/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15026644
You'll know why once your meds start working

>>15026646
I took them tomorrow, so they should kick in at any point between 100 years ago and that point of the clock where the hand stutters for a moment.

>>15026644
Organization and routine based around the concept of it I would guess

>>15026644
Have you ever seen a force? Is it in your room now? Can you point to it?

>>15026644
>Have you ever seen the past
Yes.

>>15026644
No one but dimwits think time is a physical thing, everyone else knows it's just a metric for relative rate of change

>>15026691
A physical thing is just something physics describes. Physics describes time, so time is physical.

>it's just a metric for relative rate of change
Define rate of change without referring to time.

>>15026692
>Physics describes time, so time is physical.
No, mathematics describes time

>>15026691
You're a nitwit

>>15026644
>Have you ever seen the past
I see the past when I read your time stamped post. I see the past when I look at a photograph. I see the past when I look at the night sky.

>>15026644
>Have you ever seen the past or the future?
Do you just get confused every time you look at a picture of yourself trying to figure out if you are looking at an older version of yourself or a younger one?

>>15026691
>dimwits think time is a physical thing
>relative rate of change
Rate of change is a physical thing.

>>15026696
Does it? It would only use time as an example or in an applied manner, like other physical things. And you didn't define rate of change without referring to time. Calling time a "metric" is silly. Time is a dimension, metrics are arbitrary functions for calculating distance that requires dimensions to exist in the first place. Please stop stringing words together without knowing their meaning.

>>15026696
Time dilation is definitely a physics thing.
Math defines numerical sequence, not time.

>>15026711
>Rate of change is a physical thing.
But time isn't, it's just a number to which you can assign any value which you want
>>15026714
>And you didn't define rate of change without referring to time
Any relative change within a frame X where X does not occupy the exact same state of the system as X-1, you can define time by literally anything you want, one earth day could be one slurp on my cock from your mom if you so wanted to
>Time is a dimension
Dimensions are coordinates retard, time being a linear coordinate defining any chosen instance of a system that is different from the previous instance
>>15026718
>Time dilation is definitely a physics thing.
Time dilation is information delay between two or more points, no "time" is being manipulated in any way

>>15026714
Actually "defining" time on a metric space is useful, if you want to measure changes between changes of matter which is time itself.
Please stop thinking stringing words together is useless is wrong, definitions are there for a reason.

I agree with the dude he is not me

>>15026749
>Time dilation is information delay between two or more points
This is how to out yourself as a retard without actually saying it out loud

>>15026759
>no argument
I'm glad you concede

>>15026749
>Any relative change within a frame X
I'm confused, what is a "frame?" Frame of what? What is being compared to what? You seem to be describing time but using vague language to avoid saying "time." It's OK to admit time exists.

>you can define time by literally anything you want, one earth day
Now you're confusing time with arbitrary units of measuring time. Are you OK?

>Dimensions are coordinates
Wrong again. (1, 2) is a coordinate on a graph with two dimensions, x and y. 1 and 2 are specific places on the dimensions x and y. They aren't dimensions.

>time being a linear coordinate defining any chosen instance of a system that is different from the previous instance
Instance of what?

>>15026762
I'm not the one who you were talking to you. I knew you were a hopeless case since the beginning

>>15026762
So explain how information delay is pure math instead of physics.

>>15026794
>what is a "frame?" Frame of what
Frame of reference, you know, the entire basis of relativity
>Now you're confusing time with arbitrary units of measuring time.
Time _is_ an arbitrary unit of measurement, you are confusing arbitrary units with physical processes which have no underlying relation to each other
>(1, 2) is a coordinate on a graph with two dimensions, x and y. 1 and 2 are specific places on the dimensions x and y. They aren't dimensions.
And together they form a dimension, dimensions are a set of coordinates
>Instance of what?
Instance of the state of the system, which I clearly said, but of course you don't know how to read.
>>15026797
>no argument
I'm glad you concede
>>15026803
Information delay is physical, time is not

I am a city, and I DEMAND the jews turn me into salt THIS INSTANT!
Fuck it, I'll do it myself.
I'm not drinking any more water!

Time is just forced saltation and Egyptian slavery. Jains have to operate the crown.

>>15026817
>Frame of reference, you know, the entire basis of relativity
That depends on spacetime existing.

>Time _is_ an arbitrary unit of measurement
No, it a dimension. Measurements are made along it. That's like saying "value is the US dollar." Or "distance is the meter." You know this is nonsense.

>And together they form a dimension
??? No, x and y are two dimensions. The coordinates are for a point, not a dimension. Shouldn't you learn what the words you're using mean before you use them? Why do you think making shit up is OK?

>Instance of the state of the system
You already said that. I'm asking you what an instance is. Hint: it's a moment in TIME.

>>15026861
>That depends on spacetime existing.
No, it doesn't, you can define any dimensions you wish as a frame of reference
>No, it a dimension
Yes, it is a linear coordinate, that's what I said
>No, x and y are two dimensions. The coordinates are for a point, not a dimension
You are describing vectors, which are infinite sets of coordinates, which you need to define any dimensions, as any volume in any dimension you choose contains an infinite amount of coordinates, which you use to define your dimensions
>I'm asking you what an instance is
Any point which you choose to define the state of the system, the universe isn't discreet, but infinitely continuous, which is why you can divide the state of the system into an infinite amount of instances, which is precisely why time isn't a physical thing, the universe does not tick like a clock, there are no framerates, this isn't a video game

>>15026751
>Actually "defining" time on a metric space is useful
I didn't say it wasn't. Defining time in a metric space doesn't make time a metric. Read my post again.

>>15026817
>I'm glad you concede
Go ahead and explain what time dilation has to do with information delay, I'll wait
>inb4 pun intended

>>15026913
Time dilation _is_ information delay, "time dilation" is just fancy nomenclature

>>15026918
It makes sense that you're unaware of what an explanation is, so here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation

>>15026924
>no argument
I'm glad you concede

>>15026927
>no explanation
I'm glad you concede. Read a textbook next time before arguing things you don't know shit about.

>>15026930
You don't even understand what nomenclature is, I don't think you should be telling anyone to read books when you don't even know what words are

>>15026932
Time dilation is not about information delay you fucking retard.

>>15026933
Except it literally is

>>15026942
I'm glad braindead creatures like you are confined to this website

>>15026945
Great way to describe yourself, indeed

If time doesn't exist, then neither does space. If you deny space and time exist, then you admit two infinite non-beings. Good luck avoiding absurdities with that.

>>15026648
hey friend. If those points lie in front or behind you is of little consequence, the points don't exist, it's all created by your brain, like you said. But it does aid in the digestion to imagine things front to back. You saw yourself from the outside, and you're one step closer to being not stupid.

>>15026901
>No, it doesn't
Yes it does. In relativity, a reference frame requires spacetime to already exist.

>you can define any dimensions you wish as a frame of reference
That doesn't even contradict time being a dimension.

>You are describing vectors
LOL, I'm not. You're making shit up again. x and y are the dimensions of a graph. Vectors are similar to coordinates, but they have direction and magnitude.

>which you need to define any dimensions
No, it's the other way around.

>as any volume in any dimension you choose
Gibberish. Volume is a 3-dimensional quantity.

>Any point which you choose to define the state of the system
Points are defined by dimensions. The point (1, 2) is defined by the quantities 1 and 2 along the x and y dimensions.

>the universe isn't discreet, but infinitely continuous
Continuous along what?

>which is why you can divide the state of the system into an infinite amount of instances, which is precisely why time isn't a physical thing
How does that make time nonphysical?

>there are no framerates
Again, you're confusing arbitrary units of measuring time with time. Everything moves through time regardless of whether you divide that movement into discrete parts.

>>15026966
>Yes it does
No, it doesn't, you can define absolutely anything as a reference frame
>That doesn't even contradict time being a dimension.
I never said time isn't a dimension, learn to read
>x and y are the dimensions of a graph.
No, they are vectors which define the dimension of the graph, you are arguing semantics because you don't know the definitions of the words
>How does that make time nonphysical?
Because it isn't made of anything, it is just numbers assigned to any chosen instance of a frame of reference, the universe does not know what the time is, it doesn't look at a watch to know when atoms should decay, it doesn't count seconds on its nonexistent fingers, things simply happen, time is a metric reliant on the relative difference between things in a frame of reference, if you were to take any frame of reference and remove everything in it, there would be no such thing as time, because time is not a physical thing, there is no forwards or backwards, it's literal observational philosophy.

>>15027005
>No, it doesn't, you can define absolutely anything as a reference frame
You can define anything as anything, that doesn't mean you're doing physics.

>I never said time isn't a dimension
>No one but dimwits think time is a physical thing, everyone else knows it's just a metric for relative rate of change
>time being a linear coordinate
>Time _is_ an arbitrary unit of measurement
You can't even make up your mind on what time is, but you've certainly said it's things that aren't a dimension.

>No, they are vectors
LOL, no. What is their magnitude?

>No, they are vectors which define the dimension of the graph
Gibberish.

>you are arguing semantics because you don't know the definitions of the words
I'm arguing semantics because you don't know the meaning of the words you use.

>Because it isn't made of anything
What is energy made of? What are fundamental particles made of? LOL

>it is just numbers assigned to any chosen instance of a frame of reference
No, it's the fundamental structure along which you can make such measurements. You're incredibly confused.

>the universe does not know what the time is
The universe doesn't "know" anything. It just is, in spacetime. Spacetime is a structure that effects everything in it, regardless of whether you understand it, which you don't.

>time is a metric
No.

>reliant on the relative difference between things in a frame of reference
Relative difference over what? What separates one instance from another? Hint: time.

>if you were to take any frame of reference and remove everything in it
If that was even possible you would have a flat Minkowski space. No issue at all.

>>15027127
>You can define anything as anything, that doesn't mean you're doing physics.
Irrelevant to the argument
>You can't even make up your mind on what time is
But I already said what time is, of course you either don't know how to read or willfully ignore things to keep living in your retarded narrative
>What is their magnitude?
Infinite, dumbass
>I'm arguing semantics because you don't know the meaning of the words you use.
Holy shit pick up a dictionary, or go read a wikipedia article if you're that lazy
>Spacetime is a structure that effects everything in it
Oh no, you're one of the retards who thinks spacetime is a physical thing, don't reply to me again, I'm not interested in entertaining your schizo aether hypotheses

>>15026644
>Is it in the room with you now?
No, but it will be

>>15027142
>Irrelevant to the argument
Highly relevant. Your original claim was that time is not physical. I know you change positions a lot on what time is so maybe you got confused.

>But I already said what time is
You said time is a lot of different things that aren't a dimension. Are you even denying this?

>Infinite, dumbass
LOL, that's not a magnitude. They aren't vectors and you know it. They are dimensions.

>Holy shit pick up a dictionary, or go read a wikipedia article if you're that lazy
You're the only one here who needs to do that. You can't even make up your mind on what time is, and every guess you have was wrong. Amazing cognitive dissonance and projection.

>Oh no, you're one of the retards who thinks spacetime is a physical thing
And you think it's not logistical because...? Please give us your theory to supplant GR.

>I'm not interested
Thanks for conceding

>>15027142
>I never said time isn't a dimension
>it's just a metric for relative rate of change
>a linear coordinate
>an arbitrary unit of measurement

>>15026644
Because you have graphene gunk in your brain ... meditate on physical principles in nature, on paper its flattened to 2d and twisted to weird stencils.

>>15026794
>what is a "frame?
An actual entity.
>Frame of what?
Actual entities are occasions of experience.
>What is being compared to what?
An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them.
>It's OK to admit time exists
Inherent in each actual entity is its respective dimension of time.
>1 and 2 are specific places on the dimensions x and y
In arithmetic, 1 and 2 would be the actual first and second dimension represented by the graph, with x and y being abstract dimensions of the graph or representing actual extensions of 1 and 2.
>Instance of what?
Experience.
>>15026817
>Time _is_ an arbitrary unit of measurement
We should take care not to conflate the abstract durations of time available to thought for the concrete passage of time available to sense awareness.
>>15026861
>That depends on spacetime existing.
That _is_ spacetime existing.
>The coordinates are for a point, not a dimension.
The US dollar is a dimension of value, and has its own respective dimension of value; as does the meter in respect to distance and congruency.
>>15027142
>>You can define anything as anything
>Irrelevant to the argument
Shouldn't a coherent metaphysics divide frames of reference into fundamental instances? If we intend to reference actual time, the frame of reference is necissarily that of actual entities. The fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing.
>15026901
>which is why you can divide the state of the system into an infinite amount of instances
Yes. But the final facts are, all alike, actual entities; and these actual entities are drops of experience, complex and interdependent.
>time isn't a physical thing
Yes. But for all practical reason, we can consider actual entities to have properties of both a physical monopole and mental monopole.

>>15027979
>An actual entity.
Meaningless.

>Actual entities are occasions of experience.
Occasions imply time.

>An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them.
Word salad. Take your meds.

>>15027154
>Thanks for conceding
I never conceded to anything, I'm simply not interested in arguing with someone who hasn't read the source material and only watches PBS space time videos, but keep living in your schizo delusions, I only hope one day you will take your meds
>>15027979
>We should take care not to conflate the abstract durations of time available to thought for the concrete passage of time available to sense awareness.
But there is no passage of time, time could be running backwards for all you know, because there is no forwards or backwards and there is no time, there are only events which come after previous events with no discrete separation, ergo with no time. If you'd want to prove time is a physical thing you would have to pinpoint the exact moment when one thing turns into another, which you can't do because the universe is not discrete but continuous, any measurement you take of an event is only an approximation limited by your own senses and measuring devices, but on the most basic levels this separation simply doesn't exist, the passage of time which you describe is only an illusion, made up by our primitive ape brains

>>15028029
>>An actual entity
>Meaningless
An actual entity is a general philosophical term for an utterly determinate and completely concrete individual particular of the actually existing world or universe of changeable entities considered in terms of singular causality, about which categorical statements can be made.

Put more simply, actual entity is a term to refer to the entities that really exist in the natural world. An actual entity is how something is happening, and how its happening is related to other actual entities. The actually existing world is a multiplicity of actual entities overlapping one another.

>>Actual entities are occasions of experience.
>Occasions imply time.
Yes, necissarily. It is a way a of defining the actual entities that makes them all alike, qua actual entities.

Time is relative to an inertial reference frame, an occasion, different reference frames defining different versions of time, different occasions. This process is most importantly characterized by extension in space-time, marked by a continuum of uncountably many points in a Minkowski or a Riemannian space-time.

>>An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them.
>Word salad. Take your meds.
In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience. A process may be considered as temporal generation by the actual entities which are its contributory causes.
https://youtu.be/IASxe4oFKGo

>>15028050
>But there is no passage of time, time could be running backwards for all you know
There is no implication of directionality. The measurable time of science and of civilized life generally merely exhibits some aspects of the more fundamental fact of the passage of nature. It is in virtue of its passage that nature is always moving on.
>there are only events which come after previous events with no discrete separation, ergo with no time
The causal outcomes obey the usual well-respected rule that the causes precede the effects in time. Some pairs of processes cannot be connected by cause-and-effect relations, and they are said to be spatially separated. This is in perfect agreement with the viewpoint of the Einstein theory of special relativity and with the Minkowski geometry of spacetime.
>any measurement you take of an event is only an approximation limited by your own senses and measuring devices
Measurable time exhibits merely the character of passage in nature, but the quality of passage itself which is in no way measurable except so far as it obtains in nature. That is to say, 'passage' is not measurable except as it occurs in nature in connexion with extension.
>but on the most basic levels this separation simply doesn't exist
Two corresponding durations which are respectively related by simultaneity to two discerned components of sense-awareness are necessarily distinct. This is an exhibition of the temporal passage of nature; namely, one duration has passed into the other.

>>15028050
>I never conceded to anything
You did when you abandoned the argument. It doesn't really matter what lame excuses you give for why you suddenly couldn't counter argue anymore. Again, thanks for conceding.

>I only hope one day you will take your meds
Says the schizo trying to have a conversation with the other schizo in the thread. lmao

>>15028093
>An actual entity is a general philosophical term for an utterly determinate and completely concrete individual particular of the actually existing world or universe of changeable entities considered in terms of singular causality, about which categorical statements can be made.
Meaningless drivel. Time is real because every accurate model of reality says it is. Your mental masturbation doesn't change that.

>>15028286
>Time is real because every accurate model of reality says it is.
Show me a measurement of the 4th dimension. One forward and one backward. Use a reproducible measuring tool please.

>>15028286
>Meaningless drivel.
It means an entity that really exists in the natural world.
>Time is real because every accurate model of reality says it is.
Time is real regardless of the accuracy of our models. Any accurate model would reflect that.
>Your mental masturbation doesn't change that.
It merely explicates why time is real. Metaphysics is about logical frameworks for the conduct of discussions of the character of the world, and clearly you're not into that kind of thing.

>>15028318
>Show me a measurement of the 4th dimension.
Any clock will do it. Go ahead abs try it for yourself.

>>15028280
>You did when you abandoned the argument
But you have no argument, you lack fundamental understanding of the topic and just regurgitate popsci drivel

>>15028352
>Time is real regardless of the accuracy of our models.
Yeah... that's how reality works. The issue is determining what's real. Logical frameworks only give you the results of your basic assumptions, not what's real.

>>15028357
>But you have no argument
I do and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't be making all these excuses for avoiding it. You're free to respond any time, or you can concede. Thanks for conceding.

>>15028363
But you don't, you're doing the same mistake that every other uneducated person is doing and mistaking spacetime for something physical, which is not something Einstein ever said

>>15028368
Physical just means described by physics. Why do you think it's not physical? Why do you need it to not be real? Does it make you feel special?

>>15028450
>Why do you think it's not physical
Because that's not how the model is described?

>>15028454
By whom? It's a well evidenced model in physics. So it's physical. Why do you think it's not physical? Show me where the model demarcates physical vs. nonphysical parts.

>>15028468
>It's a well evidenced model in physics. So it's physical.
This isn't what I'm talking about, why are you moving the goalposts?

>>15028353
>Any clock will do it. Go ahead abs try it for yourself.
Use a clock to measure the negative axis please. Thanks.

>>15026644
Why is this post up now? You aren't currently typing the words, filling the captcha, or pressing the post button, so there is no way this post can exist

>>15028494
I'm not moving the goalposts, you're falling to communicate. What are you talking about? Are you taking about what's real? As far as we can tell, our most accurate scientific models tell us what's real, and they include time.

>>15028497
You mean time that has passed? That's what a clock measures. Whether you consider it a measure from the present to the future or from the past to the present is arbitrary.

>>15028568
>I'm not moving the goalposts
But you are, because we're not talking about the way things are described, but about things existing, but time does not exist, spacetime is a 4D vector space coordinate system, describing only your coordinates, aka position, in relation to everything else, space and time are not things which physically exist like particles or radiation, as they aren't made of anything nor do they contain any empirically measurable parts, if you want to prove that time exists you will have to prove that the past and future exist, that all the states of the system which could occur and have ever occured are still around and you can measure them whenever you want to, which you can't do, because there is always only one state of the system, there is no five "seconds" to the future or to the past, there is ever only one "second", you only exist in one moment forever, any notion of a "passage of time" is subjective observation, given rise to by the way your brain processes information, but an empirical passage of time as such simply does not exist. You are just trying to make shit needlessly complicated when it's very simple.

>>15028574
>Whether you consider it a measure from the present to the future or from the past to the present is arbitrary.
You believe it's a 4th spatial dimension that continues to exist in all directions. I believe it's a term for the rate of change in a system. You've proved that I'm correct.

>>15028568
>>15028600
This argument seems ultimately semantic. There is passage of time within our perception of reality; in the action of the world, there is _observable_ change from moment to moment. We can see the clock hand tick from 1 to 2, and we can recognize that movement. To ask if this is 'physical' or not is ontologically nonsensical, but the scientific relevance is implicit to its inclusion in physical models(not at all a matter of time being 'really physical' or not). As to whether such a 'passage' from 1 to 2 is an 'empirical' observation, would be a subjective observation. They're moving the goalposts, but you're gatekeeping. Since when is radical empiricism _not_ empiricism? The rational of your argument seems to be "keep it simple for me." And I don't mind you doing that, but I'm not a little girl. For me, excluding subjective observation from our models would be neglectful and lazy.

>"Science conceived as resting on mere sense-perception, with no other sources of observation, is bankrupt, so far as concerns its claims to self-sufficiency. In fact, science conceived as restricting itself to the sensationalist methodology can find neither efficient nor final causality. It can find no creativity in Nature; it finds mere rules of succession. The reason for this blindness lies in the fact that such science only deals with half of the evidence provided by human experience.” (Alfred North Whitehead)

>>15028694
>in the action of the world, there is _observable_ change from moment to moment
But there is no moment to moment, there is only one moment

>>15028700
Maybe for you, but the rest of us need to experience “moments” one at a time. Let us know when you’re ready to allow us your top down sight of every instance.

>>15028715
You can only experience the moment you're currently in.

>>15028720
Almost like a frame. You put a bunch of those together and you have a sequence. From those sequences we find patterns. We take the memories of those patterns and create a subjective reality. Please read more on these topics. Study these things and master them, then join the millions of people attempting to answer much more difficult questions.

>>15028720
Fun little fact. Recall exists! It takes time for your brain to recognize the patterns you’ve learned (words) to even reply to these messages. All of your perceptions are at a delay, and a huge one

>>15028730
>You put a bunch of those together and you have a sequence
But there is only one frame, that's why time as a metric is completely arbitrary and made up to simplify mathematical and physical calculations, those other frames do not exist

>>15028733
Sorry anon. You are incorrect. You should look up some lectures on these subjects online to sit through. A lot of Universities have them recorded for their students’ ease. Most aren’t comprehensive but they’ll at least give you a basic understanding of what we know so far.

>>15028738
Sorry, but I have read enough of books and scientific publications to know that I am correct no matter how much denial you try to impose on me

>>15028700
I use the term 'moment' to mean 'all nature at an instant.' A moment, in the sense here used, has no temporal extension, and is in this respect to be contrasted with a duration which has such extension. What is directly yielded to our knowledge by sense-awareness is a duration. A moment is a limit to which we approach as we confine attention to durations of minimum extension. A moment is a limit which we approach as we confine attention to durations of minimum extension. In this instance attention is confined to durations extending a single second. The word 'limit' has a precise signification in the logic of number and even in the logic of non-numerical one-dimensional series. As used here it is so far a mere metaphor, and it is necessary to explain directly the concept which it is meant to indicate.

You need not dogmatically preach materialist ideology. I know that on the materialistic theory the instantaneous present is the only field for the creative activity of nature. The past is gone and the future is not yet. Thus (on the materialistic theory) the immediacy of perception is of an instantaneous present, and this unique present is the outcome of the past and the promise of the future. But we deny this immediately given instantaneous present, it is already gone. There is no such thing to be found in nature. As an ultimate fact it is a nonentity. What is immediate for sense-awareness is a duration.

Feel free to provide teaching or critique of my position; I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure of your rational and find it deeply lacking.

>>15028739
Then I wish you well

>>15028700
I use the term 'moment' to mean 'all nature at an instant.' A moment, in the sense here used, has no temporal extension, and is in this respect to be contrasted with a duration which has such extension. What is directly yielded to our knowledge by sense-awareness is a duration. A moment is a limit to which we approach as we confine attention to durations of minimum extension. In this instance attention is confined to durations extending a single second. (The word 'limit' has a precise signification in the logic of number and even in the logic of non-numerical one-dimensional series. As used here it is so far a mere metaphor, and it is necessary to explain directly the concept which it is meant to indicate.)

You need not dogmatically preach materialist ideology. I know that on the materialistic theory the instantaneous present is the only field for the creative activity of nature. The past is gone and the future is not yet. Thus (on the materialistic theory) the immediacy of perception is of an instantaneous present, and this unique present is the outcome of the past and the promise of the future. But we deny this immediately given instantaneous present, it is already gone. There is no such thing to be found in nature. As an ultimate fact it is a nonentity. What is immediate for sense-awareness is a duration.

I welcome teaching or critique of my position; I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure of your rational and find it deeply lacking.

>>15028566
>so there is no way this post can exist

and yet it does, and so that is all we can really say for certain: that each moment as we perceive it, in that same moment, is. If I look at a clock and it says it is 3pm, than at that moment I can say I perceive a clock that reads 3pm. If I look again and it says it is 3.01pm, then all I can say is that the clock now reads 3.01pm, and I have a memory of it being 3pm, though that memory is of course in no way actually 'real'. Maybe it was real once, but now it is no longer, as this is all that there demonstrably is, right now.

For all we know there is a force that comes and shifts all of our measuring instruments and minds in each moment, essentially fabricating 'the past' each time we try to observe some memory or measurement or a past moment.

>>15028600
>But you are, because we're not talking about the way things are described
I'm not talking about the way things are described, I'm talking about what physics describes, i.e. what physics says is real. Your won't explain what you're talking about.

>but time does not exist
Because...? I've asked you several times to expiration and you never do. You just dogmatically repeat this over and over.

>spacetime is a 4D vector space coordinate system
No, it's a manifold. The tangent spaces to the manifold are vector spaces. The coordinate system is arbitrary. Stop making shit up.

>space and time are not things which physically exist like particles or radiation
No one claimed this, particles and radiation exist within spacetime. They are categorically different but both real.

>as they aren't made of anything
Neither are fundamental particles. Non sequitur.

>nor do they contain any empirically measurable parts
They are empirically measurable. Use a clock or a ruler.

>nor do they contain any empirically measurable parts, if you want to prove that time exists you will have to prove that the past and future exist
The past existed and the future will exist. Your demand is nonsensical.

>that all the states of the system which could occur and have ever occured are still around
They aren't, they are in the past or on the future, not "still around." You're very confused.

>and you can measure them whenever you want to, which you can't do, because there is always only one state of the system
You can measure the present to learn about the past. For example, you can propagate information from one point in time to another in order to tell you about the first point in time when you're in the second point in time.

>there is no five "seconds" to the future or to the past
But there is, it's measured.

>there is ever only one "second", you only exist in one moment forever
No, you exist in many moments, for a finite time. You're completely backwards.

>>15028659
>You believe it's a 4th spatial dimension that continues to exist in all directions.
I don't "believe" anything, I just find the most accurate models of reality. Where's yours?

>I believe it's a term for the rate of change in a system
Rate of change doesn't make sense without time. Change from what to what?

>You've proved that I'm correct.
Delusional.

>>15028720
So you admit there were moments you are not currently in and you passed from one to the other.

>>15028899
Diagnosis : severe mental retardation
Go read a book, you dumb fuck

>>15028910
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15026644
>Have you ever seen the past or the future?
of curse I have. all normal light is from the past, and you can see light from the future with a time mirror

https://youtu.be/Qd77OXWC1eg

>>15029145
It's more like light is carrying information about a past state. Light moves through time like everything else.

>>15029149
>It's more like light is carrying information about a past state
6 or one half dozen. you can get light from the future by reflecting it off a time mirror.

>>15029157
You could, if time mirrors existed. What happens if you receive information from a time mirror that then causes you to prevent that information from going back in time?

>>15029176
>if you receive information from a time mirror that then causes you to prevent that information from going back in time?
you are presupposing humans have free will.

>>15029181
Not free will, a purely causal chain of events. Information is received and causes a reaction that prevents a future event from occurring.

>>15029185
>Information is received and causes a reaction that prevents a future event from occurring.
then you don't get the info from the future n the first place.

>>15029190
Then there is no event preventing the information from going back. Catch-22

>>15029195
>Then there is no event preventing the information from going back. Catch-22
It's not as profound as you think. You simply can't send a message back that prevents you from sending it in the future.

>>15029207
What casually prevents it but not other messages? You simply can't send a message back.

>>15029207
I suppose it does become profound if you believe you have free will and are choosing in the present to send a message or not.

>>15029217
>What casually prevents it but not other messages?
the fact you never sent it. this is only profound if you think you have free will.

>>15029219
It's not free will, it's causality. The future can't cause things to occur or not occur in the past.

>>15029222
>the fact you never sent it.
Why would it not be sent? If time mirrors are real, then there is nothing stopping a sequence of events from occurring that sends such a message back in time. By contradiction, time mirrors aren't real.

>>15029224
>The future can't cause things to occur or not occur in the past.
are you creating laws of nature now?

>>15029226
>Why would it not be sent?
the question "why" reveals your true thinking. You are looking for a reason. You are asking what caused the person to choose. this is only meaningful if you believe in free will.

>>15029138
Sorry bubba, you can't concede to something that is demonstratably 100% wrong, go read a book

>>15026644
What for you "actually exists?"

You're completely correct that time is simply an abstraction, but the same critique can be levied against energy, information, quarks, etc.

Unfortunately, the sciences have become fairly hostile to philosophy, while philosophy itself as become increasingly insular and divorced from scientific progress.

The result is that a lot of the more theoretical, philosophical work in the sciences gets done by scientists who are amateur philosophers. This has to be the case because philosophers of mind don't necessarily have a good background in neuroscience and cognitive science, those doing metaphysics don't have even an undergraduate understanding of physics, etc. The cross training is made even more difficult by the fact that philosophy insists that chronological slogs through their hall of "greats" is the only way to learn philosophy.

I don't know how many books and articles I've read where scientists uncritically put forth a Wikipedia level summary of Popper as if falsifiability hadn't been absolutely flayed as a criteria for science.

Time is a useful abstraction and talking about space-time is the best paradigm we've discovered for dealing with very large scales. Plenty of physicists have notes problems with the paradigm, but no one has offered up a better solution.

There are systems that do take time and space as pure abstractions, those focused on objective logic. Objective logic was largely written off because the logical positivists claimed they had "made it obsolete." They hadn't, and their own project collapsed in spectacular fashion, but that didn't undo the damage they had wrought vis-á-vis dialectical. Russell and Co's "debunking" of objective logic was on par with how eliminitivists claim they have "solved the hard problem," except they got more mainstream acceptance for their claims.

But dialectical attempts to explain phenomena aren't necessarily any "better." They tend to verge on incoherence.

>>15028899
This is standard orthodoxy and it's challenged all the time. The problem is that it's easier to poke holes in a paradigm than to replace it. Even if a good replacement for current conceptions if space-time exists today, historically, it takes decades for such a shift to occur.

Arguably, it's even harder to shift a paradigm today than it was in Einstein's time because you have a very large share of the population who have undergraduate degrees who reject challenges to orthodoxy based on an insufficient grasp of the problems in a field. Plus, everyone read Kuhn and decided to start trying to come up with novel solutions, and many just aren't workable.

For example, pic related is a good argument against the block universe. There are information theoretic arguments against the mainstream view of space-time. You also have those claiming it is discrete and others thinking of space-time as its own sort of field, not a container ("the void weighs").

After all, physics is a discipline that has, what, nine major interpretations? None with majority support.

Certainly there is something to be said for the idea that space and time are abstractions and talking about physical interactions modifying abstractions is a little cooky, but it certainly seems to work well enough (major problems not withstanding).

>>15029325
I am not sure if dialectical offers our best hope for a unified view of reality or just the mirage of being able to do so. Every attempt based on it gets bogged down in horrendous complexity that makes it hard to keep the ideas straight or communicate them well.

Maybe information as a concept can help to better unify these attempts, but I sort of doubt it. Attempts to formalize objective logic require abstract mathematics that is never going to be accessible to even most scientists, let alone most people. To the extent theories exist to help make sense of the world, these seem doomed to be failures.

>>15029145
>all normal light is from the past

and yet you can only experience it in the present. how curious. it is almost as if there was nothing but the present . . .

>>15029650
We can imagine a being whose awareness suffers no transition of passage. There is no essential reason why memory should not be raised to the vividness of the present fact; and then from the side of mind, what is the difference between the present and the past?

We can suppose that the vivid remembrance and the present fact are posited in awareness as in their temporal serial order. In memory the past is present, It is not present as overleaping the temporal succession of nature, but it is present as an immediate fact for the mind. Accordingly memory is a disengagement of the mind from the mere passage of nature; for what has passed for nature has not passed for mind.

Accordingly we must admit that though we can imagine that mind in the operation of sense-awareness might be free from any character of passage, in point of fact our experience of sense-awareness exhibits our minds as partaking in this character. How curious. It is almost as if a duration has within itself a past and a future.

>>15029650
>and yet you can only experience it in the present. how curious. it is almost as if there was nothing but the present . . .
metaphysical nonsense.

>>15029724
>How curious. It is almost as if a duration has within itself a past and a future.

that would be the hologrammatic reality. each element of the hologram holds the fullness of the hologram within it. reality is fractal awareness.

>>15029232
>are you creating laws of nature now?
No, I'm simply telling you that your alleged time mirror is paradoxical.

>You are looking for a reason.
Yes, I'm asking you the reason why a specific sequence of events couldn't occur. There must be some event in the causal chain that can't occur. Simply saying the chain can't occur because it would result in a paradox is not enough.

>You are asking what caused the person to choose.
No, nothing I said requires a person or few will. It could be a machine that receives information and does an action. I don't know why you keep repeating this straw man.

>>15029321
If it's demonstrably wrong, why have you repeatedly failed to demonstrate this and why did you run away from the argument? Thanks for conceding.

>>15029356
>The problem is that it's easier to poke holes in a paradigm than to replace it.
No one has pointed holes in the paradigm, just repeated their assertion tone doesn't exist without any explanation. It's religious dogma.

>There are information theoretic arguments against the mainstream view of space-time.
Arguments or speculation?

>>15029836
>No, I'm simply telling you that your alleged time mirror is paradoxical.
no. it's not. unless you believe in free will

>>15029836
There must be some event in the causal chain that can't occur.
there is. the message was never sent in the first place.

>>15029836
>It could be a machine that receives information and does an action
ok. explain this machine to me. As I see it you can't build a machine to perform this "paradox"

the machine sends a pulse back in time every 1second. ok!? so what? lets make it more complicated. you can send back a 5ms pulse or a 10ms pulse. upon receiving a 5ms pulse the machine will send a 5ms pulse back to the past in a few moments. when it receives a 10ms pulse in the present it will not eventually send anything back to the past. now you turn on the machine. you never see a 10ms pulse and only see 5ms pulses. where is the paradox? there's no contradiction.

>>15029867
>no. it's not.
Yes it is. And you agreed that it is:

>You simply can't send a message back that prevents you from sending it in the future.
You can't point to anything that is not possible other than the alleged "time mirror."

>There must be some event in the causal chain that can't occur.
Yes, the time mirror.

>the message was never sent in the first place
What prevents it from being sent?

>explain this machine to me.
The machine is programmed such that at time 0 if it receives information from itself in the future then it does not send back information at time 1, and if it does not receive information at time 0, it sends back information at time 1. What part of this is impossible?

>>15029980
>What part of this is impossible?
it's just physically impossible, like having a mirror that creates no reflection or seeing your reflection where there is no mirror.

>>15030088
>it's just physically impossible
That's not an answer. There's nothing physically impossible about such a machine. The only questionable part is the "time mirror."

>like having a mirror that creates no reflection or seeing your reflection where there is no mirror.
Those are contradictions by definition.

how the fuck does time not exist

genuinely explain it to brainlet how the fuck can time not exist

>>15030098
>That's not an answer.
yes. It is an answer.

>There's nothing physically impossible about such a machine.
did you actually solve the wave equation with the boundary conditions you specified? I doubt it. I did. What you are talking about is physically impossible.

>>15030106
It's just schizo cope. They need to be contrarian to preserve their delusion of intelligence and uniqueness.

>>15030107
>yes. It is an answer.
No, I asked you which part is impossible. You didn't answer.

>did you actually solve the wave equation with the boundary conditions you specified?
No need. The only part that's impossible is the "time mirror."

>>15030106
>genuinely explain it to brainlet how the fuck can time not exist
Schizos believe that "time" is a 4th spatial dimension that you can travel back and forth in with the right impulse. Normal people understand that time measures a phenomenon regarding energy and state transitions in our normal 3 dimensional world, and that you can no more undo those state transitions than you can un-boil an egg.

>>15030115
Exactly as I predicted: >>15030110

>>15030121
Yeah you're definitely right. Schizos believe a lot of weird stuff about 4th-dimensionality, thinking that "time mirrors" and other really bizarre fantasies make them sound smart.

>>15030114
>No need. The only part that's impossible is the "time mirror."
no. the time mirror is a valid solution to the wave equation and boundary conditions discussed here >>15029145
can you falsify it? starting solving the differential equations and show me my error. The part you specified is analogous to seeing a reflection without a mirror or having a mirror that doesn't reflect. I solved the diff eq and confirmed it. it's not a paradox. It's just not a valid solution.

>>15030127
>the time mirror is a valid solution to the wave equation and boundary conditions
If it existed, which it can't.

>can you falsify it?
I already did. If you could send information to the past, you could get a contradiction. Therefore you can't.

>The part you specified is analogous to seeing a reflection without a mirror or having a mirror that doesn't reflect.
Not really, since those are contradictory by definition, while your "time mirror" is contradictory by a causal loop.

>it's not a paradox.
But it is.

>>15030524
>I already did
by your logic normal mirrors are falsified by the fact you can't get a reflection without a mirror and you can't construct a mirror that does not reflect. Of course you can't separate the phenomenon from the thing that causes it. You shouldn't expect that. BTW where is your work? I don't see any solution to the wave equations here. I've analyzed your "paradox" case. It's simply aphysical. It's not a valid solution. You violated the wave equation or its boundary conditions.

>>15030530
>by your logic normal mirrors are falsified by the fact you can't get a reflection without a mirror and you can't construct a mirror that does not reflect.
Please explain, how does anything I said imply that? Those statements are describing things completely the opposite of normal mirrors. You're spouting nonsense because you have no argument left.

>I don't see any solution to the wave equations here
Because it's irrelevant to my argument. I don't see any sandwich in your responses. Get me a sandwich.

>I've analyzed your "paradox" case. It's simply aphysical.
Here's a more accurate analysis: time mirrors are aphysical.

>You violated the wave equation or its boundary conditions.
How so?

>>15029840
But I already explained several times why you are wrong, you just willfuly choose to ignore the facts and keep spouting your aether nonsense, why would I waste my time arguing with a retarded monkey if all you're going to do is keep banging sticks together, go read a book retard.

>>15030614
>But I already explained several times why you are wrong
Where? Did you respond to my responses? Why not?

>you just willfuly choose to ignore the facts and keep spouting your aether nonsense
Projection and delusion. You ran away from the argument. When did I say anything about aether?

>>15030106
do you know what a hologram is? A hologram appears to move depending on how you look at it. A hologram also contains its entire self in each piece of it, fractally (Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End . . . ) But it is completely flat and still. That is a sort of analogy for a timeless, infinite and eternal universe where there is no time and no motion, but only an awareness that moves across itself. Another analogy might be your own body, and how at any one time you might not be fully aware of some part of it, the tension in your legs for instance, or your arm, that you suddenly realise is there, and then release as you notice it.
In this way, I suppose you could imagine yourself as if you are moving a few steps forward. You perceive motion, and the displacement of space, the feeling of your body moving, touching the floor, the air, your clothes. But with perfect awareness, as though you were the whole universe, there was no movement, only a series of still points that the awareness passed through, like those old spinning photo movies where photos were placed in a wheel and spun around and so appeared to move when looked at. When you wave your hand through the air, in 'true reality' there might be an infinite amount of points where your hand was placed in the air, and like a flip book of pictures, awareness passed through the still slides to simulate change and time.

>>15030539
>Please explain, how does anything I said imply that? Those statements are describing things completely the opposite of normal mirrors.
ok. It seems you either didn't watch the video or its content entirely went over your head. I'll break it down for yo why your "paradox case" can't exist in the first place.

the act of sending info back in time is the creation of a mirror

the info that goes back in time is a reflection.

now lets put on our thinking caps. can you have a mirror without a reflection? can you have a reflection without a mirror? the answer is no. you can think of a regular mirror this logic still applies. let me make a table or you. the logic applies to regular or time mirrors

reflection mirror possible
exists exists yes
not exist exists no
exists not exist no
not exist not exist yes

the existence of a mirror and it's reflection are mutually exclusive. you can't logically create a case where one exists without the other. the problem here is you keep insisting there's a possible scenario where a reflection or its refection exists while the other does not. this is illogical. it can't happen, so your "paradox" can't happen. please, watch the video. try to understand the wave equation and how it applies to the boundary conditions of regulars mirrors. You'd understand the whole thing a lot more, and you wouldn't be making such illogical assertions

>>15030539
>Here's a more accurate analysis: time mirrors are aphysical.
no. they are perfectly valid solutions to the wave equation in the presence of a medium that changes in time. Your illogical scenarios don't invalidate them.

>>15031025
>the act of sending info back in time is the creation of a mirror
Is it? I know what a mirror is, I don't know what a "time mirror" is.

>the existence of a mirror and it's reflection are mutually exclusive. you can't logically create a case where one exists without the other.
Mutually exclusive means they can't be true at the same time, you're saying the opposite. Maybe you meant to say mutually inclusive.

>the problem here is you keep insisting there's a possible scenario where a reflection or its refection exists while the other does not.
No, I'm saying the time mirror cannot exist. So sending infornation backwards in time cannot occur. What I said is possible is a simple machine programmed to input and output information. If a time mirror existed, it would be trivial to use this machine to create a contradiction. It's amazing how you still haven't grasped this simple argument yet.

>>15031025
>they are perfectly valid solutions to the wave equation in the presence of a medium that changes in time.
Non sequitur. I'm sure there are many things that can't exist that solve the wave equation. They produce a contradiction so they are aphysical.

>Your illogical scenarios don't invalidate them.
The only illogical part of the scenario is your assertion that time mirrors are possible. You know this side you haven't been able to show any other part is illogical.

>>15031065
no. You just don't understand the physics or math and have come up with an illogical scenario that you think results in a contradiction. The reality is the scenario is not allowable in the first place. You are making a reflection independent of a mirror. That's an absurd case. It's so absurd it reminds me of fiction. Remember Peter Pan? The story of the body who lost his shadow? It's preposterous and can only exist in absurd fiction, but that's the case you imagine leads to a contradiction. Shadow can't exist without their casters and reflections can't exist without their mirror. If you want to make a logical argument, fine, but I'm getting tired of trying to explain simple everyday logic to an imbecile.

>>15031216
>You just don't understand the physics or math
You haven't given me any relevant physics or math that counters anything I've said. All you've done is argue against things I never said.

>have come up with an illogical scenario that you think results in a contradiction
I already did, why are you pretending the posts above don't exist? If time mirrors exist you can send infornation into the past that prevents that information from being sent back into the past. Contradiction.

>The reality is the scenario is not allowable in the first place.
Right, because time mirrors can't exist.

>You are making a reflection independent of a mirror.
Where? It's clear you have no argument left so you can only misrepresent mine. Thanks for conceding.

>>15031216
The usual assumption is that you are talking to a surprisingly total failure or an undergrad

>>15026644
Because it works.
Literally no other reason.

t. spent two decades studying epistemology to answer this very question.

>>15031302
>Where?
here
>>15029980
>The machine is programmed such that at time 0 if it receives information from itself in the future then it does not send back information at time 1, and if it does not receive information at time 0, it sends back information at time 1. What part of this is impossible?

send info back = create mirror
info = reflection

you have logically decoupled a mirror from its reflection. That's illogical. it's disproved by everyday observation. look in a mirror. you will always see a reflection. You will never see a reflection where there is no mirror.

>>15031334
>send info back = create mirror
>info = reflection
No, sending back information is a "reflection," which requires a "time mirror." There is no separation between them in what you quoted. In fact it doesn't even mention time mirror and reflection, let alone mention them as separate concepts. It just says "sending information back." You're just making up distinctions I never made. Why are you lying?

You have no argument against time mirrors producing a contradiction. Thanks for conceding.

>>15031341
>There is no separation between them in what you quoted.
you scenario requires a reflection in time without a time mirror and a time mirror without a reflection in time. it's completely analogous to the space mirror case. you can't have one without the other the in the time and space case the math and physics just doesn't work. try actually solving a diff equation and you'll know.

>>15031368
>you scenario requires a reflection in time without a time mirror
How??? Assume a "time mirror" can exist that can send infornation back into the past. Then you can send back information that prevents that information from being sent. This is a contradiction. Therefore time mirrors cannot exist. Refite this without putting words into my mouth about "reflections." You can't. This constant barrage of straw men is pathetic.

>>15031416
>Then you can send back information that prevents that information from being sent.
no. you can't. the act of sending the info is creating a mirror and the info is the mirrors reflection. You can't have one without the other. the case you keep insisting is just not a solution.

>>15031425
>no. you can't.
Because...?

>the act of sending the info is creating a mirror and the info is the mirrors reflection.
Why do you keep repeating your made up terminology? It changes nothing about my argument. Go ahead and replace the words if you want.

>the case you keep insisting is just not a solution.
Solution to what? It's a proof by contradiction. You can't refute it, no matter what terminology you use.

>>15031479
>It changes nothing about my argument.
your arguments amounts to

"what if the mirror has no reflection?"
"what if a reflection existed without a mirror?"
"what if a shadow existed without a caster?"
"what if an object cast no shadow?"

it's all illogical nonsense.

>>15031489
>your arguments amounts to
No it amounts to bone of those things abs you will never show that it will. All you do is make baseless claims to misrepresent my argument. Let's try again:

1. What if information can be sent into the past?

2. Then you can send information into the past using a machine programmed to output information to be sent into the past if it received no information from the future and not output information if it did receive information from the future.

3. But that would mean that information sent into the past prevents itself from being sent, and information not sent into the past causes itself to be sent

4. Contradiction, therefore information cannot be sent into the past.

Now, instead of telling me what this argument is like, you need to tell me how it's wrong. If you don't, then you concede. It's that simple.

>>15031506
>you need to tell me how it's wrong
I've told you a dozen times dude read this again
>>15031489

ITT: anon proves time exists with imaginary scenarios involving time machines and cosmic mirrors

Science is so advanced these days. I miss when we just cut living things in half to examine what life was, and when we pointed and things and screamed when we realised we'd put it in our mouths when we weren't watching and now it was eating us alive.

>>15031545
So you can't tell me how the argument is wrong. Thanks for conceding.

>>15031692
>So you can't tell me how the argument is wrong
for the billionth time, retard. reflections don't exist independent of mirrors. How can you not grasp this simple concept? the means to send info through time is the creation of a mirror. the information is a reflection. you can't have one and not the other. Your arguments abuse simple logic.

>>15031742
For the billionth time schizo, no one said anything about reflections being independent from mirrors. Show me where my argument is wrong.

>>15031773
>Show me where my argument is wrong.
sending info back in time = create a time mirror
info going back in time = reflection

a reflection can't exist independent of a mirror. Your "paradox" would be a mirror without a reflection and a reflection without a mirror. the wave equation and its boundary conditions don't allow that.

>>15031742
>>15031773
I would just like to throw my hat in and posit that reflections actually ARE independent entities that exist independently of mirrors, just as thoughts are independent entities that exist outside of our own awareness of them, probably off holidaying somewhere fantastically exciting before they come back to haunt us with the question of whether or not we locked the door.

>>15031852
Not a refutation of my argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15032600
I hate when redditors say dumb shit like this.

>>15026644
you could say the same for mathematics
you could say the same for any form of abstraction

abstractions are useful frameworks

as a human, you have an imagination, therefore you can imagine what happened yesterday, and what might happen tomorrow
but this is still an abstraction
the past is non-existent, and the future has not occurred
so why rely on an imagination for something that doesn't even exist?

do you see the problem with arguing against abstraction?

>>15032610
I hate when schizos have no argument but keep posting anyway.

>>15032600
>Not a refutation of my argument
the problem is you are too stupid to understand your own failure in logic. time mirrors are analogous t space mirrors. I'll explain it for the billionth time.

you said:"The machine is programmed such that at time 0 if it receives information from itself in the future then it does not send back information"

lets find the space mirror analog. It would be the following.
a person at x=0 sees his reflection from x=1 from a mirror that isn't there.

now lets think. is this logical? no! no matter what you do you can't program or engineer this machine. It's just not possible. you have made an illogical statement. lets continue. you also said the following

you said:"if it does not receive information at time 0, it sends back information at time 1"

now lets put our thinking caps on again. time mirror are perfect analogs to space mirrors but time and space are swapped. now your statement would be the following

a man sits at x=0 and does gazes into a mirror at x=1 where he des not observe his reflection.

lets think really hard here. remember time mirrors are just space mirrors with the time and space axis swapped, so any thing a space mirror can do a time mirror can do if you just swap space and time, and anything a space mirror can't do a time mirror can't do. the way to transform between time and space mirrors is to swap time and space axis. now is it logical a person can look in mirror and not see their reflection? no! mirrors just don't work that way. this should suffice, but you are always free to look at plane wave solutions to the wave equation and there relevant boundary conditions(which you clearly wouldn't understand anyways and won't do)

>>15033231
He gave you an argument and you just ignored it.

>if not now, when?

>>15028853
if you're willing to entertain the existence of a force like that you might as well believe in ghosts

>>15033649
Explain his argument and how is relevant to what I said.

the minority obeys the majorities and because most do not do things for fear of failed (so they are educated in school) things are put on a stas direction... we are like cows

>>15033328
>the problem is you are too stupid to understand your own failure in logic.
The problem is you haven't shown anything wrong about my argument. You just Keri referring to your made up terminology without showing its applicable to anything I said. Nothing I said implied information being sent back in time is independent from the action of doing so. What I said shows doing so creates a paradox. Explain how my argument is wrong, using what I actually said.

>lets find the space mirror analog. It would be the following.
a person at x=0 sees his reflection from x=1 from a mirror that isn't there.
That isn't analogous to what I said. You're lying. From the beginning we assume the "time mirror" exists. It either reflects information or it doesn't, just like a real mirror. The analogy would be, "if the man sees his reflection then he blocks the mirror, preventing the reflection." Because space was swapped with time, this does not create a causal loop and there is no contradiction. So real mirrors can exist, but time mirrors cannot.

>a man sits at x=0 and does gazes into a mirror at x=1 where he des not observe his reflection.
No, the analogy would be a man doesn't see his reflection so he unblocks the mirror. How did you confuse "not receiving information" with "gazing into the mirror?" Are you being retarded on purpose?

>>15033979
You are moving the goal posts. You've invented a shutter to redeem your nonsense illogical thinking. I'd rather not try to pick apart this. It's very poorly presented and becoming convoluted. Can you present a space -time dragram of the system you are thinking about and how it leads to a paradox? It's impossibly simple. Just straight 45 degree lines to show what propagates where and when? You can review my video for an illustration.

>>15033991
>You are moving the goal posts
That's hilarious. I've been saying the same thing this entire thread.

>You've invented a shutter
Oh, I see. So when you put words in my mouth it"s an analogy. When I correct your analogy it's an invention. Wow. I never said the mirror isn't there or that not sending infornation into the mirror is having into it. Those are your straw men.

>I'd rather not try to pick apart this.
I know you can't, thanks for conceding.

>It's very poorly presented and becoming convoluted.
You tried to make it convoluted with your fake analogies and made up terminology. You failed. My argument is simple and stands unrelated.

>>15033991
>Can you present a space -time dragram of the system you are thinking about and how it leads to a paradox?
Why? What part don't you understand without a diagram? Can you make me a sandwich?

>>15034011
>>15034010
You failed to make any effort to coherently illustrate your argument. I'm just asking for a few lines on the time space axis. You claim I've misunderstood you since the beginning, so just draw a diagram. You can communicate intelligently, can't you?

>>15034081
>You failed to make any effort to coherently illustrate your argument
You're lying. I explain it very simply here: >>15031506. Explain what part of the argument you claim is incoherent. A child could understand it.

>I'm just asking for a few lines on the time space axis.
I'm just asking for a refutation of my argument. Where is it?

>You claim I've misunderstood you since the beginning
I never claimed you misunderstood me, I claimed you misrepresented me. There's a big difference.

Schizos who believe in 4th dimensional time travel are really boring to argue with. It's a measurement tool, it's not a dimension with a positive and negative axis.

>>15034095
>A child could understand it.
A child could draw a few lines to illustrate a simple point. You however failed to do that again.

>>15034113
They could but you have given no reason for me to that. It's not "failing" if I have no obligation to do so in the first place. You on the other hand have an obligation to defend your lie that my argument is incoherent. And so you've failed to do so. Thanks again for conceding.

>>15034128
You fail to make your point still. Just a few lines in MSPaint. Why won't you do it?

>>15034135
I made my point clearly, I don't need to jump through hoops for you. You need to respond or concede. It's clear which one you've chosen.

>>15034158
>I made my point clearly
How can that be true when you also claim I've misunderstood you for the beginning. How is drawing a few lines jumping through hoops? Are you such a failure?

>>15034169
>How can that be true when you also claim I've misunderstood you for the beginning.
You're lying again. Where did I claim you've misunderstood me? Point to one instance of me doing so. I said you've misrepresented me, which you just did again!

>How is drawing a few lines jumping through hoops?
Any further required action when my argument is clear and unrefuted would be jumping through hoops. Why do you keep failing to respond? Why do you keep failing to point out what part is incoherent? You're not arguing honestly.

>>15034177
>Any further required action when my argument is clear and unrefuted would be jumping through hoops
So basically i have no idea what you are talking about, but you've been 100% clear. You will continue to wordsmith replies for weeks to come but drawing a few lines in MSPaint is a total waste of time. You are the paradox.

>>15034195
>So basically i have no idea what you are talking about
I don't believe you.

>You will continue to wordsmith replies for weeks to come but drawing a few lines in MSPaint is a total waste of time.
This entire conversation is a waste of time. I refute your nonsense because I want to. I don't jump through hoops because there's no reason to.

>>15034204
>This entire conversation is a waste of time
It will continue to be until you present your idea in an appropriate manner. You are failing very hard at the moment with that.

>>15034213
>It will continue to be until you present your idea in an appropriate manner
I did. When are you going to respond?

>space and time
>real
https://pswscience.org/meeting/the-doom-of-spacetime/
>Space-time and Quantum Mechanics are the pillars of our modern understanding of fundamental physics. However, there are storm clouds on the horizon indicating that these principles are approximate and must be replaced with something deeper. The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that “space-time is doomed”, and there are related indications of fundamental limitations to quantum mechanics in both the early and late universe. This talk will review these paradoxes and describe indications for a new picture where space-time and quantum mechanics will be seen to emerge hand-in-hand from more primitive principles, making contact with new areas of mathematics. The talk will present a concrete example of how these ideas work in the context of particle collision experiments of the sort performed at the Large Hadron Collider”.

>>15034304
>I did. When are you going to respond?
you failed make/communicate an intelligent/intelligible argument.

>>15034366
See >>15034304

I guess you're not going to respond. Thanks for conceding.

>>15026644
Time = distance. Distance = cost of travelling distance.

>>15034540
>I guess you're not going to respond.
you are an extremely illogical person. You accuse me of misrepresenting you but will make absolutely no effort to present your own case. How retarded. I suppose my attempts to represent your case are valid and you lost the argument. How else can things go? you could present your case but you won't. stupid.

>>15035115
>You accuse me of misrepresenting you but will make absolutely no effort to present your own case.
I made my case, liar. You're making no effort to respond or even to tell me what you're claiming is incoherent. How retarded.

>I suppose my attempts to represent your case are valid
I already exclaimed how they're invalid.

>>15035412
>You're making no effort to respond or even to tell me what you're claiming is incoherent.
You need to make a space -time diagram.

>>15035747
Why? You need to reasons to the argument, but you can't. Thanks for conceding.

>>15035747
Why? You need to respond to the argument, but you won't. Thanks for conceding.

>>15036110
>why do I need to provide proof for my argument

>>15036113
You can't provide proof for a thought experiment. He laid everything out clearly for you.

>>15036116
I'm not that anon, who gives a shit about "thought experiments", even the dumbest niggers can make up retarded-ass thought experiments, start providing any kind of hypothetical proof for your "thought experiments" or fuck off

>>15036166
You're right, "time mirrors" are bullshit with no proof.

>>15036110
>Why? You need to respond to the argument, but you won't
You haven't made an intelligible argument. That's' the problem. Provide a space-time diagram. That will be the base minimum to explain what your argument is. Then it can be evaluated. You won't do it though since you are a retard that's full of shit. Honestly, if you think a space-time diagram is "jumping through hoops" I don't even know why I bother replying to you . You are a profound imbecile. Any idea you could possibly have must be pure foolishness.

>>15036280
>That will be the base minimum to explain what your argument is.
The guy who believes in "time mirrors" (aka you) didn't do this. Why should you make your opponent do it?

>>15036282
>The guy who believes in "time mirrors" (aka you) didn't do this.
yes, I did. I made two in the video presentation here >>15029145 it's extremely simple.

>>15036306
Oh so you're that youtube schizo. Your argument still falls victim to the refutation here >>15031506

>>15036347
no, it doesn't. I refuted that here. >>15033328

You physically aren't allowed to do what he is saying.

>>15036358
>You physically aren't allowed to do what he is saying.
Which is why time mirrors are fake. Now you get it.

>>15036379
>Which is why time mirrors are fake
why exactly are time mirrors fake?

>>15036280
>You haven't made an intelligible argument.
I have, you're lying again. Tell me what you claim is unintelligible. Name a single thing in my argument. You can't.

>That will be the base minimum to explain what your argument is.
No, the base minimum is my argument as presented. It's as simple as can be. You have no response, so instead you make irrelevant demands. Thanks for conceding.

>>15036400
You just proved it to yourself. Their existence is a contradiction.

>>15036494
>Tell me what you claim is unintelligible
there's nothing to comment on. nothing has been presented.

>>15036400
Because they result in a contradiction. Machines that output information based on an input are not fake. They exist everywhere and are physically mundane. So the only assumption in the argument is that time mirrors are physically possible. By contradiction, they are not physically possible.

>>15036498
>You just proved it to yourself. Their existence is a contradiction.
this isn't an answer.

>>15036508
It is precisely the answer, just not one you're willing to accept because it refutes you.

>>15036505
You're lying. The argument was presented to you several times. See >>15031506

You've lost all credibility, yet you still keep lying and making a fool of yourself. Don't you have any self-respect?

>>15036506
>Because they result in a contradiction
how exactly?

>>15036510
>It is precisely the answer, just not one you're willing to accept because it refutes you.
can you elaborate, please? How exactly are time mirrors fake?

>>15036505
>there's nothing to comment on. nothing has been presented.
So what are you claiming is unintelligible?

>>15036514
>The argument was presented to you several times.
this is an illogical argument. it's falsehood was explained here >>15033328

>>15036515
See >>15031506

>>15036517
>So what are you claiming is unintelligible?
you. draw a time-space diagram to form an argument.

>>15036523
That explanation is based on misrepresentations of my argument. See my response to it. You lost.

>>15036524
see >>15033328

>>15036528
>you
No, you said my argument is unintelligible. Then you claimed there's nothing unintelligible to comment on. You can't even keep track of your own lies.

>draw a time-space diagram to form an argument.
Why? The argument is anyway there, fully formed.

Thanks for conceding.

>>15036531
>That explanation is based on misrepresentations of my argument.
then simply present your argument yourself. I suggest a space-time diagram.

>>15036516
>can you elaborate, please? How exactly are time mirrors fake?
Their existence would create a logical contradiction, therefore they cannot exist. It was explained clearly to you.

>>15036532
See >>15036531

>>15036536
>Why?
so we can have an argument.
>>15036536
>Thanks for conceding.
how can I concede when there are no arguments

>>15036537
What is your schizophrenic obsession with space-time diagrams? They won't help you. The argument is a logical one. Use your brain.

>>15036540
>Their existence would create a logical contradiction
no. they do not.
>>15036540
>. It was explained clearly to you.
where?

>>15036537
>then simply present your argument yourself
I did, you never responded to it, just made up some silly analogies that had nothing to do with it. Thanks for conceding.

>>15036548
>They won't help you
yes, they will help me to understand why you think there is a paradox.

>>15036550
>just made up some silly analogies that had nothing to do with it
thats because I don't understand your argument and why you think theres a paradox. a space-time diagram would help.

>>15036549
>where?
>>15031506

>>15036542
>so we can have an argument.
We can already have an argument, if you'll simply respond to mine.

>how can I concede when there are no arguments
There is an argument and you know there is since you just falsely claimed here >>15036523 it's "an illogical argument." You can't even keep track of your own lies. Hilarious.

Thanks for conceding.

>>15036559
I've already replied to that here >>15033328

>>15036554
>yes, they will help me to understand why you think there is a paradox.
You'll just move the goalposts again. Visualize it. The paradox is that if time is a 4th dimension with travel along the axis, one could build a device that responds based on information it could not receive. Therefore it is false.

>>15036560
>We can already have an argument,
no. we don't have an argument, since your argument is unintelligible. make a space-time diagram.

>>15036568
"Space-time diagrams" are a red herring. Your entire worldview and what you think time is is foundationally false.

>>15036562
>one could build a device that responds based on information it could not receive.
not necessarily. I mean, can you prove this? Time mirrors don't suffer from this problem.

>>15036557
>thats because I don't understand your argument
Wait, so my argument does exist. Why did you claim there is no argument? You're twisted into knots.

>why you think theres a paradox
There's a paradox because time mirrors would allow for infornation to be sent into the past that prevents itself from being sent into the past. This is not hard to understand.

>>15036569
>Your entire worldview and what you think time is is foundationally false.
so the wave equation and boundary conditions are false? why should i take your word for it?

>>15036568
>since your argument is unintelligible.
You can't show a single thing about it is unintelligible. You're lying.

>>15036573
>There's a paradox because time mirrors would allow for infornation to be sent into the past that prevents itself from being sent into the past.
no this isn't possible. it violates the wave equation and the relevant boundary conditions. I explained that here. >>15033328

>>15036577
>You can't show a single thing about it is unintelligible.
the fact I can't understand it is enough. draw a space time diagram.

>>15028720
In a sense yes, however there are little oddities in our perception of reality and time that dont agree with that. One such one is that our brain takes up to 15 seconds to process visual stimuli and allow us to experience it, that is everything we see was in the past as we see it.

>>15036570
Any such "time mirror" necessarily suffers this problem. "Time" is not a dimension. It doesn't go backwards.

>>15036578
>no this isn't possible.
Right, paradoxes aren't possible. That's why time mirrors can't exist. See, you do understand the argument.

Thanks for conceding.

>>15036584
>Any such "time mirror" necessarily suffers this problem.
no. It doesn't. I explain it here >>15033328

>>15036582
You just said you understood it. You said it's not possible for infornation to be sent into the past. This is what happens when you lie, you contradict yourself.

>>15036586
Your "explanation" is just schizophasia. There's nothing useful there.

>>15036585
>That's why time mirrors can't exist
your imagined scenario isn't physically possible, therefore there can be no paradox.

>>15036588
>You said it's not possible for infornation to be sent into the past.
no. It's possible with a time mirror see here >>15029145

>>15036592
>your imagined scenario isn't physically possible
Thanks for admitting that. It's not physically possible for time mirrors to exist.

I'm glad we finally resolved this

>>15036590
this isn't an argument.

>>15036594
>It's possible with a time mirror
My thought experiment has a time mirror and you just said it's not possible. Make up your mind.

>>15036595
>. It's not physically possible for time mirrors to exist.
the proof that you can send info back in time is here >>15029145 it's done with time mirrors

>>15036600
Well what am I supposed to work with? You didn't even make an attempt.

>>15036606
You already admitted time mirrors can't exist. Why do you keep tripping up?

>>15036607
>Well what am I supposed to work with?
this >>15033328

>>15036606
That doesn't prove it's possible, it doesn't refute my proof that it's impossible.

>>15036611
>You already admitted time mirrors can't exist.
the proof for time mirrors is here >>15029145

>>15036613
>doesn't refute my proof that it's impossible.
what's your proof?

>>15036614
That's not proof. That's just a youtube video.

what is your guys problem anyway with photons going back in time Feynman saw no problem with it.

"Feynman's Theory of Antimatter
In 1949 Richard Feynman devised another theory of antimatter.

The spacetime diagram for pair production and annihilation appears to the right. An electron is travelling along from the lower right, interacts with some light energy and starts travelling backwards in time. An electron travelling backwards in time is what we call a positron. In the diagram, the electron travelling backwards in time interacts with some other light energy and starts travelling forwards in time again. Note that throughout, there is only one electron.

A friend of mine finds the image of an electron travelling backwards in time, interpreted by us as a positron, to be scary.

Feynman in his original paper proposing this theory wrote: "It is as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road." (Physical Review 76, (1949), 749.)"

your arguments aren't particularly relevant to time mirrors. you seem to be opposed to the idea on it's face. Why should I believe you tho? Feynman himself theorized electron go back in time. you can even visit the page and see his space-time diagram.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Supplemental_Modules_(Modern_Physics)/Antimatter

>>15036632
Feynman barely believed any of that stuff himself. He didn't even really believe in QED and that was basically his ticket to the big time.

>>15036632
This isn't proof. It's barely even an appeal to authority since this isn't believed by anyone except you.

>>15036617
See >>15036559

>>15036632
>what is your guys problem anyway with photons going back in time Feynman saw no problem with it.
The problem is the contradiction it creates. See >>15036963. Not responding to this contradiction means you concede that it can't be done.

>>15031506
This is a /sci/ equivalent of "Im 14 aNd tHIs iS DEep" so like "iM aN uNDergRAD aND tHiS iS GEniUs"

the problem with this is it's a weak augment. there is a caveat. the caveat is there needs to exist a Means once you receive the info to stop the means of sending info back in time, also there needs to exist a Means to not receive the info where it is later sent. without this underlying assumption the argument is falsified. I went into great detail here >>15033328 explaining why this assumption is invalid, which basically boils down to reflection do not exist independent of mirrors. so the caveat ruins the argument. No one has actually tried to apply this >>15031506 to time mirrors at all. you just assume the Means exists. but there is no real reason to just assume the Means exists Feynman had no problem theorizing particles travel back in time. see this here >>15036632 what this all boils down to is your actually going to have to take the theory of time mirrors, understand them, then show how the previously mentioned Means exists. Your argument isn't strong enough to falsify time mirrors by itself. I'll wait. It should take the form of a space time diagram.

>>15026644
What would it mean for time to not exist? Please explain what it is you would like us to believe.

>>15037217
I never claimed it's "deep," it's a very simple argument. Nice straw mam.

>the caveat is there needs to exist a Means once you receive the info to stop the means of sending info back in time
The "means" is a machine programmed to not output information after it receives information. That machine already exists, so there is no assumption there.

>also there needs to exist a Means to not receive the info where it is later sent
I have no idea what you're talking about. If the information is sent then it gets received in the past. But then that stops the machine from sending the information. Contradiction.

>without this underlying assumption the argument is falsified.
You didn't identify an assumption.

>I went into great detail here >>15033328 # explaining why this assumption is invalid
No, you went into great detail describing analogies that have no connection to what I said. See my response.

>No one has actually tried to apply this >>15031506 (You) # to time mirrors at all.
Do time mirrors send infornation back in time? Yes, so the argument applies.

>you just assume the Means exists.
No.

>Feynman had no problem theorizing particles travel back in time.
The problem was already explained, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. If Feynman didn't address it, it doesn't exist?

Again, you failed to respond to the argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>15037290
>it's a very simple argument
you mean weak argument. You failed to make a space-time diagram, so your weak argument fails too.

>>15037308
>you mean weak argument.
No, I mean simple. Proof by contradiction is a very strong argument, sufficient for math and logic.

>You failed to make a space-time diagram, so your weak argument fails too.
Doesn't follow. You failed to respond to the argument, thanks for conceding.

>>15037521
>Proof by contradiction is a very strong argument,
Except here there is caveat, so it's weak. Your argument is false until you can prove a time mirror exist that can prohibit the sending of info in the future it received in the past. You have made no attempt to specify the means to accomplish this, so your argument is invalid. BTW I've been asking you for a week now to do this and prove your argument is valid. you continually fail to do so, and resort instead to semantics and ad hominems. Just prove your point idiot

>>15037551
>Your argument is false until you can prove a time mirror exist that can prohibit the sending of info in the future it received in the past.
Time mirrors are fake. Get over it and take your meds.

>>15037551
>Except here there is caveat
What caveat? The only caveat is the assumption that information can be sent into the past, which is disproved.

>Your argument is false until you can prove a time mirror exist
LOL, so my argument is false until I can prove it's false? Is this a joke? My argument proves time mirrors don't exist, so I don't have to prove time mirrors exist to do anything.

>that can prohibit the sending of info in the future
The time mirror isn't "prohibiting" anything, the machine is not sending out information to reflect. Another misrepresentation. How predictable.

>You have made no attempt to specify the means to accomplish this
I specified exactly how everything in the argument works. You haven't shown anything in it is wrong. Thanks for conceding.

>BTW I've been asking you for a week now to do this and prove your argument is valid. you continually fail to do so, and resort instead to semantics and ad hominems.
LMAO, pure projection.

>>15037551
Do time mirrors send information into the past? Yes, they do, so my argument applies to them without caveats. You lost.

Promethius & his boyfriend were in a thruple with their girlfriend. Promethius hated his brother.

>>15037656
>>15037707
>>15037717
>I'm an undergrad and this is genius

So basically you are so stupid you think Feynman wasn't aware of this? I mean it's basic kid shit. "WHat iF MARtY McFLy goEs bAcK iN tIMe anD pRevENts HiS PARentS meEtiNG?" It's idiotic. you firmly believe neither me nor Feynman considered this, like it's some new profound argument. The reality is it's actually very weak, and none of you are going to attempt to evaluate the underlying assumptions. Pathetic. You can all gang up on me. I don't care if there's 50 of you. I have Feynman on my side so you can go fuck your yourselves.

>>15037815
If you think appealing to Feynman's authority, of all people, will help your case then you're more of a schizo than you let on. It's not just a fallacy, it's a fallacy appealing to someone who would shit out fantastical ideas constantly for publicity even though he barely believed any of them himself.

>>15037831
>No really bro. The plot of Back to the Future disproves Richard Feynman.

>>15037842
What's your schizophrenic obsession with this movie? You were already given an ample explanation using purely physical terms why this cannot work.

>>15037852
So basically you are smarter than Richard Feynman and he could never fathom Marty McFly going back in time and preventing his parents meeting. Sounds right to me.

>>15028165
>directionality
Why take an abstract noun, add an adjective marker and then add an abstracting suffix to that? Why not just write, "direction"? This kind of bloated language adds nothing.

>>15037815
>>I'm an undergrad and this is genius
Who are you quoting? It's very simple which make it even more embarrassing for you that you can't accept you lost.

>So basically you are so stupid you think Feynman wasn't aware of this?
So basically you're too dumb to come up with a counterargument for something you claim is weak, already thought of, etc. OK, thanks for conceding.

>The reality is it's actually very weak
Because...?

>none of you are going to attempt to evaluate the underlying assumptions.
The only assumption is that your time mirror can exist, and that's disproven by contradiction. When are you going to refute the argument? Should be simple for you to do.

>>15026644
BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL DOMINATION OF CAPITAL

>>15026644
All I know is my time is bad, fellas

>>15026644
Why are you picking on time in particular? None of the "objects" you think the world consists of objectively exist, let alone the alone any of the purely mental constructs you use to model their behavior.

>>15039505
Objective proof that midwit opinions and scientific takes don't require sentience to come up with.

>>15039529
well it's only saying what it is fed

>>15026644
You seem to be implying that time does not exist. What sense of "exist" are you using? What is the difference between time existing and time not existing?

Can you describe two hypothetical universes, one in which time exists and another in which it doesn't?

Or is the existence of time so contradictory that you can't even imagine it?

>>15039573
Just like a person!

>>15039589
>Just like a person!
not truly
people can come to new conclusions and make discoveries

>>15039573
>well it's only saying what it is fed
As I said, most of what sub-140-IQ people believe and say is on the level of nonsentient statistiacal regurgitation. I don't care how "scientific" your opinions are. If a mindless machine sounds like you and spits out opinions identical to yours, it is proof that you are subhuman.

>>15026692
Relative energetic swings that result in increasingly alien transformations (to the observer)

>>15039681
>Relative energetic swings
Relative to what? Swings between what? You're comparing two instances of time.

>>15039765
>time
>real

>>15039769
Yes.

>>15039765
Relative between any two "observers"
No "between", let's say energetic strides in either increasing/decreasing mass of energy, or shifting the shape/form of that energy

Time is just distribution/movement of energy

>>15039911
>Relative between any two "observers"
How is that a rate of change? That's just a difference.

>>15040229
In order to display measurement

>>15040229
Without movement of forces, the act of, let's say decay of a leaf, ceases. This is the comparative energy behind those forces.
The speed at which those forces act is everything, as aging is a rate of growth or repair vs decay.

>>15040229
"Rate" is entirely comparative
Either to something else or on memory of a past

For us, this rate of change would be a feeling.
I can feel when I go about a routine faster or slower than when I previously engaged the routine.

>>15040486
So it's not a rate of change.

>Without movement of forces
Movement is dependent on time.

>ceases
Again, that's time.

>The speed
Dependent on time.

>>15040520
>"Rate" is entirely comparative
Comparative of what? If I tell you the rate of job completion is once every hour, what's being compared? You can certainly compare rates, but that doesn't mean rate itself is comparative.

>>15040542
Movement and ceasing Movement is not a product of time, its a product of energy. How energetic something is, and the laws which govern, let's say, the direction and distribution of its energy.

If you take two suns parallel to one another, blazing in the same direction, you can comment on whether one is 'faster' than the other.

'Rate' is a comparative word. 'To what' doesn't need to be defined. At least two points are being compared in order to establish 'rate'.
I'm not sure the language in your example makes sense.
The rate of completion would be in comparison to another completed hour in order to establish that the task is completed within an hour. A standard has been established.

There are heightened states of awareness one can achieve where it feels as though time has slowed way, way down. The experience of transience becomes a sensing, but by way of comparison to a past experience. One has likely become significantly more energetic.

>>15040670
Bla bla bla. You still haven't defined movement without time.

>>15040703
Movement is when an object goes from one position to another position.

why is the catalogue filled with these retarded threads?

>>15040703
'Time' is the movement of energy

>>15040712
>Movement is when an object goes from one position to another position.
Going means an object is in one position at one time and then another position at another time. That's dependent on time.

>>15040725
It's not, and movement is dependent on time.

>>15040720
/sci/ is a slow board
idiots shitposting takes no effort, so just a handful of them bickering, plus the occasional reply from complainers, explainers and refuters, is enough activity to push good threads to page 10
a useful post requires being well-informed, intelligent or thoughtful, so such posts rarely happen
it seems difficult to avoid in a format that essentially treats all posts (that stay mostly within the rules) as equal

>>15041309
Time is a construct to discuss the movement of energy

>>15041482
What is movement?