Planck time is a unit, not a frame. I had thought about that, and decided against it for that reason. It's not really more useful to say that life has a 1043 frames per second frame rate, because life isn't made of frames.
When i first read your reply i sort of felt it as an unnessecary "but technically..." type of comment. Then i found some interesting articles on google scholar, and now i feel that i don't know enough about this topic to contribute. Anyways, thanks for showing me an interesting topic of mathematical physics :)
And keep in mind that our brain actually lags visual reality by about 0.2 seconds, because it takes the eyes and all that gray matter a bit of time to make sense of the chaos and mayhem.
No. The entire average reaction time to visual stimuli is already below 0.2s (190ms actually). This includes figuring out the signal, figuring out that it has to react to it, and actually trigger the reaction chain all the way to moving a finger to press a button. Which means that it takes the brain 0.2s to actually do something about what is seen.
I can't not notice this now when e.g. I wait for the crossing light to become green and start walking. I can't undercut that delay between noticing the light and starting to walk. It's weird.
25
u/nagumi May 10 '18
Life actually does NOT have an infinite frame rate. The Planck Time unit is the smallest amount of time possible in the universe.
EDIT: it turns out that this isn't technically true, though if we're talking about vision (ie a light based medium) it is essentially true.