@joshuathomasbird ok, let me re-explain from scratch. let's say we're building a discrete simulation of a universe with 2d time. Every state of this system is uniquely determined by the state before (below) and prin (left) of it. We can make a matrix of states M indexed by [i, j] where i, j ∈ ℕ. we then define a function f : S² → S where S is a set of all possible states; this represents computing a "timestep" of our simulation. To get M[i, j] we take f(M[i-1, j], M[i, j-1]). If you take the limit as you define f for smaller and smaller timesteps, you get what I've defined as two-dimensional time. Explain to me how special relativity jumps out of this structure.
You're talking about spacetime. He's talking about just time. Eigenvectors are a completely different concept. Maybe you should read up on some SR mate.
the bgm volume is too high i think
Is the perception of someone in this universe some diagonal line or something? how exactly does the 2d speaking work?
Maybe more like an infinite version of yourself sampled at points along both time axis, self adding into the future so that yourself in time converges into understanding once the length of yourself has passed? but then you would need infinite time to understand anything, or only a section of you in time ever actually perceives anything at all? which makes even less sense tbh.
idk ima keep watching maybe ill understand at some point
the perception of someone in this universe takes the form of an area. the second thing you said is almost right, except it's finite. you start existing along a _line_ in time, (and then before and prin that line you have no understanding of the past, except of course what you've learned from other people).
@@thezipcreatorso er... How are you born? And it's not like you're experience time "twice" tho is it, you're experiencing it over the marching line of your life's area, right? So how many events are you partaking in at any "instant", when those instants are lines?
Because a point is 0 dimensional, it can only represent 1 "event" or "perspective" or however we want to call it, it's discrete. But the line of any instant in the 2d time universe is continuous, how many moments are you consciously aware of at any given line moment?
Does consciousness just not work how we consider it in 1D time?
Also, it appears the 2D "shape" of your life is most likely to be some kind of rectangle right? Or could it not be. Could it spiral such that you could prim exist but not past exist at a given line moment? But then future and (the opposite of prim, can't remember) you still exist.
How would you perceive that?
And if your life polygon is a rectangle, would your perception "expand" out as you get older but then recede once you pass middle age. Does that mean, in some capacity, if you could notice your personal "perception line" getting shorter, you would have some indication of your impending death?
@@htspencer9084 consciousness indeed would most likely _not_ work the same way as it does in 1d time. to answer how you're born, you'd be born along a line, but you could also be born at a point that then, as it influences the surrounding time regions, expands into an area (that has a line at the start of it).
also, your life-area would probably be a little more complicated than a rectangle, but I'd think it would generally be of that shape. also, it's probably better to think of past perception also like an area, and in a rectangle, that would be a smaller rectangle that strictly expands over time. it's maybepossible that if you die in a partial future but then continue living into the total future? or maybe not; once you die somewhere you die everywhere after that point.
to answer your question about a spiral, I don't think _that_ would occur, but if you were to graph the times in which someone is actually conscious (i.e. not sleeping) it would probably form some sort of slightly irregular checkerboard.
I think you could verbalize it by using layering with editing audio
You could collapse one time axis, sure, but that would lose a lot of the information.
@@drdca8263 It would be akin to projecting down a 3D scene onto a 2D screen or 'shadow'. You do lose information, but with the right conventions in place (eg, perspective), it should be possible to make sense of it (from a very generous definition of the words 'should' and 'possible'... and 'sense')
@@akaHarvesteR one option I see would be to take a number of different axiis to project along, and then pronounce each of those?
@@drdca8263 hmm, to pronounce them all in linear sequence, yeah, I can see that happening using maybe a space-filling curve strategy, like a raster through the 2-sentence, or maybe a Morton or a Hilbert curve... As long as it follows a clear and consistent convention, it should work.
@@akaHarvesteR I did consider a space-filling curve, but I thought how they turned around might be ill-fitting? But could still be good
This is how someone thinks about two time dimensions without a physics background. Nice story, but "not creative enough" for a potential reality. Mathematically 2 time dims means that your metric has signature (-,-,+,+,+), and then you study how partial differential equations behave here. Certainly differently than expected from poetic considerations.
from the research I've done (since other people smarter than myself have looked into that mathematically) such a reality isn't really stable enough to host any sort of life, or even simple atoms. as such, I've decided "fuck it" and rolled with what I think it would be like.
huh
Thomas Sharon Lee Eric White Karen
youtube
youtube
this is scary
?? How?