/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12069620
Prove the next instant exist: you can't, you only experience one frame at a time.
The universe could consist of this very instant only and you wouldn't be able to tell.

>>12069620
Did you actually fall for the meme?
Why is it only four dimensions?
Why not five?

>>12069620
Where in physics time is important for anything to work?

And I really mean work, I'm not asking for example where time is useful for humans to comprehend what's happening, give one, just single example where time as not a concept is necessary for universe to work the way it does now.

>>12069642
Worthless argument
>>12069655
Because only four dimensional spaces have an infinite amount of unique manifolds. All other spaces have a finite amount.
>>12069662
Basically all of it.

>>12069679
>only four dimensions...
Jesus Christ, please fix this.

>>12069679
>can't give a single example because even he doesn't know

>>12069620
I was also one of those people in that conversation and I will disagree that 'time is one of the dimensions' because first, while the number of dimensions is cleanly defined on a manifold, because of the nonglobal nature of charts, can't generally distinguish all the different dimensions cleanly. (can you distinguish the x and y dimension of the manifold of the plane?) Coordinates are generally arbitrary in general relativity and thus act 'man made'-this includes, for instance, cosmological time.

>>12069688
To fix it he'd have to know what he's talking about.

>>12069679
>Worthless argument
Why respond at all if you have no counter arguments?
You assert the existence of a 4th dimension, but you can't prove it doesn't only exist as an illusion within your current mind.
Now, in our daily lives we assume time exists, because we're wired to find it convenient. But logic proves there is nothing to back up this belief.

>>12069688
>>12069693
There is nothing to fix in that statement.
>>12069689
Anytime one describes motion.
>>12069691
The atlases on a smooth manifold can be used to distinguish dimensions. What you're saying is irrelevant.
>>12069694
Claiming "time is just an illusion, mannn" isn't an argument.

>>12069709
Define motion without an observer and in detail explain why time is relevant part of it.

>>12069620
Would you say time is necessarily linear (past to future)?

>>12069713
Motion always has an observer, a moving body is always observing itself so it is not possible to do this as whatever I'd be defining would be different from motion. Therefor, your question is irrelevant and not an argument.

>>12069694
...Can you elaborate?

>>12069729
(about how atlases can specify distinct, clear dimensions. For instance, a plane can be charted by x-y cartesian planes in one direction or the other and what's to distinguish the x and the y? And, what of something then like the sphere?)

>>12069709
>Claiming "time is just an illusion, mannn" isn't an argument.
Well it is, and you trying to turn it into ridicule by implying this is a stoner thing really shows your mind is unfit to conduct logical reasonings and instead rely on manipulating your opponents emotions to persuade them.

We experience time like a character in a movie experiences the movie he's in.
Clip a single frame from this movie and burn the rest, the character in this single frame wouldn't be aware of this.
Do the same with our universe and it's presumed timeline, and you wouldn't be able to tell either.

There is no logical foundation for time existing given our experience only.
You can try, but you will fail.

>>12069725
It's simply amazing how much bullshit you will make up just to avoid admitting that you simply cannot define motion without an observer and the fact that if there's no observer, there's no concept of time.

The object will continue moving, concept of motion, after all, is relevant only to observer (human or machine human made, nothing else, literally), and so is time.

You're literally a fucking retard who can't admit being objectively wrong.

>>12069738
It is not, in fact, an argument.
The synthetic a priori exists and has been proven.
>>12069739
False.
I could define some other structure without an observer but it wouldn't be motion. Motion requires an observer because whatever is motion is an observer to itself. Therefor your question is irrelevant and not an argument.
Observation has nothing to do with intelligence or consciousness. A rock moving through spacetime is observing itself.

>>12069751
>The synthetic a priori exists and has been proven.
Totally baseless and unrelated mumbo jumbo.
Give me hard facts implying this instant is followed by another one.

>>12069751
>Observation has nothing to do with intelligence
Yeah, retard like you is perfect example of observer without intelligence.
>A rock moving through spacetime is observing itself.
Moving through spacetime isn't necessarily motion, retard.

You literally assume existence of time to prove existence of time, nice troll.

>>12069662
You posted an accurate pic of yourself.

>>12069773
Since its inaccurate for you, post us a single fundamental equation that describes the world AND has time as a part of it.

>>12069766
>Totally baseless and unrelated mumbo jumbo.
False
If you don't understand the relevance of what I said (that is, you believe it is "baseless unrelated mumbo jumbo"), you are not actually philosophically equipped to have this conversation.
>>12069768
>Yeah, retard like you is perfect example of observer without intelligence.
Not an argument.
>Moving through spacetime isn't necessarily motion, retard.
Moving and motion are the same thing.
>You literally assume existence of time to prove existence of time, nice troll.
False and again, no argument.

>>12069778
>Moving and motion are the same thing.
Motion is defined as changing position in space, so objects that stand still move now? Nice meme.

>>12069782
An object in motion is moving. And object that isn't moving isn't in motion.
When an object is in motion it is moving through spacetime.

>>12069778
>If you don't understand the relevance of what I said
If you think what you posted constitute in any way a proof, let alone a proof for the existence of time, you're not equipped with a logical mind.

I'll repeat myself:
Give me hard facts implying this instant is followed by another one.

>>12069788
No, your argument is a Humean attempt to assert the problem of induction, that we can not use empirical evidence to make true statements about the world.
Immanuel Kant already solved this with his transcendental deduction and his proof of the synthetic a priori.
You don't actually understand logic or philosophy.

>>12069787
To move through spacetime you simply have to exist because you move through time regardless of your position.

It's funny how you literally now said something that ignores time completely, because its literally irrelevant to anything in universe, except us.

How do you absolutely define a point in space-time so that there would be no ambiguity regarding the place-time? I mean at an autist level, because you could rattle off a 4-vector (h,w,d,t) and the origin would still be in question. The definition of the origin would have to also be a 4-vector of its own in relation to something else, ad infinitum. Not trying to troll, I just know that SOMEONE could argue over the definition of ANYTHING because they interpret the text or sound to mean something different from you. You wouldn't have a way to communicate properly.

>>12069789
Still no arguments. No facts. Just baseless a priori.
You affirm the existence of time as an a priori, an axiom, well my friend, this does not constitute a proof in any way, and anyone can dismiss it without contradicting any of your absent arguments.

You're quick to clad yourself in the virtue of logic, but you've yet to use it once.

>>12069620
If we can understand time to an extent, than time exists, not much is there to be debated about.

>>12069810
This proves it exists as a concept in your mind, but that doesn't say anything about reality.

>>12069807
I'm not going to write out Kants entire transcendental deduction. Actually go and read philosophy and logic if you want to think of yourself as logical.
>No facts
General relativity requiring time, motion requiring time, and 4th dimensional spaces being the only ones with an infinite amount of manifolds are all facts.
>baseless a priori
YOU are the one asserting baseless a priori. Nice projection.
>you affirm the existence of time as an a priori
False. We observe it's existence and then using logic and physics we conclude that it must exist a priori i.e. it is a synthetic a priori. This is not baseless.
>anyone can dismiss it without contradicting any of your absent arguments
False.
There are no absent arguments.
>you've yet to use it once
False.

>>12069828
>4th
>infinite
>only
No, seriously, what the fuck are you on about? What wonderous, specific work has been done in mathematics to support this claim?

>>12069841
Doesn't OP's >>>/x/chizo count?

>>12069828
>General relativity requiring time, motion requiring time, and 4th dimensional spaces being the only ones with an infinite amount of manifolds are all facts.
Fallacious logic. Theories relying on the existence of time don't prove time itself exist. You assume it does, because your blinded by the apparent truth those theories hold.
I can assume totally arbitrary axioms and derive self consistent theories from them, but that doesn't make those axioms the truth.

Going back to your initial claim:
>time exists and isn't a man made concept
Everything we know is empirical, perceived and then reconstructed by our brains. How is anything not a man made concept then?
Every attempt at proving that a reality external to your mind exists is a product of your own mind itself. Saying otherwise is saying you're also what's external to you, which is preposterous.
In that sense, everything we know is man made.
The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll get out of that Plato's cavern you so dearly cherish.

>>12069841
I'm not sure about this particular statement (for instance, the connected sums of tori make up distinct 2 dimensional manifolds) but generally speaking, 4D manifolds are the hardest to classify and have 'more' of them, with all kind of different weird manifolds in them. I'm not entirely sure this relates to the type of geometry of general relativity though (haven't heard of exotic 4 sphere in that subject or anything).

>>12069828
There is no absolute evidence time exists. Time as you perceive is rate of change but you can create this from two absolutes. I.e take binary 000 and 111, either of them are static but 001 and 110 can induce every possible combination

>>12069841
Go and learn topology.
In any dimension other than 4, compact manifolds have only a finite number of distinct smooth structures. In dimension 4, compact manifolds have countably infinite non diffeomorphic smooth structures.
Four is the only dimension in R^n that can have exotic smooth structures. R^4 hs an uncountably infinite number of exotic smooth structures.
>>12069854
You are not intelligent and you don't know what you're talking about.

>>12069894
>In dimension 4, compact manifolds have countably infinite non diffeomorphic smooth structures.
Yeah because smooth brains breed the most, good one.

>>12069865
Everything you're saying has already been debated in this past and Immanuel Kant ended it in his first critique.
You are hundreds of years behind the times.

>>12069896
Cope and seethe.

>>12069897
I see you're not inclined to discuss things seriously, or maybe you are but are unable to.
Maybe one day you'll realize the striking resemblance between you brandishing Immanuel Kant as a substitute for thinking, and those who brandish the Bible, or the Quran.


Let me just add that you would do yourself a service if you considered the possibility of the idea that everything you know comes exclusively from your brain.
There's absolutely no shame in realizing you're wrong, in fact, you should use this as an opportunity to evolve and refine your mind (and to stop making arrogant threads you don't have the tools to defend).

>>12069897
gtfo philosphy tells you nothing about the actual universe.

There is only 1 piece of evidence pnessecary to understand time:

In space a object stays in continous motion unless acted upon. Explain that genius. "0

>>12069922
Literally no arguments.
You attempting to draw parallel between referencing the history of philosophy and the synthesis of rationalism and empiricism with "quoting the bible" shows, again, that you do not know what you are talking about.
You do not understand logic, philosophy, mathematics, physics, or science.
>>12069923
>gtfo philosophy tells you nothing about the actual universe
False.
Also, I am not using philosophy to show that time is a dimension, I'm using physics and mathematics.

>>12069932
>depends on human concepts to explain why time as a non-concept but something that supposedly objectively exists, exists
Cope brainlet.

>>12069939
Wrong, cope, and seethe.

>>12069932
Show me some physivs, in your own words.

Why does a object perpetually move in space. infinities not allowed

>>12069620
I'll elaborate on my view a bit, then. To say that time is one of the dimensions of spacetime seems to indicate that time is in a sense also as absolute as spacetime. But, then spacetime should decompose into space and time and this isn't possible.

Space-time as a manifold alone doesn't distinguish space and time. For this, I would naturally assume one would have to rely on the metric. After all, in flat space-time, the thing that distinguished space and time was the 'signage' in the metric. But, even this isn't very consistent. In Schwarzschild coordinates, the signage switches inside a black hole, so that if this was how we determined space and time, that time would become space and space time. Clearly, this isn't how this works. So, if manifolds are their own whole, not decomposable into other manifolds in general [I suppose there is a notion of cauchy surface but I don't know enough GR, I think though this is not an 'absolute' method of simultaneity, so that time still isn't clearly identified.] and since coordinates, as we've seen, are ultimately arbitrary (Schwarzschild coordinates vs Eddington-Finkelstein, which don't seem to have immediate physical meaning), I don't see any absolute mean of saying that 'time' is a thing of spacetime.

>>12069932
All you did was brandishing Kant's name.
I too can say Kant agree with my views, but I don't do that because that would be disingenuous.
When you make an argument and want to use Kant's logic and arguments, you cite him.
You don't even have to say that Kant came up with those ideas, because you open yourself to criticism such as appeal to authority. A man's name and his ideas are dissociable.
I drew the parallel with religious people because they have the same problem as you: they brandish a name instead of a proper and logical argument.

The biggest problem arguing with you is that you lack the proper tools to be argued against:
it's not the first time you do this but posting
>Literally no arguments.
is not a proper counter argument.
What you do when you seek the truth in a civil discussion is you take every bit of what your opponent said and give counter example, facts and logical reasoning that contradict them.
The text I posted has non zero length, so it isn't empty of arguments. Whether those arguments are bad or good is yours to point out.

The Monty Hall problem isn't real, its just a fake factoid like eating 5 spiders a year while you sleep or humans only using 10% of their brain. It just got memed into being considered true even by professional statisticians though it is obviously false. The myth became so widespread it made its way into mathematics textbooks and became mainstream in the academic community. Its the greatest mathematical hoax there's ever been.

Its obviously false though, you cannot alter the odds of one thing being behind one door by opening another door.

>>12070028
>humans only using 10% of their brain
Consciousness takes up only 10%, the rest is subconscious, obviously we use 100% of it, doesn't change the former fact, pick on something you understand.

>>12069957
> nah bro, its manifolds all the way down
> wdym its circular reasoning?
> wait so time is a circle? How many Ds?
> time is real though

>>12069778
>not actually philosophically equipped to have this conversation.
That's 99% of 4chan !

>>12070043
There are submanifolds but you can't in general write a manifold based on these submanifolds (unless we have a fiber bundle).

As to circular reasoning, I don't know what you're talking about exactly. Or time being a circle. Or D (dimension?).

I also should add if time were an absolute thing in spacetime, then there shouldn't be relativity of simultaneity but this is a core feature of special relativity. The closest meaningful sense to 'time' as it is used in say classical mechanics is the concept of proper time. However, this being based on a given worldline, isn't a way of showing a general absolute 'time' in spacetime.

>>12069865
>Going back to your initial claim: "time exists and isn't a man made concept"
>Everything we know is empirical, perceived and then reconstructed by our brains. How is anything not a man made concept then? Every attempt at proving that a reality external to your mind exists is a product of your own mind itself. Saying otherwise is saying you're also what's external to you, which is preposterous.In that sense, everything we know is man made.


yes, its a difficult situation to be in, quantum mechanics only made things more difficult, the best option we have is to accept "a priori" that we are a trustworthy observer/interpreter of the natural phenomena

>ego cogito ergo sum
I think ergo I am

or much older from Parmenides:
>τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἐστίν τε καὶ εἶναι
to gar auto noein estin te kai einai
for the self think to exist and be

basically the bliblical point of view that we are important in the play of the cosmos, our relationship with the cosmos is "real" and not just an illusion of our brain, and that words and language(logos) be it mathematical or literal is the mediator (so logos its a fundamental in nature, its real, and its a fundamental base to describe and talk about nature)

So what happens after heat death, when everything is decayed and so on... if you were to be teleported there somehow - believe this at least for the concept sake - could you, given any tools and "time" reconstruct the past exactly as it was with the information remaining there? Would it be exactly the same???

If not what does this say about the concept of time?

>>12070643
Well, if you were teleported at the "end" of time, time is all you would have there.

>>12070675
Interesting take.

>>12070675
and the tools you brought with you would be the only things left with you, spare for the occasional photon every trillion years.

>>12069620
hope yall dont mind a bump

>>12069739
there is always a observer. we are just a bunch of atoms put together, so atoms can work as a observer. unless you give our brains some magic superpowers. life is not necessary when we talk about observer.

How much must I study to understand this thread?

>>12069642
Realizing this on LSD is a very interesting experience. Would not recommend, it's kinda fucking spooky.

>>12069620
It's just one schizo named Ken Wheeler.

>>12069620
>No, time objectively exists separate from human perception
So how the fuck did you confirm its existence then you moron?
>Spacetime is a four dimensional manifold where time is one of the dimensions.
"A pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow"- correct description of imaginary bullshit

>>12069932
>Also, I am not using philosophy to show that time is a dimension, I'm using physics and mathematics.
>I'm not using philosophy, I'm just using different language and fancy descriptions of things assumed to exist

>>12069948
>Why does a object perpetually move in space. infinities not allowed
Let me have a go:
An object moves in space because space has no properties. Space is the absence of (that object). That object is being subjected to the loss of itself.
>perpetual
>infinities not allowed

It will "move" "in space" as long as it has energy. It will succumb eventually and dissipate back into pure inertia.

>>12069828
>General relativity requiring time, motion requiring time, and 4th dimensional spaces being the only ones with an infinite amount of manifolds are all facts.
>require
"energy". It requires energy. The growth and loss of it. It's not a force or field. it's not something that can be generated or destroyed. It's not something physical. It's not something period end of discussion.
>no ur wrong
Test time itself in an experiment, it's never been done because it's a measurement. How do you test a measurement? You make them up as you go along as a basis for comparing actual real things in an experiment.

>YOU are the one asserting baseless a priori. Nice projection.
>still no evidence for time in the first place, other than reification of a measurement
Fuck off

>We observe it's existence
So a shadow is real then?

>and then using logic and physics
But how is time physical? It's literally a measurement. An idea.

>>12072352
imagine calling one of the most fundamental and quite successful scientific theories imaginary bullshit

>>12069620

>>12073032
>imagine
>theory

>>12073543
imagine still not knowing what a scientific theory is

>>12072352
If something can be used as a measurement, it exists.

>>12073621
So verify the existence of time in accordance to the scientific method and test in in an experiment. The only thing I can think of is the one that equated it to a cesium atoms fart.

>>12073911
>If something can be used as a measurement, it exists.
In the way a "meter stick" can be used to measure a meter. It represents a meter, it's the placeholder. The "meter stick" is the "something" that is physically there to be tested, what it represents is an idea (the meter) though. That was made up. For if you were to say "a meter exists" I would have to infer as to what it is you're speaking of; "a meter of what?". Furthermore the stick a meter is made of can also be used to express other standards of measure, (inches, feet, etc). Are those measurements actually something real too? No, you'd have to ask again "an inch of what, foot of what etc".

>>12074019
A meter is a thing in itself. It does not need to be of something. Because a meter is a thing in itself, it can be used to measure other things.
Time is a thing in itself that can be used to measure other things as well.

>>12074307
To further illustrate, when you have, say, a meter of string, what is actually happening is "string is currently being instantiated as a meter; string form in meter form exists".
Both the string and the meter are ontologically separate entities that can be instantiated, as each other or other things.
Because they are things that exist, they can be used to measure other things. For example, there could be the case where coca cola is existing in string form. "Coca cola is currently being instantiated as string; coca cola form in string form exists".

>>12074307
>It does not need to be of something. Because a meter is a thing in itself,

So which is it?

>here is not something that is something in itself

Does not make any sense, sorry.

>>12074307
>time is a thing in itself
Is it a clock?

>>12074323
>"string is currently being instantiated as a meter; string form in meter form exists"
>I will use everything else that is real to define this thing that isn't actually real

Exactly. You have to use a placeholder for your imagination that's in constant privation.

>>12069620
That's like saying that numbers exist. Numbers don't exist, they are a representation of a concept of a count that have been abstracted beyond its original intention. Similarly for time. If time were inherent, why would the standard be the number of transitions in an atom?

>>12074335
>So which is it?
Those things are not dichotomies.
A meter is a thing in itself that other things can take the form of (and it can take the form of other things) just like any object that exists as a thing in itself that can take the form of other things.
>Does not make any sense
This isn't hard to understand.
>Is it a clock
What? A clock can be instantiated in, say, minute form (or an hour can be instantiated in clock form obviously) but they aren't the same thing, obviously.
>Exactly. You have to use a placeholder for your imagination that's in constant privation.
This makes no sense and is irrelevant. I'm using multiple examples which is how you're supposed to explain things.

>>12074363
Numbers also exist independent of any instantiation.
Carbon atom can exist in two form (or five can exist in carbon atom form obviously) but these are ontologically separate entities that can take each other's form
For example, carbon can exist in nitrogen form (or vice versa obviously).

>>12074370
>Those things are not dichotomies.
Correct. It's a contradiction.

>A meter is a thing in itself
"A meter of what"

>that other things can take the form of
How does an object take the "form of a meter" in and of itself? That is without human interaction. Is it like the wonder twins where it bends to what it believes a meter is"? How would an object know what a meter is?

>just like any object that exists as a thing in itself that can take the form of other things
so long as they're real and have properties, yes.

This makes no sense and is irrelevant.
It makes perfect sense. Without the objects to measure in the first place, measurements wouldn't even exist. Without humans executing the "act of measuring", measurements have no meaning. Measurements are in constant privation for without the human to define them and without objects "to measure", they don't mean anything. Even if they have meaning, they still don't actually exist as something real.

>What?
Exactly. "What is time?"

>I'm using multiple examples which is how you're supposed to explain things.

"Unicorns are like horses. For example they take the form and shape of a horse, usually white in color. They differentiate however because unicorns have horns on their head, much like narwhals have horns on their head"-multiple examples explaining an imagination that doesn't really exist.

>>12074506
it's not a contradiction
a meter is defined to be the length light travels at 1/299792648 of a second
a string being in meter form just means that it's the length of a meter
there is other forms that string can be
like 1.1 meters and others
and time is defined in science as a sequence of events
and a second is defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom"

Why do you want to believe that time doesn't exist anyway?
what exactly is the goal of not wanting time to exist?

>>12075258
>a meter is defined to be the length light travels at 1/299792648 of a second
>The length light travels in a fraction of another measurement is something in and of itself

That's what you're saying. It's preposterous. Furthermore you just proved how a meter isn't a thing in and of itself, you arbitrarily defined it using something that actually is real, and another measurement.

>a string being in meter form just means that it's the length of a meter
It doesn't make a meter real like the string. It can't take the "form of a meter" because a meter has no fucking form in the first place. It's not formed because it doesn't exist. It's an arbitrary measurement.

>and time is defined in science as a sequence of events
And a unicorn is defined as a horse-like creature with a horn

>Why do you want to believe that time doesn't exist anyway?
Because everything you just said proves it's not actually something that does something and yet you still insist it is.

>what exactly is the goal of not wanting time to exist?
What exactly is the goal of asking a loaded question? Prove it exists first.

>>12075508
abstractions exist
you saying that length doesn't exist?
yes a meter is arbitrarily defined
but that is why it's a tool
the speed of light is also dependent on time
that's why it's measured in meters per second

a unicorn is fake until someone finds a unicorn
people found a meter

>>12075535
>you saying that length doesn't exist?
"of what?"

>yes a meter is arbitrarily defined
So ultimately it doesn't exist.

>but that is why it's a tool
YES. That's what makes it a great tool for comparing things that are real.

>the speed of light is also dependent on time
Electric and magnetic fields. And the medium it propagates through.

>that's why it's measured in meters per second
So why not meters per nano second? Or pico second? Or any other arbitrary measure?

>a unicorn is fake until someone finds a unicorn
Or makes one. How you plan to make a meter though is beyond me.

>people found a meter
But it's arbitrary. It's made it up to be arbitrary and fake so that it has the ability to be standardized more accurately. You basically just said so yourself. It's just more accurate then going by measurements based off body parts or other things that can change.

>>12069662
Anything involving the speed of light, cretin

>>12075679
The speed of light is constant and not dependent on time.

>>12075675
>of what?
objects in spacetime

>>that's why it's measured in meters per second
>So why not meters per nano second? Or pico second? Or any other arbitrary measure?
nobody says that you can't do that?
what?
there is also miles per hour
and kilometers per hour
and everything else

>>12075675
>>a unicorn is fake until someone finds a unicorn
>Or makes one. How you plan to make a meter though is beyond me.
they already did
by taking the length that light travels in 1/c seconds
and a second is 9,192,631,770 Hz of the radiation of a cesium atom
and Hz is defined as how many times something repeats
which is just counting

>>12075705
>nobody says that you can't do that?
>what?
>there is also miles per hour
>and kilometers per hour
>and everything else

>it's like there's multiple ways to redescribe something imaginary because it's not something "real" to be concretely defined in the first place.
And yeah yeah, "you cud say da same of anything else" but at least the other "real things" are actually there existing independently of our thinking. They can be "discovered", which makes it scientific. Whereas the concept of meters, miles and whatever else we made up will cease to even be imaginary when we're long gone. Those weren't even discovered in the fist place, they were arbitrarily made up.


>by taking the length that light travels in 1/c seconds
Which in your psychosis translates to "an action of something else is it's own thing that exists independent of it".
>and a second is 9,192,631,770 Hz of the radiation of a cesium atom
So like I said in >>12074019
>The only thing I can think of is the one that equated it to a cesium atoms fart.

>and Hz is defined as how many times something repeats
>time is time

>which is just counting
counting what? The actions of something else? Okay but

>why does the atom do that
Is the magical "time force" causing that to happen?

>>12075832
>time is time
your words not mine
it's you who presupposes time doesn't exist

you know what?
I don't have to explain why units of measurement are the way they are
that's just you making the problem overly complicated
have fun not being able to do observations without them

>>12069620
Prove it.

>>12075888
>your words not mine
fair enough. You still haven't explained "what time is" without using time itself elsewhere in your explanation as to how it exists.

>I don't have to explain why units of measurement are the way they are

I'm not asking you to. I am telling you the established truth that units of measurement literally are not something that exists in and of themselves. They ARE arbitrary, you yourself said this when you admitted that a meter is arbitrarily defined. They do not exist without humans constantly conceptualizing them and changing the idea of what constitutes their use as a placeholder. Things are measured, measurements aren't things. Why you are trying to argue this is beyond me, it defeats the purpose of them being used as tools to AID IN COMPARING REAL THINGS.

>that's just you making the problem overly complicated
You're the only one making things complicated by insisting that measurements are actually something in and of themselves. That they can somehow be dimensional, other absurd nonsense. This has never been shown and was never the purpose of measurements.

>have fun not being able to do observations without them
you mean "have fun not being able to compare observations and things". You observe things with eyes, and sometimes aided with something else that's a real, physical object.
I don't understand how you seem know that a meter is arbitrary yet still insist that it ultimately exists as something. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

>but it exists though cause light travels in nothing, and at a certain speed too!

>>12069662
>where in physics time is important for anything to work?
wow, and i thought i was an idiot

>>12069620
we mean time as an accurate measure anon, THAT is a man made construct, as the current time for example
however the fact that at some point "X" can be somewhere and at another point "X" can be somewhere else is entirely natural thing, we just called that naturality time and then started counting it

>>12069620
Time does not exist. The fabric of what you call "reality" is merely a quantum fluctuation instigated by a drum that was banged into space-time. Gravity is the soup. You are the alphabet spaghetti, and it's all going down the drain.

>>12074373
Show me 5 itself without a representation of 5. Show me the raw for of 5, not an abstraction.

>everything has to be observed to exist
This shit happens in quantum phenomena and isn't fully explained yet, but somehow scientific illiterates still apply it to everything.
Fuck diests, Fuck metaphysics, Fuck all of you. Oh yeah niggers and jannies too.

these /pol/ and /x/ types are really pissing me off my dudes.
how can anyone be so fucking braindead

"Time" is the same thing as "weight" or "length" or "quantity".
Time is a universal measurement system, used to quantify the occurrence of all events, particularly the order in which they occurred.
Time can technically be considered a sense as well, as far as say, a fox has a sense of how much time it takes for it to reach a rabbit before the rabbit notices and flees, but this is most often chalked up to experience and muscle memory - trial and error. It simply was too slow to catch rabbits the first couple times, so it kept speeding up until it knew it was fast enough by the result. Foxes may also have a sense of time as far as how long it takes until the sun goes down, but this is also likely based on experiences and visual cues.
Time is more associated with measurement, because that's what it is. Beyond written or symbolic systems of measuring time, it is simply known as "the occurrence of events", "nature", "life", or "things happening".

>>12076000
science is all about making a model to explain reality
and then trying to destroy that model
you will get a Nobel prize if you can prove time doesn't exist and publish your work and how you found it with tests
wait

>>12078695
thats like winning the nobel prize for proving that language doesnt exist

>>12078699
Yeah
but that would be a monumental accomplishment
If it was possible

>>12078726
theres no standard to language
its made up by humans
its abstract
its only in our heads
just like time

>>12078738
okay
you sure did blow me away by your stunning logic there