/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11097723
Godel was a pseud. a brilliant mathematician (though sort of a one-trick pony) but he literally was openly anti-science. mathfags are allowed to do their little shit in isolation, and even if they reeee about science we don't care. let them be weirdos

>>11097723
No. He found a solution to the field equations that had this property as a gift for Einstein's birthday. Doesn't mean that's how our universe works.

>>11097723
More importantly, the only arguments for the existence of time are completely tautological and contrived.

Watch the circle jerk that ensues, this shit is like clockwork.

>>11097788
you see that time stamp on your post? empirical confirmation

>>11097755
>but he literally was openly anti-science
He didnt beleive empirical evidence was true, thats different then anti science. even so thats why he was so based, it literally blows my mind that he wasnt attacked more so then he was. Imagine how many Godels were covered up by butthurt Scientists and empiricists because they simply didnt have the IQ to understand what they were saying.

>>11097814
no, that's why he was a total one-trick pony who faded into irrelevance just like einstein did for the second half of his career. if you start thinking you are that much smarter than everyone else, then arrogance has a big negative effect on your productivity at real stuff

>>11097762
In that universe it makes no sense to call space-time time. So it makes no sense to call space-time time in our universe either, since it's the same equations and all that's different is the distribution of mass.

>>11097820
>t.biologist
face it, he made extraordinary contributions to set theory, logic, measure theory etc years after his incompleteness theorems, being too stupid to understand the work is not an argument. For example math is "real", but your IQ level wont allow you to conceive of this.

>>11097820
>if you dont think like me you think youre smarter then me
oh the irony

>>11097797
Notice that the argument is missing a premise. If you substitute in the missing premise, the syllogism is revealed to be tautological.

Thank you for proving my point brainlet.

Tine is like infinitly big and infinitly small. Its a head trip man really makes a brother think.

>>11097723
If time doesnt exist, why do we feel it? You can say we misunderstand gravity, yet it still pulls you in.

>>11097996
What is the implicit premise?

>>11098195
Time can be made irrelevant in mathematical models, therefore it doesn't really exist.
i'm retarded

>>11098198
1. The change in the state of a system is empirical confirmation for the existence of time.
2. The system has changed.
3. Therefore time exists.

There are several problems with this argument.
For example, it implies that it is possible for the state of a system to remain unchanged, which has never been observed. The argument wholly relies on that notion that change is only possible with the existence of time, but since no such motionless systems exist, and even if they did, measuring them would necessarily change that system, it is impossible to falsify that notion. It is impossible to define time without context to motion, so how can it be distinct from motion such that motion relies on the existence of time? If time is a force, then it doesn't exist. It is merely the action of that which does exist.
If time exists, what are its properties?
The argument is tautological because the premise requires that the conclusion is true in all cases. An instance in which the timestamp didn't change does not exist. It literally can not be contradicted.
Define time such that it exists, if you dare.

>>11098204
I really don't think you understand what Godel was trying to accomplish. He was trying to abolish Einstein's attempt to capture time in space-time and he succeeded: Einstein doubted his own theory.

If this post is successfully uploaded, it is empirical confirmation that niggers are gay.
This post is successfully uploaded.
Therefore niggers are gay.

>>11098245
>Einstein doubted his own theory
Do you have any source on that ?

>>11098246
Based

>>11098261
No, I've read a lot of shit. I don't always remember the exact location I read it. Especially when it was 3 years ago.

>>11098269
So you don't have any evidence for your claims ?
Hmmm

>>11098277
Would it be more likely it didn't happen and I had the imagination to invent it--including this response--or that I read it and am too lazy to google it for you.

>>11097842
That dumb post made me lose 20 iq posts.
So our universe is also contracting instead of expanding, since there's also a contracting solution?

>>11098233
Does space exist?

>>11098484
Yes

>>11098277
Not that anon, but you could find it in the biography of Einstein by walter Issacson.
Somewhere stating tht einstein himself was in doubt.

Time is a function of entropy. The total entropy in the universe must always increase and therefor the arrow of time is always pointed in one direction.

You can vary the amount of entropy that happens or you experience and thus you can also vary the amount of subjective time you experience through special and general relativity. But still the arrow of time always moves forward due to the total entropy always moving forwards.

Time is a simple artifact of the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy must increase and thus particles will move to increase total entropy this forwards motion is what we call "elapsing of time".

Another way to look at it is the only difference between t=1 and t=2 on a universal scale is that the entropy increased (and position of particles have changed due to this entropy). Therefor time is only a measure of the entropic state of the universe, which always increases and thus time always moves forward.

Last but not least think about time travel. What actually happens during traveling back in time? It reverses entropy the particles move backwards to a less entropic state. Since it's impossible to reverse total entropy of the universe it's impossible to time travel against the arrow (entropy) of time.

Feynman was the first to make the connection between time and entropy within classical physics and CERN as good as proven that it's similar on the quantum scale where reversing entropy on a small scale results in "time crystals" small places in time that achieve effects as if being locked in time or going back in time due to reversing entropy locally (at the expense of increasing entropy elsewhere).

>>11098609
>reversing entropy locally (at the expense of increasing entropy elsewhere)
But the total entropy stays the same?

>>11098261
>Do you have any source on that ?
>>11098277
>So you don't have any evidence for your claims ?
Last time I checked, the anti-time guys were misunderstanding a quote from Einstein about past and future being ill defined (because simultaneity of events depends on the observer in Special Relativity) to claim that he said that time doesn't exist

>>11098484
lmao no space doesn't exist.
Something analog to an aether does though.

>>11098233
Unironically define "exists"

>>11098654
No. Entropy is not conserved since it's just the arrangement of things trending towards fewer available potentials.

>>11097755
Godel was incredibly based.

>>11098285
Contracting/expanding is a changeable condition dependent on the solution of the equations. Whether or not space-time is representative of time is an absolute condition independent of the solution of the equations.

>>11098609
Basically this. Because we've invented devices that can regulate entropy (i.e. clocks) we can conceive of a linear dimension that we call time. Like all dimensions, it's purely a human construct that we happen to find useful.

>>11097723
>he hasn't read Time Reborn

>>11098195
>why do we feel it?
lolwut? In what way do you "feel" time?
You're just aware of the effects of entropy, that's all.

>>11098609
>Time depends on entropy
This is a stupid meme that needs to die. Spacetime (or at least, any spacetime remotely resembling our own) is an orientable structure, meaning it's always possible to define an axis of time in any reference frame which is causally consistent with that of all other reference frames. All that's left is to pick which of the two directions is forwards vs backwards, which is satisfied by the fact that the initial condition of the Universe was a state of very low entropy. It's true that this is equivalent to saying that the particular back-or-forth direction of time can be defined by change in entropy: but this is only a choice between backwards and forwards. It does not in the slightest imply that the time axis itself is somehow defined by entropy.
A system at thermodynamic equilibrium still evolves microscopically over time. Arguing that the forward and backward evolutions are indistinguishable is simply a matter of taste, since the microscopic evolution is still uniquely determined by a given initial condition and the laws of unitary evolution.
In fact, for the known Universe this is not merely a matter of taste but is flat out wrong. As time increases, distant parts of the Universe become causally disconnected, so a thermal fluctuation back to previous conditions becomes impossible. This means that, from the heat death state, one could in principle uniquely trace backwards to a Big Bang state, whereas forward evolution could never lead you there.

>>11098204
The only place time exists is in mathematical models. And every physicist mistakes his models for reality.

>>11099348
>As time increases
Hey look, a physicist mistaking his model for reality ...

>>11098758
That which is, exists. That which is not, does not exist.
For something to be, it must be distinct from an ideal, it must be observable, measurable, tangible, objective, material.
The distinction between that which is and that which is not should not be taken lightly.
Give me an example of something which you believe exists and is not material, and is also not time. Time is not the exception to the rule, there are no exceptions. To imply exceptions are to assume the existence of the immaterial, which in all cases is absurd and invalid.
To believe in the existence of the immaterial is the end all be all of magical reasoning. To substitute myth in place of missing data. The ultimate in cognitive error. The bane of reason.
Death of intellect.

>>11099427
Does logical reasoning exist? I can reason about the quality of the placement of pieces on the chess board without analyzing any moves and still play chess to a high level. I can reason about the nature of mathematics itself to accelerate the time it takes to find a mathematical solution, even though once that mathematical solution is found the reasoning I used to find it is thrown away and never mentioned. It had might as well never existed.

So does reasoning itself exist?

>>11099427
>That which is, exists.
>For something to be, it must be...
>Complains about the tautology of the existence of time
>His own definition of existence is a tautology

>To imply exceptions are to assume the existence of the immaterial, which in all cases is absurd and invalid
Depends on the definition of 'exist'

Yeah, I'm thinking it's a pseud

>>11099287
Wrong. Spacetime itself is part of the solution. That's the whole deal about GR.

>>11098233
You're ignoring the crucial fact that time is a metric that can be used to distinguish different process that cause state changes

i.e the time for the process of me calling you a "retard" is different than the time for the process of me calling you a "faggot" but in the end the result is more or less the same.

>>11099481
...Godel's argument was the space-time in his rotation universes has nothing to do with the time in that universe. He said space-time was just a space, not a time... I mean what's a guy gotta say

>>11097723
OP, I don't know how to tell you this, but time is merely a concept of measurement. A clock performs the same function as a ruler. Time like minutes exist no more than inches exist. These units are arbitrary.

>>11099445
Actions are not things, pleb.
>Does huffing my own farts exist?

>>11099467
You've misrepresented my argument.
I really didn't think I would need to point out that to be can mean to exist (to be or not to be) and can also denote the attribution of properties to a subject (to be red or green).
It's my fault for the misunderstanding. I should have known better than to expect so much from the likes of you.
The English language is a bit tricky for mathfags.

>>11099485
If time is a mere measurement then it no more exists than the color red, or cubic centimeters.
While it may correspond to something which does exist, a measurement can not be said to exist. Such is the nature of existence.

>>11097723
>time never passes and the universe is eternal?
Yeah, but I'm not

If you dont have time, how do you can you have a succession of cause and effect? Why wouldn't everything just happen simultaneously?

>>11097723
If time's not real, why dont we witness everything happen simultaneously?

>>11097723
Godel was so fucking BASED, absolutely shitting on physicists

>>11099558
Because that's the function of our brain, to filter out entirety and allow the focal point that is our perception of life. What do taking psychedelics do? Remove the filtering mechanism, allowing visions not bound by these filters.

>>11097842
>In that universe it makes no sense to call space-time time.
It definitely does; it's still locally flat.

If time is not real, I'm not interested in this reality thing you are talking about since it clearly has nothing to do with what I experience anyway.

>>11099558
We do. Look around you. All events are happening simultaneously, right now, in this moment. Because this moment is the only context in which events can happen.

>>11099662
This has to be a troll, your birth is not happening right now.

>>11099492
Yeah. In his universe. That doesn't translate to our universe though. So your original point was false.

>>11099850
The fundamental nature of space-time doesn't change cause the distribution of mass changes, but this what you have suggested in order to refute me

>>11099510
So let's say I grab two sticks from outside
My desk is 5 sticks across with stick #1 and 3 sticks across with stick #2

Are you gonna tell me that sticks 1&2 don't exist because
>they're measurements!
you semantics-arguing cum-guzzling faggot

>>11097723
When we perceive time we perceive it as a clock with moving hands. In reality when you are still and realize that you’ve taken around 10 inhales until this point . It becomes quite pivoting. Will you need a time warp or a light accelerator etc. To go hocus pocus I used to scry on a mirror with several sides plus opaque glasses that sort of distorted light or perhaps reached a diffraction point. And I used to see things. The idea is that there is no rewind or fast forward. There is just now and reverberations. Sometimes you tense up waiting for it but the trick perhaps is to be a conduit. If there is time travel going on there will most likely be ghostly experiences. The traveler doesn’t travel alone but takes everyone. One for all and all for one. That’s why life is a personal shared experience. Nothing more. And the living are a beacon for the dead. When you are in a war site you live strange experiences. You see an explosion close. It becomes shared as those close to you panic they are conscient as are you. But as time progresses you realize they don’t remember the experience only you. You are left alone. They’ve gone to another point where they remember but you don’t. The tattoos I find most interesting related to this are the yakuza tattoos. And the water mother. The history is based around the survivors of nuclear warfare. When nuke leaks all you do is vomit. You feel the water mother empty out your life. Now how do they know this? How do they know some nuclear weapons also form a calm eye. Sometimes science is a bit spiritual.

>>11101356
It is said as you break the diffraction limit of ‘time’ it all becomes grey.

>>11100972
No, I have claimed the following:
There are different solutions to the field equations of GR.
These represent different universes with different spacetimes.
These solutions are independent from each other.

Your claim:
In this one solution time never passes and that fact translates to different solutions.

Objectively wrong.

>>11101295
A physical object is not a measurement you very humiliating excuse for a human being.

>>11102157
>A physical object is not a measurement
Look at the literal definition of a kilogram, you dumbass

>>11102256
A property of an object is not an object.

>>11102266
>A property of an object is not an object.
The kilogram has been defined by the weight of the "International Prototype of the Kilogram" for more than 130 years. The kilo was literally defined that object.

>>11102157
>>11102266
>namefags are retarded
colour me surprised

In all seriousness, metrology is a very interesting and challenging field with so signifigant practical consequences. Of course it also wouldn't exist if half the wannabe philosophers in this thread had their way. Thankfully it does.

>>11099558
It doesn't work like that

There is no "time" as some kind of universal force, this doesn't mean everything happens at once however. Your birth happened in the same present space. All of history happened in the same present space, there is no separate place for "past" or "future" it's the same place as today. The medieval period for example wasn't like some different dimension in time, it was the exact same "present" as today only it had a different arrangement of matter in it.

When we measure time what we're really measuring is change in the arrangement of matter in the ever present moment.

>>11097814
Based and Descartes pilled

>>11097762
Based and Parmenises pilled

>>11097814
Cringe and "I fucking love science" pilled

>>11102273
The international prototype of the kilogram is an object. A kilogram is a unit of measurement that is not an object. Just because this unit of measurement is named after a real object, does not mean that measurements are objects.

>>11099502
>>11101356

Possibly a retarded question, but...

If there weren't 'time', wouldn't everything be static, as in the universe as we know it wouldn't be able to exist, and have never been able to form in the first place. And if there were a multiverse, it too would have it's version of time that dictates it's rate of motion/change etc - at constant rate, or at least at at some constant constant rate of change?

>>11102593
Time doesn't need to exist in order for motion to exist. The past and future do not exist, there is only the current state of the system. Each state is determined from the last, and itself determines the next. Time is the absurd notion that each and every past state and future state all coexist simultaneously with the current state. They don't.

>>11102652
>Each state is determined from the last, and itself determines the next
How can you define "last" and "next" if there is no "past and future"?

>Time is the absurd notion that each and every past state and future state all coexist simultaneously with the current state
That's totally not what time is

>>11102667
What is it?

>>11102667
I didn't say there is no past and future, I said that the past and future do not exist. They are states that do not exist.

>>11102682
>I didn't say there is no past and future, I said that the past and future do not exist.
How are those two statement not contradictory?

>>11097723
Time appears to pass for us so it exists. It’s that simple.

>>11102652
>Time is the absurd notion that each and every past state and future state all coexist simultaneously with the current state.

They do, actually. B-theory of time is true as shown by physics.

>>11099505
Your sense of certainty about the state of the existence of time—which for you seems to mean to say that it has a material presence within space—is utterly lost in the mire of semantic unreasoning. Using ostensibly simple language to describe the universe and its intangible, ineffable contents leads you to confused claims about temporality and materiality, concepts which you can only ever create an empirical sketch of, sprinkling in your own dubious intuitions. I think you should stick to equations there my friend, and leave the philosophizing to those less encumbered by false confidence and myopia.

>>11102691
The previous states have ceased to exist, and the future states have yet to exist. The states themselves did and will exist respectively, but do not currently exist.

>>11102709
I am not deterred

>>11102652

The only way for the past to be 'real' would be to be outside the universe, and somehow be able to take a snapshot of all the states that exist at the moment down to the smallest level and then with the perfect model of the laws of physics, calculate an earlier state of the universe and then set that earlier state in motion as a new copy of the universe?

>>11102738
>The previous states have ceased to exist, and the future states have yet to exist. The states themselves did and will exist respectively, but do not currently exist.
Doesn't that can be used to parameterized some kind of numerical variable?

>>11102765
Sure and that variable can be indispensable for solving many engineering problems. That doesn't mean time exists, strictly speaking. Time is definitely a useful concept but it certainly doesn't exist. Kind of like imaginary numbers, they literally do not exist but calculus is useful as all fuck. Thank God for these made up variables, they're tremendously useful, but that usefulness will never suffice to prove anything aside from their usefulness.

>>11102791
>Sure and that variable can be indispensable for solving many engineering problems.
And, why can't that variable be time? Why can't we use that to define time?

>Kind of like imaginary numbers, they literally do not exist but calculus is useful as all fuck
That's where you are wrong, they are as real as any real number

>>11101788
Holy fuck imagine being this much of a brainlet. The only difference is the distribution of matter. If we were in that universe compared to ours we wouldn't notice a difference. It's not like time would stop existing cause matter is moving differently. Then why does the GR equations say so? That was Godel's whole argument

>>11103123
Yeah but they don't exist. Something can be real but not exist. Something is real if it corresponds with reality. For example, the color red is real. But to exist is a completely different set of defining characteristics. The color red doesn't exist, it just corresponds to something that does exist.

>>11103123
If time is just a variable on a piece of paper then of course it doesn't exist.
To exist is to be measurable, but time is a mere measurement under this definition. That measurement may describe the actions of that which does exist, but that usefulness does not warrant belief in the existence of time.

>>11103270
no faggot

>>11099427
your a pseud who leans on empiricism and tries to apply philosophy when not knowing any actual philosophy otherwise you'd have questioned empiricism and not used Shakespearean plays as evidence of existence when the obvious quote to use in the scenario of existence is "i think therefore i am

>>11103330
>Something can be real but not exist
How can that be understood? I can't grasp that stupid idea.

>But to exist is a completely different set of defining characteristics.
Ah... Ok... It's just that your definition of "exist" is retarded.... Your tautological "which is, exists"

>>11104678
Read Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
I gave you a perfect analogy but this one is sure to clarify the distinction between perceived reality and existential reality.

>>11103376
>To exist is to be measurable, but time is a mere measurement under this definition.
The, if you exist you can be measure, but something that is just a measurement cannot exist.... There is no logic in that. If A and B are the same, why being B sometimes doesn't imply A?
It's just because your definitions are crap and you have to move the goalpost by making incomprehensible word-salads that have no meaning.

>>11105523
>Read Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
I already know it. And it doesn't make your definition for "exist" less of a bullshit, proving that you don't understand the allegory.

>>11098233
>For example, it implies that it is possible for the state of a system to remain unchanged, which has never been observed.
Never observed does not mean impossible.

>The argument wholly relies on that notion that change is only possible with the existence of time
Define change.

>but since no such motionless systems exist, and even if they did, measuring them would necessarily change that system, it is impossible to falsify that notion.
If we are always observing something to be true then falsifiability is unnecessary.

>If time is a force
Who said it was?

>It is merely the action of that which does exist.
It's not an action, it's part of the manifold in which actions take place.

>If time exists, what are its properties?
It has curvature, see special relativity for how time behaves.

>The argument is tautological because the premise requires that the conclusion is true in all cases.
All valid arguments are tautologies. The issue is whether the premise is empirical or not. It's observed so it is empirical.

>Define time such that it exists, if you dare.
Time is what a clock measures.

>>11098233
That sounds like pure intellectual masturbation.
Let me try: reality doesn't exist because it's impossible to define reality, dare to prove reality.