/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6944079
>>>/lit/

Time is the coordinate of spacetime with the negative sign in the signature of the metric tensor.

>Explain in your own words what time is
>Time is not, really

Okay, but it this perspective time doesn't make how you interact with the world any different than the actions of people who do believe in the "existence of time", so what's the point of this?
(nevermind that you're gonna get more replies to this post - knowing that at the end of the day you're not going to be smarter. All you have achieved is removing another thread from the edge of page 10)

>>6944079

>>6944086
\thread

>>6944097
Explain what time is itself. The physical measure of time is pretty obvious...

Just asking for curiosity to see what people in general make up of it.

Time is the resource OP is wasting right now and he will regret this when he grows older.

>>6944112
>Explain what position is itself

Your questions are meaningless philosophical circle jerks. The only thing that actually has any meaningful substance is the "physical measures", ie the concepts we have constructed that "map" to reality.

Time being the imaginary analog to space, ie >>6944086, is really the most meaningful thing you can expect to get, because it actually maps to reality (somewhat).

As opposed to the OP, who rambles poetic meaningless nonsense, with no known map to reality.

>>6944079
For me time is just another direction we're falling trough without knowing how to controll it because we're not 4 dimensional

>>6944157
I disagree. >>6944079 isn't even philosophical, it's objectively a pseudo-intellectual meaningless circlejerk.

>>6944203
But that's the definition of philosophy

>>6944203
>objectively a pseudo-intellectual meaningless circlejerk

Yes, philosophy. Please Lrn2words.

>>6944213
>Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery is objectively a pseudo-intellectual meaningless circlejerk

You don't even know what philosophy or science is, you're just playing around with memes like a true redditor

>>6944228
Popper was never relevant to scientists. Scientists don't care whether some scientifically illiterate philosophers are lagging behind a few centuries in their intellectual development. Science used falsification long before Popper. He added nothing to it.

>>6944232
>Popper was never relevant to scientists

Said no one ever.

>>6944240
Because no one gives a shit about Popper. Will you please continue to be outdated, irrelevant and unemployed on >>>/lit/, philosopher? We have science to discuss here.

>>6944232
Because philosophy of science's aim isn't to tell science how to do its job. It's creating a criterion of demarcation to differentiate science from other things, along with explaining why science works and how we can justify the fact that we can do science while still knowing nothing about the real world.

Science and philosophy are different things. I do suggest reading Popper after you understand the problems he's trying to solve, so probably read some descartes and kant before.

>>6944242
>Because no one gives a shit about Popper

Said no one ever.

>>6944242
You are shitposting bashing philosophy for no reason in a completely meaningless thread. This isn't science, it's you being obtuse and toxic to attract attention.

>>6944245
>It's creating a criterion of demarcation to differentiate science from other things
This criterion is the scientific method. Welcome to 3rd grade, kid.

>explaining why science works
Use your common sense.

>kant
I won't read a man who has been disproved during his lifetime. Literally everything he wrote was wrong.

>>6944246
It doesn't surprise me that a philosotard only thinks in terms of authority. You cannot think for yourself, you can only mindlessly repeat what a small selection of authorities wrote in their holy books. There is no point in debating someone as dogmatic as you are.

>>6944260
Dude. You're being intentionally obtuse for no reason. I'm not trying to win an argument here, will you show some respect and stop doing so yourself? I'm trying to help you understand this shit.

The problem of a criterion of demarcation is much, much harder than you think. It's crucial for the scientific method itself and what it truly means. Explaining why science works when you know nothing about the real world is not "common sense", it needs a certain level of understanding of what science is and what we want from it.

If you reread my post, I'm telling you to see descartes and kant to understand the problems. Not the solutions.

Please. Act like a growup in your next post.

>>6944260
>Literally everything he wrote was wrong
>didn't read kant

Wow so scientific

>>6944278
>claims astrology is bullshit
>hasn't even read his horoscope
>wow, so scientific

See, I can use this fallacy too.

>>6944275
>It's crucial for the scientific method itself and what it truly means.
No, it isn't. The scientific method works irregardless of your pseudo-intellectual musings.

>when you know nothing about the real world
Well good thing that we know a shitload about the real world.

Our forward perception of time is not illusory. Entropy is the one quantity that always increases, and we always observe to increase. Thus, thermodynamics is asymmetrical in time, and this is what we observe when time moves forward.

Since this was bumped I'll give it another shot.

>>6944301
Define rigorously what you mean by the scientific method working, and what your basis is for asserting we can know things about the real world.

>>6944367
She'll say common sense, trust me

>>6944363
You're retarded. Entropy can stay constant (and at some point it MUST stay constant). It doesn't need to increase. It only cannot decrease.

>>6944367
>what your basis is for asserting we can know things about the real world.

With this question you lost all credibility. Never go full retard.

>>6944419
Again, you show you don't understand the problems in philosophy of science that led to the work of Popper. And again, I suggest Descartes into Kant to understand them.

>>6944438
Philosophers' inability to understand science is not a "problem" but a complete farce.

>>6944452
I don't understand how you can be this dense and closed to something. You won't bother to read it, because you don't care about facts and work, you care about your gut feeling and that's it. You don't care about what science is. You probably don't even do science.

>>6944461
>ad hominem

>>6944463

That's really fucking insulting.

>ad hominem

>>6944452
>>6944419
>>6944301
>>6944260

THIS is ad hominem. I've been nothing but welcoming and understanding and I've given you everything you need to read to understand the topic.

Fuck off. Last post, you're a waste of time.

- If something don't make any change to the universe, it doesn't exist (god doesn't exist).
- Time only changes on relativistic theories.
- Relativistic = It depends on the observant = Subjective
- Time = Subjective = Only a word, a concept, a feeling, a circuit on our brain, not real as a thing itself.
So time is not real, it's only in our brains. So theoretically we should be able to manipulate our brains to make the time go slow or fastest.

By the way, I think science is more like: Data -> Pattern -> Formula
Science doesn't care a shit if the data is subjective or not. In fact, science care about if something is useful or not. And time is useful, even if subjective/not real. Like Pi (only a concept, useful anyway).

>>6944157
0/infinity
meaning is philosophical
metaphysics is philosophical
what constitutes scientific knowledge is philosophical and actively debated.

>>6944481

>>6944951
>what constitutes scientific knowledge is philosophical and actively debated

>>6944268
Here, have some Popper:
>I have tried to show that the most important of the traditional prob-
lems of epistemology — those connected with the growth of knowledge —
transcend the two standard methods of linguistic analysis and require
the analysis of scientific knowledge. But the last thing I wish to do,
however, is to advocate another dogma. Even the analysis of science —
the 'philosophy of science' — is threatening to become a fashion, a
specialism, yet philosophers should not be specialists.

>>6944951
/phil/ please go make me a latte frappachio and STFU

>>6944481
>not real as a thing itself

Kant pls go

>>6944438
>>6944461
>>6944452
>>6944475
>>6944951
>>6944961

Philosophers please go. No one gives a fuck about your stupid nonsense.

/x/----------->

>>6944438
another option is to read Beginning of Infinity by Deutsch

>>6944079
Did someone say Philosophy thread?

>>6944965
The better option is for you to STFU with your bullshit and make me my Latte

>>6944438
>problems in philosophy of science

kek'ed

>>6944461
phil plz go

/lit/----------->

>>6944481
>>6944079

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

>>6944079
>In my opinion

WHY ARE YOU ALL ASSHOLES? GOD DAMN

WHY DO YOU ALL THINK YOU ARE BETTER THAN EACH OTHER?

>>6945114
>>6945115
/phil/ please go. No one cares how fast you can make a latte.

>>6945114
>>6945115
>Why do we think we are better than phil majors?

pic related

WHAT DO YOU THINK BEING SMART MEANS? BEING ABLE TO REGURGITATE INTERNET MEMES AS THEY RELATE TO A SITUATION? WHY DOES EVERY SINGLE POST IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD HAVE TO IMPLY THAT YOU ARE SMART AND OP IS DUMB?

I AM NOT A GOD DAMN PHILOSOPHER I AM SOME GUY GENUINELY CONFUSED AS TO WHY YOU GUYS GET AN ORGASM EVERY TIME YOU SHOW THAT YOU ARE BEING ASSHOLES TO THE SAME PEOPLE OTHER PEOPLE ARE BEING ASSHOLES TO. YOU FEED OFF EACH OTHERS APPROVAL OF EACH OTHER.

>>6945137
>>6945131
>all caps gibberish rant

>>6945131
>>6945137
Turn off your caps lock and maybe I would actually read your posts you shitlord.

YOU THINK "IT'S OKAY THIS GUY IS CALLING ME AN ASSHOLE BECAUSE I AM IN ON THE LATEST INSIDE JOKES AROUND THIS PARTICULAR CORNER OF THE INTERNET, AND OTHERS WHO ARE IN ON THESE JOKES DON'T THINK I AM AN ASSHOLE"

>>6944100
you used the wrong slash faggot

>>6945146
>all caps rant

You should take your medication

>>6945161
Okay thanks!

WHY IS HE A FAGGOT FOR USING THE WRONG SLASH? JESUS CHRIST

>>6945146
>I AM AN ASSHOLE

Yes, yes you are.

>>6945164
Homosexuals often reverse slashes. Nothing wrong with being corrected on it.

You need to take the stick out of your ass.

>>6944461
>You won't bother to read it, because you don't care about facts and work

>philosophy
>facts

kek

The modern natural sciences originated from philosophy.

Kids here acting smart without even considering other possibilities. Yes, time works in modern string theories and approaches to relativity theory, but that does not mean that our perception and idea of time is perfect.

OP is asking a very important, yet simple question. Just as people talk about "exponential growth" without understanding the real world implications of it in it's full form.

Those who do not understand the question, go back to reading books and get your newest software update, those interested in critical thinking and developing their understanding of the world, may remain.

>>6945175
thing is, our common understanding of time is so widespread because it works well in organizing our lives.

on the other hand there's the formal idea of spacetime which works well in making theoretical physics work.


intuitive understanding is that time is linear and always progresses in one direction at constant 'speed'.

formal understanding is more complicated. go learn relativity theory if you're interested in that.

now some dude comes along, drops a one-liner like
>HOW CAN TIME BE REAL IF OUR EYES AREN'T REAL
and expects people to seriously discuss his 'idea' when he hasn't even bothered reading up on what physicists have done on the topic over hundreds of years?

fuck off

>this fucking thread again

But what is time? Muh infinities are zero! Iq is a shitty gauge of intelligence! You can't know nuffin!!!

>>6945177
That dude is OP? He did ask a viable question for discussion here.

It is very sad to see how people percieve science and philosophy here as polar opposites.

Back to OP's thread: Yes, time is a very contradicting idea. The idea that time is an illusion is also argued in physics' quantum theories discussed in Platonia (by Barbour).

>>6945184
OK, stop trolling now.

>>6945184
>MUU philosophy
>MUU we are brains in jars

Fuck off phil faggot

>>6945184
>Platonia by Barbour

Philosophy GO! We are getting real tired of your faggotry!

>>6945184
>goggled Platonia
>its a philosophy book

Why would anyone give a shit about that garbage?

This is a science and math board. Not a "MUUH FUCKING FEELS" board.

An element of the fourth dimension.

>>6944079
I don't know if this has been pointed out, because there is a lot of shitposting I can't be arsed to read, but special relativity proves this incorrect. Lorentz transformations essentially "mix" time with the spatial coordinates.
>>6944086
And what coordinate is that? Is it invariant under diffeomorphism?

>>6945247
>And what coordinate is that?

Spacetime is locally flat, you philosophy retard. You can locally find coordinates where the metric becomes diag(-1,1,1,1)

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

>>6945325
Except that's wrong, while the theories do not necessarily tell you what "really" is something, the theories themselves answer the question of what we think it is, and they have evidence to back it up.

So, no, there's no need for philosobabble by people who have no knowledge of physics.

>>6944079
As once explained to me by a penrose student.
The interaction of energy and fundamental particles gives us movement. With movement comes time.

>>6945114
>>6945115
>>6945131
>>6945137
>>6945146
>>6945164
pic related

>>6944079
<span class="math"> \pi [/spoiler]deep<span class="math">\varphi [/spoiler]me

>>6944079
Try solving a math problem without using time. You can experience time as linear thought.