[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 414 KB, 1920x1080, 1542094705927.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11122959 No.11122959 [Reply] [Original]

If change in time is merely constituted of changing (space-time) matter (becoming) and all matter changes according to unchanging laws (being) is becoming then not a subset of being? If that's the case then becoming is fundamentally unchanging as much as physical laws (being).

Is every possible frame of the universe eternal?

>> No.11123194

>>11122959
no

>> No.11123219

>>11122959
>If change in time is merely constituted of changing (space-time) matter (becoming) and all matter changes according to unchanging laws (being) is becoming then not a subset of being? If that's the case then becoming is fundamentally unchanging as much as physical laws (being).
you didn't go far enough

from this premise it follows that laws are ever changing
the sciences evolved out of religion meaning they operate in the same way
science creates an abstract reality and goes from there it is not reality itself
on it's way it breaks it's own reality instead of advancing in a linear fashion of progress

1:39 - 4:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtJbFgmjdaM

>> No.11123227 [DELETED] 

>>>/lit/
>>>/his

>> No.11124247
File: 795 KB, 1756x2560, 1549113377986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11124247

>>11123219
>on it's way it breaks it's own reality instead of advancing in a linear fashion of progress
Not in the case of physical constants. The mass of Hydrogen does not change.

>science creates an abstract reality and goes from there it is not reality itself
It's almost like you're saying there is no reality itself. This Kantian bullshit doesn't fly anymore.

>>11123227
All those dogmatic brainlets are like this guy: >>11123219

>> No.11124324

>>11122959
Entropy can explain the physics of it, but the human phenomena of time keeping might just be in our mind. It may really be that the universe is like a slice of bread, who knows.

>> No.11125811

bump

>> No.11125912

>>11125811
your question was answered

>> No.11126566

>>11125912
Where? The best response is this: >>11124324 and it's who knows.

>> No.11126582
File: 528 KB, 500x647, 468ff25ffc43eef43c93661fc6583fd38df9987dfef08e0dc66929df1812aa3d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11126582

>>11122959
>Is the flow of time an illusion of human psychology?

Seems like a good question to me. The way we keep time is an illusion of science... it's based (at least in part) on the ancient Sumerian sexagesimal system ('base 60'). 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour. Time could theoretically be kept any way you wanted it to, as long as it measured events with consistency. Time itself is not malleable (it would seem), but the way we keep it is. Life wouldn't really be any different if minutes had 100 seconds though, would it?

>> No.11128503

>>11124247
>This Kantian bullshit
>still true on the most fundamental level
That your intuition doesnt find the idea appealing doesnt make it bullshit.

>> No.11128569

>>11122959
>merely constituted
Your construction betrays your accuracy; yes, were your model complete, it would make sense. But your model isn't complete, and therefore can't be said to make sense.