/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10460822
>Simply a false claim. Rocks can become processed metals but they’re baryonic matter through the entire sequence.

An iron can become a magnet with absolutely no quantitative difference. What's your point? Quality over quantity is the point.

>Prove it.
>provide proof of no proof

Prove your real first. I won't reify an absence.

>Word salad void of meaning.
Form vs matter (material). "Matter is formed" not, "matter produces forms". The forms are higher and not reifiable because they have no physical existence. They are also non-specific, there is no "most true and real form", because it's a conjugate of matter/material.

>The parts nevertheless exist as things.
Yeah, as parts. Not the whole. Basically it's not a matter of "what is/isn't real" it's "how real is it?".

>>9994337
>The idea that time is physical and malleable cannot be proven.

You're somewhat right but it most certainly can be proven that time is not real. First of all it's nothing other than a measurement, a concept made by humans to keep track of the frequency of events.
>frequency of events
The "events" in this case cannot be described by "time" nor can time be a modality. How can time be an event or modality that controls events? It's a descriptor of an event, it is a language derived from observation.
>derived from observation, a posterior descriptor of it
Not a "posterior attribute" of it. It doesn't matter how "frequent" an event happens, what matters is the cause of that event. Time does explain the event, it quantifies the qualitative aspects of resistance and motion.
>quantifies the qualitative
A.K.A "time doesn't exist we humans made it up".

>>9994758
This meme is so old and outdated, you can tell because the premise of it still tries to give meaning to "time" and "gravity", both of which don't fucking exist.
>a clock
>having anything to do with the universe

Lint-headed clod