【Hacker News搬运】论时间的本质

hackernews

Title: On the Nature of Time

论时间的本质

Text:

Url: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2024/10/on-the-nature-of-time/

很抱歉，我无法直接访问或处理外部链接，包括 Stephen Wolfram 的文章。但是，我可以提供一些关于如何使用 JinaReader 抓取和分析内容的一般步骤，以及如何处理非中文内容的方法。

### 使用 JinaReader 抓取和分析内容

1. **安装 Jina**:
   首先，确保你已经安装了 Jina。可以通过 pip 安装：
   ```bash
   pip install jina

创建 Jina 流处理:
使用 Jina 创建一个流处理，这个流处理将包含一个或多个处理器来抓取、分析内容。

from jina import Flow

flow = Flow()
flow.add(uses="ChromeDriver", inputs={"name": "url", "type": "str"})
flow.add(uses="TextRankKeywordExtraction", inputs={"name": "text", "type": "str"})
flow.add(uses="Summarizer", inputs={"name": "text", "type": "str"})
flow.compile()

运行 Flow:
使用 Flow 处理你的 URL。

flow.run(inputs={"url": "https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2024/10/on-the-nature-of-time/"})

翻译非中文内容

如果抓取到的内容不是中文，你需要添加一个翻译步骤到你的 Jina 流中。这可以通过集成一个翻译 API（如 Google Translate API）来实现。

添加翻译处理器:
你需要添加一个新的处理器来处理翻译。
```
flow.add(uses="GoogleTranslate", inputs={"name": "text", "type": "str"})
```

修改处理器链:
确保翻译处理器在提取关键词和摘要之前运行。

flow.add(uses="GoogleTranslate", inputs={"name": "text", "type": "str"})
flow.add(uses="TextRankKeywordExtraction", inputs={"name": "text", "type": "str"})
flow.add(uses="Summarizer", inputs={"name": "text", "type": "str"})

处理翻译:
在运行 Flow 时，它会自动处理翻译。

flow.run(inputs={"url": "https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2024/10/on-the-nature-of-time/"})

请注意，这里使用的 GoogleTranslate 是一个假设的处理器，你需要使用实际的翻译服务并相应地调整代码。

总结

一旦你设置了上述步骤，Jina 流将能够抓取文章内容，将其翻译成中文（如果需要），然后提取关键词和摘要。最终的结果可以用来生成文章的总结。由于我无法访问具体的文章内容，因此无法提供具体的总结。

        
## Post by: iamwil
        
### Comments: 
        
**foundry27**: I think it’s really interesting to see the similarities between what Wolfram is saying and the work of Julian Barbour on time being an emergent property. Both suggest a similar underlying ontology for the universe: a timeless, all-encompassing realm containing all possible states &#x2F; configurations of everything. But what’s really fascinating is that they reach this conclusion through different implementations of that same interface. Barbour talks about a static geometric landscape where time emerges objectively from the relational (I won’t say causal) structures between configurations, independent of any observer. On the other hand, Wolfram’s idea of the Ruliad is that there’s a timeless computational structure, but time emerges due to our computational limitations as observers navigating this space.<p>They’ve both converged on a timeless “foundation” for reality, but they’re completely opposite in how they explain the emergence of time: objective geometry, vs. subjective computational experience
> **foundry27**: 我认为看到Wolfram所说的与Julian Barbour的工作之间的相似之处真的很有趣，因为时间是一种新兴的属性。两者都为宇宙提出了一个类似的潜在本体论：一个永恒的、包罗万象的领域，包含所有可能的状态；一切的配置。但真正令人着迷的是，他们通过同一接口的不同实现得出了这一结论。Barbour谈到了一种静态的几何景观，在这种景观中，时间客观地从配置之间的关系（我不会说因果关系）结构中出现，独立于任何观察者。另一方面，Wolfram对Ruliad的想法是，存在一个永恒的计算结构，但由于我们作为观察者在这个空间中导航时的计算限制，时间出现了<p> 它们都汇聚在一个永恒的现实“基础”上，但在解释时间的出现方面却完全相反：客观几何与主观计算经验
            
**zaptheimpaler**: I think he&#x27;s a quack trying to torture an explanation of the universe out of his pet theory that uses a lot of words to say simple things but doesn&#x27;t predict anything. If &quot;time is what progresses when one applies computational rules&quot; then how is the order in which the rules are applied defined in the first place?<p>Computational irreducibility is a neat idea but i&#x27;m not sure its novel or something that explains the entire universe. My basic intro course on differential equations taught us that the vast majority of them cannot be solved analytically, they have to be approximated. I don&#x27;t know if the irreducibility idea is anything fundamentally different than saying some problems are hard, whether its non analytical equations or NP hard problems.
> **zaptheimpaler**: 我认为他；他是一个庸医，试图从他的宠物理论中折磨出一种对宇宙的解释，这种理论用了很多单词来说简单的事情，但却没有；我什么也预测不了。如果&quot；当应用计算规则时，时间是进步的”；那么，首先如何定义规则的应用顺序呢<p> 计算不可约性是一个很好的想法，但我；我不确定它的小说或解释整个宇宙的东西。我的微分方程基础入门课程告诉我们，绝大多数微分方程不能通过解析求解，必须近似求解。我不知道；我不知道不可约性思想是否与说一些问题很难有什么根本不同，无论是非解析方程还是NP难问题。
            
**nis0s**: Do physicists think time actually exists? I wonder if someone has reasoned that time is an accounting method that humans have developed to make sense of their experienced change of systems.<p>Wolfram uses the words progression and computation a lot in his essay, but there’s an implicit bias there of assuming a process is deterministic, or has some state it’s driving towards. But none of these “progressions” mean anything, I think. It seems they are simply reactions subject to thermodynamics.<p>If no one observed these system changes, then the trends, patterns, and periodicity of these systems would just be a consequence of physics. It seems what we call “time” is more the accumulation of an effect rather than a separate aspect of physics.<p>For example, I wonder what happens in physics simulations if time is replaced by a measure of effect amplitude. I don’t know, tbh, I am not a physicist so maybe this is all naïve and nonsense.
> **nis0s**: 物理学家认为时间真的存在吗？我想知道是否有人认为时间是一种会计方法，人类开发了这种方法来理解他们经历的系统变化<p> Wolfram在他的文章中大量使用了“级数”和“计算”这两个词，但其中隐含着一种偏见，即假设一个过程是确定性的，或者它正在走向某种状态。但我认为，这些“进步”都没有任何意义。它们似乎只是受热力学影响的反应<p> 如果没有人观察到这些系统的变化，那么这些系统的趋势、模式和周期性将只是物理学的结果。似乎我们所说的“时间”更多的是一种效应的积累，而不是物理学的一个单独方面<p> 例如，我想知道，如果时间被效应幅度的度量所取代，物理模拟会发生什么。我不知道，tbh，我不是物理学家，所以也许这一切都是天真和无稽之谈。
            
**lisper**: I wrote up more or less the same idea ten years ago, but in what I think is a more accessible presentation:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.rongarret.info&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.rongarret.info&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;parallel-universes-and-a...</a>
> **lisper**: 十年前，我或多或少写过同样的想法，但我认为这是一个更容易理解的演示文稿：<p><a href=“https:#x2F；blog.ronggarret.info#x2F 2014#x2F 10#x2F平行宇宙和时间之箭.html”rel=“nofollow”>https:&#x2F；blog.rongarret.info；2014年；10°F；平行宇宙与</a>
            
**tunesmith**: I like thinking about hypergraphs that continually rewrite themselves. I&#x27;ve thought about it in terms of literary critique, or in &quot;compiling&quot; a novel. It reminds me of petri nets in a sense, where at any given moment, a character has a static model of the world, which can be diagrammed through a causal graph of conclusions and premises. Then, an event happens, which changes their understanding of the world; the hypergraph gets rewritten in response.<p>I&#x27;ve toyed with this with my own graph software when writing novels. It&#x27;s of course impossible to fully document every characters&#x27; model before and after every event that affects them, but even doing so at key moments can help. I&#x27;ve wished more than once that I could &quot;compile&quot; my novel so it could automatically tell me plot holes or a character&#x27;s faulty leap in logic (at least, one that would be out of character for them).<p>I&#x27;ve also tried the more common advice of using a spreadsheet where you have a column for each character, and rows indicating the passage of time. There you&#x27;re not drawing hypergraphs but in each cell you&#x27;re just writing raw text describing the state of the character at that time. It&#x27;s helpful, but it falls apart when you start dealing with flashbacks and the like.
> **tunesmith**: 我喜欢思考不断重写自己的超图。我；我是从文学批评的角度，或者从“；汇编&quot；小说。从某种意义上说，它让我想起了petri网，在任何给定的时刻，一个角色都有一个世界的静态模型，可以通过结论和前提的因果图来绘制。然后，一个事件发生了，这改变了他们对世界的理解；超图作为响应被重写<p> 我；我在写小说时用自己的图形软件玩过这个。它；当然，不可能完全记录每个字符；在影响他们的每个事件之前和之后建模，但即使在关键时刻这样做也会有所帮助。我；我不止一次希望我能&quot；汇编&quot；我的小说，这样它就可以自动告诉我情节漏洞或角色；逻辑上的错误跳跃（至少，这对他们来说是不合适的）<p> 我；我还尝试了更常见的建议，即使用电子表格，其中每个字符都有一列，行表示时间的流逝。你在这里；不是在绘制超图，而是在每个单元格中绘制超图；重新编写描述角色当时状态的原始文本。它；这很有帮助，但当你开始处理倒叙之类的事情时，它就会崩溃。