>>16894417
its basic calculation.

it's part of the space itself, in old timey mechanics space is always a perfect thing but that's just human intuition, in reality time and space are inseparable, it's not "what is time" it's "why was space time segregated into neat categories for human minds to comprehend"

What do you think about entropy relation with time? They both move in one direction, both irreversible. Does it mean something?

entropy proves arrow of time

>>16894417
Time is a human organizing principle to help correlate observed changes. Why would reality itself care about time? What's fundamental to reality is change and time is only for the subjects of change to keep track of change.

>>16894417
An imaginary concept

>>16894594
So is reality not subject to change or do your definitions lead to the conclusion that reality is definitely concerned with time because reality is subject to change over time?

>>16894601
You're just getting filtered. The fact that you can't reason about change without the abstraction of time doesn't mean change is somehow "caused" by this abstraction in reality.

>>16894610
I didn't say it was, though, I just said that reality changes too, change isn't some special snowflake property that only you and things like you get to experience, you said yourself that everything about reality changes over time because change is fundamental to reality, so humans clearly aren't the only subjects of change who can use principles to track change and you are being self-contradicting by acknowledging that reality changes, but saying it is not a subject to change.

>>16894625
>you said yourself that everything about reality changes over time
No, I didn't. Try again. This is starting to feel like talking to a shatbot.

>>16894627
see
>>16894594
>What's fundamental to reality is change
Yes you did. You clearly said change was fundamental to reality which would mean that a most basic property of reality is that it changes.

For me, this is starting to feel like talking to a retard who doesn't understand the phrases they are using.

>>16894645
>you said yourself that everything about reality changes over time
>You clearly said change was fundamental to reality
These sentences do not mean the same thing, Shat. See >>16894610
>The fact that you can't reason about change without the abstraction of time doesn't mean change is somehow "caused" by this abstraction in reality.

>>16894645
>>16894659
You choose two different points in "time", compare the corresponding states and call the difference between them "change over time". But in this scheme both time and change are pure abstractions: the time is just an interval on the timeline you use for the absolute ordering of events and the change is just the product of a comparison. But in reality, change is continuous. As the time interval approaches zero, you approach the true gradient of change. That gradient IS change and it's not really "over time", an interval of zero is no time. When we analyze it mathematically, we talk about differentiating with respect to time, but at that point it is clear that we are dealing with pure abstractions and nothing physical.

>>16894659
>These sentences do not mean the same thing
They do, though, learn what fundamental means, what do you think fundamental means and what is the difference you are implying, but can't seem to articulate?

>the abstraction of time doesn't mean change is somehow "caused" by this abstraction
I have not mentioned time, I was clearly talking about change and calling change fundamental to reality most certainly means that change is a basic property of reality such that all of reality is prone to change.

>>16894672
>But in reality, change is continuous.
Yes, reality always changes, so it is subject to change, so time applies to reality just as much as to yourself, you aren't special for experiencing change, it is a fundamental aspect of reality, everything changes continually.

>>16894674
>They do
Mentally ill retard reductio-ad-absurdum's his own lack of reading comprehension claiming two explicitly different sentences are the same sentence. Moving on.

>>16894675
Ok, retard. Thanks for your input. Maybe someone who can actually read and isn't a broken biobot can try next. You clearly just can't string together sentences about this subject without using 'time' as a mediating token and thus believe no one else can do so, either.

>>16894676
I see you don't understand equality and couldn't possibly justify that 1+1 equals 2 despite them being composed of different characters and you can't explain anything you were tasked because you are retarded.

>>16894679
Mentally ill retard will keep attempting to reply, thinking anyone reads his verbal sharts.

>>16894677
I didn't use the word time at all in my original post >>16894645, I used change, you just can't read change without inferring time either and its evidence where you clearly said that reality is subject to change and anything that is subject to change experiences time.

>>16894697
Either you're a mentally ill retard who can't keep track of what he's saying, or there are two separate retards arguing similar points to me, not realizing they pretty much sound the same and getting confused that I regard them as one.

>>16894582
It's just a correlation. It isnt meaningless but it isnt that meaningful.

>>16894584
No it does not that is not how proof works. I am sick of seeing this it's highschool level. This would mean it is emergent from entropy. A system at maximum entropy still has time. Entropy exists and is observable because our universe is unusually ordered. Entropy is not even absolute. It's a psychological arrow that exists in your mind because of casual events and is not required in classical physics none of Einstein's equations use entropy.

Arrow of time is dead. Thermal time doesnt use it. Quantum gravity is timeless.

The universe is dynamic. Spatial coordinates cannot change without time. Think of time as a balancing dimension. It's why only one is required.

>>16894704
>A system at maximum entropy still has time.
How do you know? If the universe reached maximum entropy and became a bunch of disorganized particles, each one doing its own thing, the result be a time-reversible system.

>>16894708
>a bunch of disorganized particles
That's not physics. It's called equilibrium a specific condition, particles still move and interact. Time reversible does not mean there is no time, it does to you though because the psychological arrow is gone. You kind of accidentally agree with me here.

>>16894710
>Time reversible does not mean there is no time
Ok. What does it mean to say a system "has time" if it's time-reversible? Would you say a function of x "has x"?

>>16894713
Yes a function has x if it is defined by x or depends on it. The time reversible argument here is about symmetry not if not exists as an arrow. We can have time without a preferred direction. Max entropy kills the arrow without removing time.

>>16894698
No, you are the retard who can't keep track of what anyone is saying since you say retarded shit like change is fundamental to reality and continuous, but reality isn't subject to change.

You also can't answer simple questions like what is the difference between saying change is fundamental to reality vs reality experiences change because of your massive retardation that prevents you from understanding the equality of two synonymous statements.

>>16894716
>Yes a function has x
Ok. Then why say the universe has time? Just say it has t. :^)

>The time reversible argument here is about symmetry not if not exists as an arrow.
This symmetry implies nothing is actually changing.

>>16894719
Sure call it t. The question is whether t is fundamental, emergent or relational, not if we use the word time.

That is false. A system can be wildly changing and still be time reversal symmetric. If symmetry meant nothing changes then all basic mechanics would predict a static universe kek that is ridiculous.

>>16894718
>mentally ill retard keeps getting filtered
What I'm basically saying is that time seems fundamental because you conceptualize change in terms of time, even though time is actually perceived in terms of change. So this entire exchange is basically:
>>How would you feel if you didn't conceptualize change in terms of time?
>But I DID conceptualize change in terms of time
... ad nauseam. Not only are you lacking in abstract thought and metacognition, but you also appear to lack basic theory of mind, since you keep thinking I contradict myself because you can't think of change without thinking of time.

>>16894721
>The question is whether t is fundamental, emergent or relational, not if we use the word time.
It's none of those things. You made it degenerate into a variable.

>A system can be wildly changing and still be time reversal symmetric.
From what to what? There is no directionality anymore.

>>16894720
No, Its you that can't understand abstract equalities and how saying change is fundamental to reality means that reality is subject to time just as much as you are because you aren't as special as you want to be, you are inside reality, not outside.

>>16894704
I’m not saying entropy creates time or that time disappears at equilibrium. The point is narrower: given time-reversal-invariant laws, macroscopic irreversibility is explained statistically once you assume a low-entropy past. That accounts for why arrows (thermodynamic, causal, record-forming) line up in practice.

A system at maximum entropy can still have a time parameter, but it no longer has a macroscopic arrow. That distinction matters. Entropy isn’t an absolute scalar, but coarse-grained entropy still gives robust typicality results. And while some quantum-gravity formalisms are timeless at the fundamental level, they still have to recover an effective arrow for semiclassical observers. So entropy doesn’t “prove time exists,” but it does explain why the arrow appears.

>>16894724
See >>16894722

>>16894723
Here I was thinking you did that with entropy. However physics demands quantities with variables, the fact you said that leads me to believe what we are discussing here are metaphysics, something unmeasurable.

You are conflating no preferred direction with no change, time does not need an orientation nor is the state constant. You can have change without an arrow we see it in most modern ideas of time. You keep demanding an arrow, you keep saying things like 'from what to what' you are stuck you are demanding me to prove something that does not exist.

>>16894727
> You can have change without an arrow
From what to what?

Physics is built on such self referential retardedness like sets containing empty sets. If you build your theory based on a mathematics built on the concept that a set can act like a folder that contains another empty folder even though the physical work done to store such a folder proves that one is allocated more ram than another, then you begin to understand why your self referential concepts don't match up. Physics should be dismantled and built anew on type theory where every single concept is constructive.

>>16894728
From state S(t1) to state S(t2). Change just means S(t1) != S(t2) for two parameter values. An arrow would be an extra claim.

Time reversal invariance removes the preferred orientation, not the existence of distinct states indexed by t. Same as left right symmetry removes a preferred 'leftness' but you can still move from x1 to x2.

>>16894725
I agree you are correct but this still means it is an emergent phenomenon that is not foundational.

>>16894730
>From state S(t1) to state S(t2).
You've denied yourself the basis to make such a statement, since it would be just as good to claim the change is from S(t2) to S(t1). Sorry, anon. It can't be be both.

>>16894730
>Change just means S(t1) != S(t2) for two parameter values
That, by the way, is called 'difference', not 'change'. This board is surreal. I've never met people this incompetent in any real-life STEM setting.

>>16894705
too high iq for the mouthbreathers. noticed tho

>>16894735
Kekt at your sheer desperation for attention.

>>16894733
No I have not. It can be described both ways because the arrow is not fixed by the laws, that's the whole point.

>>16894734
Rhetoric, not physics. In physics, “change” is defined by difference across a parameter. Fine you want to have a linguistic I replace “change” with “non-constant evolution".

>>16894738
See >>16894734
>This board is surreal. I've never met people this incompetent in any real-life STEM setting.

>>16894739
I am not here to engage in linguistics I am here to discuss time and physics.

>>16894738
>I replace “change” with “non-constant evolution".
Evolution presupposes change, which presupposes directionality. It's like half of you can't form a thought without relying on the usual word usage pattern and the other half can't form a sentence acknowledging the semantics of the words you use.

>>16894741
You just collapsed two different meanings of directionality into one, directionality as order and directionality as arrow. Hmm. Why did you do that. Dynamics requires an ordered parameter (t2>t1), but that’s not a physical arrow. The arrow only appears when the effective macrodynamics are non invertible, a semigroup, such as coarse grained thermodynamics.

Stop ranting maybe get a glass of water you are making basic mistakes.

>>16894745
See >>16894741

Entropy does not cause an arrow of time. There is no falsifiable way to prove it regardless of your ranting about semantics.

I never said anything about entropy causing an arrow of time. You're just too low-IQ to understand how entropy grounds the concept of time beyond it being an abstract variable.

>>16894751
Then you have inserted yourself into an existing debate without properly stating your position and began screeching about semantics for what I can only assume is the joy of argument. I have to wonder why choose to do something that angers you so much. Maybe this is your little stress ball where you release the daily tension, there are more constructive ways to do that you know.

>>16894751
>grounds the concept of time beyond it being an abstract variable.
Or, I guess you could say, how it ties the general idea of time to the narrow mathematical formalism that uses some 't' variable. It justifies the application of the formalism beyond "it just werks".

>>16894752
>Then you have inserted yourself into an existing debate without properly stating your position
I have properly stated my position over and over. You're simply low-IQ and I'm bored with you. No wonder nobody wants to hire Americoon graduates...

if you're trying to argue physics without equations, you reveal you don't understand physics and should shut the fuck up
>>>/x/

>>16894753
No you cannot say that. He is talking about phenomenology. And I agree with him it is grounding like a clock that does not translate to t.

>>16894754
I'm not American, why would I be?

>>16894756
A function of 't' is just a function of 't'. You can plug in any two values and talk about a difference, but it is no basis to talk about change. Nothing is changing in a function. A function is a timeless, Platonic thing. Now, if you think about continuous sweep of this t variable in some direction, you can say THAT describes the evolution of a physical system. I don't know how to dumb it down for you any further.

>>16894758
It doesnt exist.

>>16894704
>I am sick of seeing this it's highschool level.
I guess the first one to mention that correlation was the patent officer known to all of us. People at high school read his quotes and get infected with this idea.

Not any of the anons arguing here. I am not sure what the disagreement is btn change and time although i think change is a more fundamental concept. I think this debate would be resolved if we grounded our discussion through Heraclitus and Zeno. That would force us to define change and time better.