/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6944086
>>6944100
>>6945250
I'd say it's a little frustrating that you guys actually seem to think that stating the model of time in general relativity answers what time "is".
I don't think the answer is meaningful to begin with, and I'd be okay with answering "in general relativity, time is...", but just taking the mathematical representation capturing properties we like to associate with time, and acting as if the mathematical model (involving Riemann geometry, coordinate frames, the metric, connections etc.) IS reality - that just locks you in a paradigm and prevents you from developing new and more accurate models.