Sign up ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

There is the idea that there is no time in a completely closed (thus unobservable) system. Within such a system, a subsystem may be imagined to be split off by some virtual boundary. However, one wants to continue to consider the remaining system as if it was the complete system (which of course is not correct). In that case the description of the effects of the subsystem on the remaining system requires "time".

Does anyone know more about this idea?

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by David Z Aug 9 '12 at 0:53

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is a question in physics. – Guy Gur-Ari Aug 5 '12 at 23:28
@Guy, if you believe a question is inappropriate for this site, the best thing to do is flag it. – David Z Aug 6 '12 at 2:36
Okay, thanks for letting me know. – Guy Gur-Ari Aug 6 '12 at 4:00
It sounds like a typically confused attempt by a physicist to explain one of the many things we know about subjectively (time, existence, colors, emotions, thoughts...). You can tell this explanation is wrong because it makes time less than completely real - it is supposed to be relative or imaginary or an artefact of method of description. If you want to understand such "subjective" things, it's best to start with phenomenology, like Husserl, which doesn't try to reduce them to anything, but only seeks to ascertain their nature... – Mitchell Porter Aug 6 '12 at 5:52
The problem of connecting them to the world as known in physics will remain, but that is going to require new metaphysics, such as you may find in the wild lands of "quantum mind" or "quantum brain" research, and 95% of that stuff is going to be wrong, so good luck finding the right approach. – Mitchell Porter Aug 6 '12 at 5:53

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.