Formulating a 2D world
As is obvious from living in the world, time moves in a line progressing from the past to the future.
There is one direction of causality that always moves forward. Tessimal thinks that two directions of causality,
or planar time, is impossible without either having so much friction that nothing ever happens or events that happen randomly
along a forward-only 1D path without warning. Also, most possible formulations seem to violate conservation of energy.
And while this seems to be correct, such a hypothetical world doesn't prevent intelligent life from existing there necessarily.
This formulation, when tested with a simple one particle movement simulation, produces a world that balances creation and destruction of kinetic energy
so that putting small amounts of energy will destroy it, while putting large amounts will create it in bulk. This world works with a series
of discrete instants that depend on the ones above and to the left on the timeplane. The x and y fields denote the two past instants.
# Controls the position of the particle given its two pasts
location = (past_particle_location.x + past_particle_location.y) / 2.0
# Controls the velocity of the particle given its two pasts
var velocity_added = (past_particle_velocity.x + past_particle_velocity.y)
velocity = (velocity_added / 2.0)
velocity /= 1.58
velocity *= abs(acceleration) + 1
velocity += acceleration
location += velocity
Here are the simulations run with an unreleased program by Tessimal. They simulate a particle travelling in a line, with forwards or backwards acceleration that
can be adjusted. It's built to test out many different formulas by editing a small piece of code. For these examples, I'll treat the units as meters and the particle as
a human trying to get somewhere on foot (presumably they've portaled into this world; the native inhabitants of this world would likely be more adapted to these weird physics).
-
If you accelerate and then stop accelerating (where normal frictionless physics would have you at a constant speed), both your position and velocity will drag you back to the origin.
Doing this will get you somewhere for a short while, but then you go back. Clearly this is not a good way of travel.
This origin preference is a severe worldbuilding problem; the origin would likely be extremely crowded. But there are ways to mitigate this.
Maybe the universe is filled with a whole bunch of bubbles with their own origins and physics
systems, which blend at their borders and cluster stuff in their centers. Alternatively, the universe can have an absurdly high number of spatial dimensions, so that a lot of stuff can
fit at the origin. Or as a way of working with this restriction, most objects can accelerate constantly using a mix of the methods in this list. Or use planet-scale gravity that keeps things at a constant distance
rather than solely attracting or repelling, and very strong large-scale electromagnetism that attracts and repels people and objects often enough that the influence of neighboring instants can no longer get it to the origin.
-
If you consistently accelerate by 1 m/s^2, the instants around you will drag your position and speed back, but you'll make enough energy to converge on a 1.82 m/s velocity.
This requires much more work and energy to travel, for example walking like this would be equivalent to transitioning to a walk, a jog, a run, a sprint, and then continue speeding up.
If a human were transported into this world, even a competitive 100-meter dash runner like Usain Bolt would get only a few meters before collapsing. While 1 m/s^2 isn't even close to human limits of acceleration,
it's not sustainable and eventually you'll be dragged back.
-
If you consistently accelerate by 5 m/s^2, the human limit, you will gain a ton of velocity really quickly, likely killing you either from air cleaning your body off itself or by slamming into a wall.
The good side of this is that if you use enough potential energy to accelerate 5 m/s^2 for 2 seconds, you get 15 m/s velocity, thus netting you some free kinetic energy; this extra energy can be fed back into
the system to power essentially any device/city/megaproject. The only caveat is that the power grid, plant, and surrounding area need to handle all of it without being destroyed, which is a big ask.
So...it turns out getting this much free energy isn't exactly a good thing. We need another worldbuilding fix. This is doable by making the speed of light absurdly slow, making concentrated energy disappear or dissipate, or
filling the universe entirely with a substance that hinders movement, like a very viscous fluid.
-
If you build a wall of acceleration on the timeplane, you can avoid being dragged back for much longer, creating a smooth, wide area of far position. This is one good way of travelling: by doing this in short, sustainable
bursts and taking some time to rest afterward.
-
Another good method is "localized travel". Usually when you want to be somewhere, you only want to be there for a certain amount of time before leaving.
Instead of thinking about getting there and getting back as two separate commutes, you can think about setting yourself up to be somewhere for some time and then returning.
To do this, you make a square of acceleration where you accelerate forward on the past edges and backward on the future edges by the same amount.
This strategy requires constant acceleration, so it's impossible to do large areas. But if you just need to pick up something from a store (potentially trapping yourself in its
walls until you want to leave), this could be a valid strategy.
This strategy also isn't totally airtight; it has two "wings" where you're a bit more forward than you should be and a region in the middle where you're a tiny bit backward, but these decay pretty fast.

I also simulated this at a faster speed.

You can also combine accelerations that are normally dangerous when sustained with more natural accelerations in a pattern on the walls of this thing, then use the negative part to kill your velocity.
This can get you much further, but it's not a strategy humans can do. Creatures that evolved for long distance travel might do this, probably generating free energy within their bodies to do this
(potentially replacing eating entirely).

It will take a length of time to pull you back; similarly to the one-wall strategy it creates a wide area that needs to be chipped away at on the edges slowly.
For the 2D world of my design, I'll use this physics system with the following edits:
- Planetary-scale gravity that attracts massive far objects and repels massive close objects, but leaves objects on a comprehensible scale alone for the most part, and always attracts comprehensible ones to massive ones
regardless of distance.
This force is strong enough to prevent everything collapsing to the origin yet weak enough to allow life to exist.
- Much stronger electromagetism where charge is based on a mixture of zodiac signs rather than sign. Almost everything is charged in some way as every element is given a star sign based on its atomic number modulo 12.
This complexity allows the causation of movement in a plethora of ways used both in nature and in technology.
(omg this is getting away from me a little)
To prevent this from breaking the formation of atoms, atoms ARE indivisible in this world, unlike in our universe where they can be divided into protons, neutrons, and electrons.
The electron shell thing is emulated in terms of what it does to produce photons, and in terms of bonds it can form. Bonds can either be electron based or formed by having atoms with compatible star signs, and molecules need
to stay together under the astrological forces to work.
An atom can have up to three astrological bonds regardless of its atomic number, along with the usual electron shell bonds.
Chemistry
Chemistry and astrology are not my forte but I'll try my best. Astrology is inconsistent apparently so I'll base it off of because it has interesting triads.
Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are Aries, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio. These are not especially compatible: most are neutral with two bad pairs and one good pair; they will slightly resist each other on their own.
These are normally the building blocks of life, which means we need something a little different.
We want a combination that is light (ideally with hydrogen) and where elements are largely compatible.
According to my one source, there are four groups of three compatible signs. But we want four elements, so our best option is to link an astrology set with a electron set and use the astrology set's compatibility to
buffer the incompatible elements from each other or trap normally repulsive combinations inside a compatible cage.
The lightest of the four is Aries, Leo, Sagittarius, which corresponds to hydrogen, boron, and fluorine.
The next is Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn, which corresponds to helium, carbon, neon which is a bit too inert.
The next is Gemini, Libra, Aquarius, which corresponds to lithium, nitrogen, sodium which involves two alkali metals, not ideal.
Finally, Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces, corresponds to beryllium, oxygen, magnesium. This seems maybe okay, but it will be a lot heavier.
Out of all options, the best seems to be the one with fluorine. It's the lightest, can link to the original system via hydrogen, and the fluorine won't be a huge problem when bonded despite being a toxic, reactive gas
on its own. Given all this, it seems like the richest organic life would use hydrogen/carbon/nitrogen/oxygen parts attached to hydrogen/boron/fluorine bits. Note that the latter needs to be a 3-coloring of the molecule's
graph (in simpler terms, an element should not be attached to itself). This stands in sharp contrast to the carbon chains (my source allows two copies of the same star sign to be neutral towards each other, so the carbon can
still form such chains)
- The universal speed limit will be at its normal levels (speed of light in a vacuum), but there will also be an acceleration limit at 4 m/s^2, which creates free energy to counteract the destruction of energy,
but remains safer for much longer. This has the side effect of making measurements based on the meter and second extremely easy and universal to define, but I don't think that's a problem.