If numbers cannot have finite strings of digits, then the future can never be perfectly preordained.

We feel as if we travel through perched exactly on the border between past and present, yet the present has no definite or specific structure within the laws of physics. Einstein combined time with space, as an extra dimension, with the three dimensions contained in the latter.

From this we get the space-time continuum, which acts as the background upon which dynamic processes play out.

Einstein's equations present us a (block) universe where everything that is going to occur is effectively decided from the beginning (the initial conditions), leading him to purport that time is an illusion. Most physicists accept Einsteins predetermined time, as it falls directly out of General Relativity.

The problem, is that Quantum Mechanics, as with gravity, does not quite agree with the classical perspective on time:

If we have a particle that is in a number of states simultaneously, we can't speak about the temporal nature of any of these states relative to a particle, because we can't say when any given state is inhabited by the particle.

To Gisin, it becomes clear that time really passes, and new information is created, but also, this formalism dissolves the deterministic nature of time in Einstein's equations, allowing for a more probabilistic process to step forward.

Gisin came upon the realization that the deterministic representation of time afforded us by Einstein contains an implication that Information is infinite.

While acceptable in modern times, the advent of infinite numbers after decimal points was not warmly received when the idea was first put forth. David Hilbert was in support of the idea, where as LEJ Brouwer felt Mathematics was a construct, and that numbers are finite, their digits being the result of calculation or random selection, one at a time.

At this point, the sequence might only return 9's, in which case, at some point, the value will converge on exactly $\frac{1}{2}$.

However, if a number other than 9 pops up in the sequence, then x is less than $\frac{1}{2}$, however, we won't know that until this digit is revealed.

Thus we can never exactly say that x does, or does not equal $0.5$. "If you try to cut the continuum in half, this number x is going to stick to the knife, and it won’t be on the left or on the right- The continuum is viscous; it’s sticky.”. - Gisin .

Hilbert felt that the removal of this law was equivalent to handicapping a boxer, but the mathematical framework that called for it intrigued some of the greatest minds of the time, Gödel, and Hermann Weyl.

Gisin and Posy noticed a connection between the digits of numbers in resulting from a choice sequence, and the physical notion of time, with materializing digits seeming to map on to the sequences of moments that comprise the present, and that the future being undecided, is the same as not being able to quite say whether or not $x = \frac{1}{2}$

> The lack of the law of the excluded middle is akin to indeterministic propositions about the future.

Gisin and another collaborator have reformulated (some) of Classical Mechanics, with the same predictions as Newton, save for events being indeterministic, providing the conditions for uncertainty and The Arrow of Time.

In this framework, the reason we cannot predict the behavior of chaotic-systems, such as weather systems, is that they're not the result of predefined initial conditions, that are precise down to Planckian levels, but rather the values that dictate their behavior precisely are chosen in real time: this means the future is "open", and that time is a creative unfolding, where "the new digits really get created as time passes".

Other physicists, such as Fay Dowker, are appreciative of Gisins efforts, agreeing that physics doesn't exactly line up with our experiences or intuitions, and that the nature of the mathematics we use to describe phenomena influences our understanding of time, and the prominence of Hilberts influence, "...is certainly static. It has this character of being timeless, and that definitely is a limitation to us as physicists if we're trying to incorporate [a new explanation] for something that's as dynamic as our experience of the passage of time."

Generally, like all other forces, at the sub-atomic level, gravity is negligible, as particles have very little mass, however, unlike the other forces, who "disappear" at the macro scale, gravity increases as objects become larger, and also is unquantized, or lacking in discernable quantum properties.

A main issue is the fact that General Relativity is a system based on Classical Mechanics, yet Quantum Mechanics puts us in a situation where we have to ask, from where does a particle, that can be in two places at once, attain its gravity? The answer to this question is often called a Theory of Everything or a Theory of Quantum Gravity."

The requirements for physicists, as far as solving the mystery of time are resolving the ultimately quantum nature of reality, and the classical nature of the space-time continuum.

In QM, time is strict, and not flexible in the way that time is from the perspective of relativity, which states that time is not absolute for two observers, depending on certain conditions.

Furthermore, making measurements in QM, results in the collapse of Wave Functions, which makes time asymmetric, as the state of the location of observables are markedly different on either side of this collapse event.

While most physicists interpret quantum mechanics as a revelation that nature is indeterministic, some keep the deterministic, classical presentation of time alive, via the Many Worlds interpretation.

Gisin, rather than trying to make QM deterministic, is attempting to provide a non-deterministic language for both classical and quantum phenomena.

The law of conservation treats information as something that can neither be created or destroyed, but via the addition of new numbers, related to the state of the universe, and the re-definition of this state over time, new information is being created.

Another benefit of IM, is that it allows for a shift in our understanding of the conscious experience of time, with the fact that we experience the present as thick, more like a range of points on a timeline, than the singular point it (perhaps, mathematically) is. This is very similar to the "continuum being sticky", with regards to decimals, hinting that it may be the same process that undergirds our perception of now: in short, time can't be divided in two cleanly- it's like cutting honey. While there's still a lot of work to do with this theory, it seems to have drawn mostly positive reactions from the community, offering novel ways of thinking about the problem of time, information, and the fundamental nature of reality.