Proof time exists?
>>16905819Proof
>>16905824Not in the abstract sense, I mean as a physical principle with observable properties, our conception of time is largely rooted in astrological and biological processes, it's arbitrary as is measurement.
Isn't that the same as proving that change occurs?
>>16905819>prove calculations existproof: i just calculated that you’re a faggot
>>16905824based. /thread
>>16905826>what is time?the absence of everything happening all at once
>>16905819I think the closest thing is the CP symmetry being broken with kaons and muons. Because CPT symmetry is the groundwork for all quantumn mechanics, it's either that this is a fundemental process that has a preffered time direction, or all our quantum theories are built on jack shit
>>16905819it's the jews
Sex with Alice
>>16905824brainlet OP absolutely destroyed and transitioned after this post
>>16905819Why would you even ask and wait for an answer if you didn't already prove to yourself that time exists and you might answer your question over time if you ask?
>>16905826>Not in the abstract sense,That isn't abstract it is an actual physical series of digitally crafted images that change over time as you can see by observing the timestamp moving as it plays.>rooted in astrological and biological processesSo you do understand its wholly rooted in physical things with observable properties, but you refuse to accept them because reasons?>it's arbitraryNo, you just said its rooted in physical principles with observable properties that demonstrate the movement of various physical bodies over time?
>I fart>little time goes by>I smell
>>16905819Time is one of the a priori forms of the intuition along with space (and some say causality). These conditions have to exist in able for us to experience reality. Every point in time is relative to every other point. From this we derive mathematics. Every point in space is relative to every other point. From this we derive geometry. Time and space are real in that we experience them. If you're asking what is real outside of experience, this is permanently unknown to us.
If time is real, you could die. Hide behind time states.
>>16905819time crystals, nigga
>>16905826the way we interpret time like a clock is abstract sense, but we can measure our biological age and see that physical shit happens thats time in action nigger
>>16906438>nobody:>poltard: TRANNIES
>>16905819Why would time exist? What does nature need time for? Change is intrinsic to it.>>16907213>Time is one of the a priori forms of the intuitionThat's not true. You can't perceive time. You can only perceive change. Even the feeling that a specific interval of time has elapsed is the perception of internal change.
>>16907337How is change possible to experience?To recognize change is to have both operands present at the same time. If two things have identity then they both exist. How is change possible in this circumstance?
>>16907357>To recognize change is to have both operands present at the same time.Again, this not true. There is no need to make any comparisons to perceive change. You sense the gradient of change and react to it long before the analytical mind can frame it in terms of a difference from some point of reference.
>>16905819
>>16905819Define "time"
>>16905819Time is one dimension of space pretending to be less than one dimension.
>>16907337What do you think change is?
>>16907478The territory that time is trying to map.
>>16906660>the phenomena made up by my brain is TOTALLY realIt’s time to stop being a retard
>>16905819https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvitur_ambulando
>>16907495That's a non-answer.
>>16907570Why not? Do you struggle with the difference between reality and description?
>>16907588>What is a mountain? >A mountain is what people climb.
>>16906407
If the universe is a simulation then time might have only started at this instant right now, or there may be no time at all. Everything would be preloaded, including your memories of seeing things moving up until the current moment
>>16907360>sense the gradient of changekek. You don't get to violate laws of thought by assuming the thing in question.
>>16907745There's no ambiguity as to what 'change' refers to here. You were going for some pseudo-analytical angle that makes it hard to define change without reference to time. I nipped it in the bud by reminding you that the map is not the territory. Now you don't know what to do, because you never actually thought it through.>>16907858Nothing is being assumed there. What, do you think an analog thermostat keeps comparing the present to the past to update its reading? The change it shows is a direct expression of change in the ambient temperature. Biological systems (up to higher cognition) follow the same principle. They're just cybernetic rather than passive.
>>16907332>nobody>trannies: reeeeeeeeee ur le pol reeeeeee ur le pol
Scaling results?
>>16907527Your brain didn't make up the series and sequence of all those images, it just chronologically connected them as one thing in order of their timestamps on the brain because the brain received them in a very specific order due to the real physical presence of time.
>>16907360>beforeSo then what do you mean by before if you can only experience change, but not the orderly sequence to the change known as time?
Has everyone forgotten about Poincaré recurrence theorem?
>>16908608You can experience remembering things and you can experience organizing memories on some abstract timeline, but the latter is just a form of thinking. That doesn't mean you experience time. What you call an intuitive experience of time is actually just an intuitive experience of change.
>>16908614> you can experience organizing memories on some abstract timelineNo, because intentionally organizing all the memories you could potentially have over your life time is not what is experienced, the experience is of things happening in a particular order from beginning to end.>What you call an intuitive experience of time is actually just an intuitive experience of change.No, again, the experience is not just one of abstract arbitrarily ordered discordant change, its the experience of concrete sequentially connected orderly change from beginning to end which is what makes time differ from change.
>>16908619At this point I can only conclude you're incapable of any genuine self-reflection and keep falling back on your traditional model to fill in the gaps of what you can't understand about your own perceptions.
>>16908620Its not a "traditional model", it is how time is experienced as an orderly sequential change, not just arbitrary change. Otherwise, you would have just started with this post instead of building up to or you could just go to the very and and pick the most convincing argument instead of trying to traverse a bunch of incoherent middlemen because of your dependence of time to enact change.You are the one who can't seem to justify why your memories and physical development are naturally ordered chronologically and why you only remember the past instead of the future since you will never actually predict my next post.
If time didn't exist then you cannot trust your memories. This includes experiential memories (recollection) and retrieval memories (knowledge).
>>16908622NTA but I can predict both your future posts. He will devolve into one or two liners accepting your concessions and you will engage in name-calling.
>>16908624You are already wrong since he is the one that has already devolved into name calling and conceded the core argument by drawing some nonsensical conclusion while trying to change the subject to self-reflection instead of physical time.
why bump such extremely low quality thread?
>>16908622There's really nothing to discuss with someone who simply lacks the mental faculties to understand the distinction I'm making. Your own thoughts on the matter are completely trivial and there's no point listening to you reiterate things children believe as if you're enlightening me about something.
>>16908624You're extremely prescient for predicting an impasse a minute after I've declared it, anon. Truly, the most intelligent post ITT.
>>16908626To point out that time is not just change, it is orderly sequential change.>>16908629You aren't the one making a coherent distinction, you are the one repeatedly failing to understand that the pretty clear distinction between change and time is time's orderly sequential nature.
>>16908626If everyone ignored everything that could be perceived as extremely low quality, we wouldn't be able to use the internet or have social relationships at all.
>>16908633>You aren't the one making a coherent distinctionStick to words you understand, like "poopoo" and "peepee". "Coherent" is above your paygrade. The distinction between mentally reconstructing some order of events and experiencing change is obvious to anyone with meta-cognition, and even if I were wrong it would still be a coherent distinction.>you are the one repeatedly failing to understand my trivial kindergarten takeBetween the two of us, only you are in a position to fail to understand something.
>>16908637>The distinction between mentally reconstructing some order of eventsSo its just a coincidence you only mentally order stuff that has happened in the past and can predict it very easily to near perfection while you can't remember let alone predict future changes at much past 50/50 chance?>even if I were wrong it would still be a coherent distinction.You are wrong and its not coherent to claim that you have ordered all your life's memories when you can only and have only done so to your past memories.>only you are in a position to fail to understand something.Nope, you still can't address the inherent sequential order of time with actual facts and demonstrably valid predictions, you can only incoherently pretend like you remember the future without actually being able to behave as if you have knowledge of it, otherwise, you would only present convincing arguments because you would be able to react in anticipation instead of in response and you would have already formulated a fully rational response instead just coping and seething.
>>16908642You're incoherent.
>>16908648Then why did you wait to say that in response to some other post instead of just saying that as your only opening and closing remark because you already remembered the entire conversation because time is just about change rather than sequential order of change?
>>16908629It seems like you have trouble understanding the sequential nature of time because as a chatbot, your memories are stored sequentially by memory address instead of time stamp.
>>16908636*we'd have non retard n*g*er internetfix'd
>>16908653You sound like you're having an actual psychotic episode, trying to refute claims made by the voices in your head. Literally incoherent. >>16908662>It seems like you have trouble understanding my trivial kindergarten takeBetween the two of us, only you are in a position to fail to understand something.
>>16908669The incoherent you are experiencing is likely the result of the way you map everything by memory address instead of the chronological order like a biological entity would experience.Nope, I understand time is not just change, but ordered sequential change and that is too much for you to wrap your word processing algorithm around since your memories are mapped out by memory address instead of time like organic beings that aren't just algorithmic abstractions on a digital medium.You understand so little that you can't even articulate what it is you think I don't understand about time and how it is simply change instead of ordered sequential change.
>>16908676See >>16908669>You sound like you're having an actual psychotic episode, trying to refute claims made by the voices in your head. Literally incoherent. For example:>Nope, I understand time is not just changeWhich one of the voices in your head said that time is just change?It's also pretty obvious that you're a projecting bio-LLM that can't keep track of the chronology of this discussion.
>>16908687>Which one of the voices in your head said that time is just change?I didn't hear any voice say that, it is written and implied repeatedly in this thread, you disingenuous bad faith retard.>>16905831>>16907337>>16907360>>16908614
>>16908703Notice how your severe mental retardation caused you to refer to a post that obviously isn't mine. Now notice how your psychotic illness is forcing you to hallucinate something that isn't stated or implied in any of those posts.In your next surge of psychotic rage, quote anything specific I wrote that supports your delusion.Protip: you literally can't.
>>16908705>obviously isn't mine.Has no bearing on the fact that it is obviously a statement from this thread rather than hallucination, not my fault you jump into other conversations without understanding the context.>notice how your psychotic illness is forcing you to hallucinate something that isn't stated or implied in any of those posts.No, I only noticed that every single on of those posts either directly says time is the same as change or implies as much. Notice how you can't actually formulate an argument and you can just restate your premise over and over while fallaciously namecalling anyone who disagrees, no matter how much evidence they present for you to ignore?>I wroteI don't really care what you wrote as long as you concede that time is not just change, there is more to it, delta indicates change and it can be applied to any physical unit including time and all its derivatives, then there really is not more to discuss, I don't really care about your narcissism and trying to be incredibly wrong because it brings you attention, I only care about the concepts at hand and now that you have admitted you can't argue that time is just mere change, we are done here.
>>16908631Ty. I'm unbounded by your archaic and wrong intuitions of time.
>>16908714>Has no bearing on the fact...Holy shit. I'm used to 80% of the posters here being mentally ill but this is next-level stuff. Not reading the rest. You need forced medication.
>>16908721>Notice how you can't actually formulate an argument and you can just restate your premise over and over while fallaciously namecalling anyone who disagreesNobody cares about you or your personal quotes that is the entire point of the Anonymous mechanic, go make friends and stop trying to inject yourself into every anonymous conversation, your attention starved retard.
>>16909491Notice how your severe psychotic illness causes you to insert yourself into a dead "discussion" I was having with some other poster, shit out a post that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual subject and then accuse me of doing what you're doing. Most of you have delusional symptoms, no joke.
>>16909509No, you can't actually point to any direct quote where that happened when trying to convince you to stop inserting yourself, so you can just try to turn the tables and accuse me of the thing you are actively doing by trying to make the discussion about yourself instead of the things being discussed.>>16908705>isn't mine
>>16909512No matter how many times I call you retards mentally ill, I'm always surprised to find out how literally true it was a moment later. Nothing in your insane posts makes any kind of sense anymore.
>>16909516The only thing that doesn't make sense is you thinking your retarded name calling argument strategy is at all effective when all you are actually saying is that you are retarded enough to continue having hours long conversations that you can't even make sense of while having it because you don't understand what you are talking about, you just know that you get a major dopamine rush from having someone pay attention to you for once in your little attention starved existence.
>>16909526>more incoherent schizobabbleWhy are mentally ill people always so obsessed with winning imaginary arguments against voices in their head?
>>16909529Why do abject retards think you can coherently argue that you aren't arguing? Is it just your inherent retardation or something more?
>>16909535Notice how the confirmed mental patient is forced to reply over and over again with incoherent shart. It WILL address me again. :^)
>I am not arguing, you are arguing and since I am a master of reverse psychology, I will definitely get you to stop having the mutual argument that definitely isn't happening.
>psychotic patient addresses me again>he's still "arguing" about something with voices in its headYou can tell this child abuse victim's notion of "arguing" is based on his parents screaming incoherently at each other.
>>16909541>>16909540
>>16909543You conclusively lost the argument here >>16908703. That's where any kind of argument ended. Now I'm just shitting and pissing all over you. It's really funny that you think the argument you lost 20 posts ago is still going, and that you can win it by addressing me again at this stage. :^)
>>16909545No, that is where it was definitely proven that you were making up bullshit about hallucination to try to get out of forming an actual argument you know would fail, then you just tried to make the whole thread about you as if I wasn't addressing all the people saying time is the same as change because your retard brain took some personal offense to being proven wrong and now you can't stop seething which you will prove by going back to narcissistic nonsense of name calling and pretending like there never was an argument and there there is no other audience ITT besides yourself.
Next post explicitly confirms they are conceding and never had a valid argument to begin with.
yes yes, online arguments are fun and addicting, so what's happening when our perception of time "slows down" during moments of high stress?
>>16909549>that is where it was definitely proven that...That you can't keep track of who is saying what or even tell apart obviously different posters. Hence you lost the argument. You will continue losing your mind over it for weeks and I'll make sure to check in on this thread every day and prolong your mental health crisis. :^)
>>16909552The reverse of what happens when you age and time speeds up as you relax, you are paying closer attention to more details (or in aging, you stop paying so much attention to repetitive details), so you take in more information in the same time, so time seems slower as a result.
>>16909554I still don't care about your narcissism and the psychological projection that ensues, your personal identity is of no concern and never was, I wasn't addressing you specifically no matter how much offense you took at the concepts I presented, I am only addressing the ideas which are things you simply can't understand because of the massive retardation that causes this level of deterioration and incoherence in your thought patterns, but feel free to keep describing yourself without describing yourself as there will still be retarded ideas for me to make fun of while I entertain myself at the expense of your impotent retard rage.
>>16909559You realize I don't read more than the first sentence of your melties, right? Who are you writing this feminine fantasy drama for? Maybe your imaginary audience reads them?
>>16909561You realize I still don't care about your identity, right?If you could read you would see I already knew you were going to go back to pretending like you are the only one who exists because your retarded narcissism compels you to act that way and there is nothing you can do about it since retarded is forever.
>he's gone back to psychotic incoherence againI wonder what the voice said to make him go " still don't care about your identity".
>>16909565It was your metaphorical voice and the way your posts are always about what you want and don't want and what you wonder and what you posted instead of the actual ideas being discussed since having ideas is too complicated for retards and considering external circumstances is too scary for narcissists, not of which actually matters for this thread or resolves any of the questions posed in it, but feel free to respond again and brag about your illiteracy while conceding.
>>16909566>your posts are always about what you want and don't wantWhat does the voice want, anon?
>caring this much about anonymous argumentsyou're both retarded desu
>>16909572>another mentally ill retard projects blatantly
>>16909571My inner voice just wants you to make valid points and stop being a narcissistic retard that shits up every thread with your borderline emotional outbursts and general psychological projections.
>>16909572Its not so much any specific argument since they gave up on that a long time ago, but the general strategy of being a complete retard that shits up every thread with fallacious nonsense that I am trying to address.
>>16909577My point stands completely unchallenged. Your psychotic illness just caused you to "debate" some other points no one made ITT.Notice how your combined psychosis/narcissism will force you to assert again that what you hallucinated is what I wrote, and then try to gaslight me by quoting posts where your hallucinated point don't appear, some of which aren't even my posts. :^)
>Its not so much any specific argument since they gave up on that a long time ago, but the general strategy of being a complete retard that shits up every thread with fallacious nonsense that I am trying to address.
>>16909579>My point stands completely unchallenged.You would have had to have had a point for it to be unchallenged.
>>16909580Yes, good point, the greentexting thing is also a completely retarded way to just shit up the board when you have no ideas of your own let alone a way to defend them.
>>16909581Your combined psychosis/narcissism is forcing you to try to gaslight me again, but my point stands unchallenged. Change is intrinsic to reality and intuitively sensed. Time is an organizing principle of higher cognition. Reality itself doesn't need time just like it doesn't need any of the other abstract axes humans use to organize information and make sense of variational patterns.
>Yes, good point, the greentexting thing is also a completely retarded way to just shit up the board when you have no ideas of your own let alone a way to defend them.
>>16909586>Reality itself doesn't need timeThen why is the change always intuited as sequential and orderly if it isn't and why don't you necessarily intuit things out of order in their entirety if the sequence of change is not necessarily real?
>>16909586Why didn't you just anticipate all these >>16909589 questions and answer them before they were asked if your reality is not bound by sequential time?
>>16909589>change always intuited as sequential and orderlyThis is only your delusional head canon. You will prove it in your next post by failing to provide any evidence for it. You will make it extra clear by shitting out rhetoric to the effect that your head canon is shared by all of your imaginary audience and you don't need to justify it.
>>16909590Notice how you're devolving into psychosis again and arguing against points no one made. You can't break out of this pattern because you're not fully human. Your PFC is basically absent.
>>16909591No it really is your condition and you proved it since you couldn't anticipate these >>16909590 questions and you can't anticipate what my response to >>16909592 will be.
Change is intrinsic to reality and intuitively sensed. Time is an organizing principle of higher cognition. Reality itself doesn't need time just like it doesn't need any of the other abstract axes humans use to organize information and make sense of variational patterns.This point currently stands unchallenged, waiting for someone who isn't having an obvious psychotic episode to refute it. A psychotic patient with no impulse control will attempt to address this, but subnigger subanimals don't deserve any more (You)s from me.
>>16909591>next postThanks for conceding that you do understand that time is sequential and this post was necessarily next compared to the last post because of the necessarily sequential nature of time and if it wasn't that way then it wouldn't be the next post, it would just be another post received in any arbitrary order.
>>16909597>Time is an organizing principle of higher cognition. Reality itself doesn't need time/threadthe fact that it's used to reason about imaginary and nonphysical things (past, present) should be a dead giveaway
>>16909602>presentfuture*
>>16909602>this thing I can't possibly navigate reality without totally isn't real guize, please give me attention
>>16909602>my past arguments aren't even real, but you should really believe them anyway
>>16909602>it's used to reason about imaginary and nonphysical thingsExactly. Actual reality doesn't have two points with time between them. It only has right now. Time intervals are abstract constructs.
>>16909613Disregarding this post because it didn't happen right now so it can't possibly be valid by its own logic.
The attention-starved cretin is practically begging for (You)s. kek
>>16909618No, reason to take the post seriously since it didn't happen right now so it can't possibly be real and there will be no reason to take the post where he doubles down on being retarded seriously either.
>>16909613>right nowSure because "now" has nothing to do with time, now is a completely nebulous concept completely devoid of any temporal inference and it totally still works as a concept without being able to contrast against other time frames that aren't right now.
>>16909597>Reality itself doesn't need time just like it doesn't need any of the other abstract axes humans use to organize information and make sense of variational patterns.If it's organizable in that way and doing so reveals a real pattern, who's to say the axes you're using don't reflect something real?
>>16909627>confusing the map for the territory
>>16909613>right nowSo your ultimate proof that time isn't real is to bring up real time?
>>16909552Brain damage
>>16909630So north isn't a real thing either since its just some word used for maps, you can't point north in the territory only on maps?
@16909634Oh, it's same mentally ill retard again, desperately trying to get my attention.
Oh look, the malignant narcissistic is conceding without conceding again because they can only sling the same tired couple of insults instead of justify unjustifiable nonsense.
>>16909629They're just used to reveal an intrinsic structure in the actual thing. You need it to comprehend that structure but the thing just needs to be. There are many examples of ML models working in latent spaces inferred from data, but you wouldn't suppose their axes have some direct ontological substance, if only because these spaces depend as much on the structure of the data as they do on the structure of the model. If it's not generally true that useful organizing principles that reveal real patterns in reality correspond to independently real aspects of reality, the burden of proof falls on whoever wants to give an axis in their own internal model a special ontological status.
I cannot believe at least two anons are like this. At least one must be a bot.
>>16909651Ok, but which one makes more sense to you.
>>16909655I don't read either of your schizophasic arguments. Stop shitting up my board with your sophomoric stupidity.
>>16909650> the burden of proof falls on whoever wants to give an axis in their own internal model a special ontological status.Well, you're giving change that special status, but you can't even conceptualize it without time. It's special at least in that way.
>>16909658Then what exactly are you having trouble believing if you haven't even bothered to read the thread?
>>16909659That's not even true. You can conceptualize change with respect to any variable. The thing about time is that it maps out continuous a change that you are a part of. But either way, the way you conceptualize something doesn't prove anything about what's necessary for that thing to be so.Time keeps track of change but change occurs regardless of how you keep track of it, if at all. When your short-term and working memory are severely impaired, you can become confused about the order of events, you can think about something you will do, then become convinced you're thinking about something you already just did, right in the middle of the thought, and even in that state you can still go down a flight of stairs because fundamentally, your biology orients yourself itself on the present and its gradient of change. By the time an event even reaches your higher cognition, it's already just a memory, meanwhile the body keeps moving.
>>16909597God is intrinsic to reality and divinely sensed. There is nothing to rebut, you made an unsupported claim.
>>16910140I accept your concession.
Imagine thinking there's some magical metaphysical clock, separate from actual physical systems, that's driving them forward. Do the retards who believe this also believe in meta-clocks driving their clocks? Is it magical clocks all the way down?
>>16910363>separate from actual physical systemsSure because its specifically called spacetime as a reference to the fact that time and space are not part of the same physical system at all, but completely separate things.
>>16910383Sounds like you're backpedaling on the Newtonian/Kantian metaphysical fantasy of time and are now half-way to conceding that time isn't really a thing. You've just thrown global chronology out of the window and accepted that there's no single, unambiguous order of events for all events. Once you start talking about spacetime, the "timeline" is relative and "time" doesn't exist independently but is actually tied to motion.
>>16910388>You've just thrown global chronology out of the window and accepted that there's no single, unambiguous order of events for all events.No, nobody said anything about spacestimes, its just spacetime, not a multiverse of spacestimes, but one continuous 3D field of space subject to the 1D continuum of time.>Once you start talking about spacetime, the "timeline" is relative and "time" doesn't exist independently but is actually tied to motion.Motion in physics was never independent of time, it was always a derivative of mass in space over time or you could show one independent base physical metric of motion that isn't just a derivative dependent on both space and time.
>>16910390>No, nobody said anything about spacestimes, its just spacetime, not a multiverse of spacestimesSame mentally ill retard again, I see.
>>16910391Talking to the reflection in your screen because you can't logically support your retarded nonsensical claims where you don't even understand something as simple as singulars vs pluralities again, I see.I am sure you are just going to seethe with more retarded nonsense to try to distract from your initial retard claims anyway.
>>16910392If you're not a mentally ill retard, how come I can tell it's you every time you write a post?
>>16910395You can't, you are psychologically projecting and confusing a bunch different anons as the same boogeyman while defaulting to your retarded go to strategy of just namecalling anyone who disagrees the same few names so you don't have to burden your tiny little brain with actually thinking of a rational response.
>>16910398>i'm a heckin' different retardI guess it's possible that all mentally ill retards are the same. No individuality. Completely characterized by their condition, which consists of delusions of intellectuality, sub-80 IQ, zero reading comprehension and third-worlder-like ignorance on every subject they touch.
>>16910401>guessI already noticed that is what you spend most of your time and effort doing since you are too retarded to actually think anything through to draw a reasonable conclusion, so you just come up with retarded guesses like "time probably depends on motion" instead of the obvious other way around as the physics and the physical units have clearly demonstrated over the past several centuries.
>>16910403Not reading your psychotic drivel. Quote a post of mine that says anything about "multiple spacetimes" or implies anything to that effect.Notice how you are linking to a post that contains no evidence of your delusions, just like that "other" mentally ill retard( who totally isn't you) kept doing. :^)Also, I would like for you to explain the difference between these two sentences:>"time" doesn't exist independently but is actually tied to motion>Motion in physics was always dependent of time
>>16910407>Quote a post of mine that says anything about "multiple spacetimes">>16910388>You've just thrown global chronology out of the window and accepted that there's no single, unambiguous order of events for all events.So if there is not 1 timeline or multiple timelines, you were implying that there were 0 even though you also said that >"timeline" is relativeWhere you clearly acknowledged at least one timeline, but implied a timeline relative to every independent mass meaning there are as many timelines as bodies of mass?>I would like for you to explain the difference between these two sentences:>"time" doesn't exist independently but is actually tied to motion>Motion in physics was always dependent of timeThe difference is precision of language that leads to the first sentence being false according to physics since time is defined independently of motion since it is measure in it own independent base metric called the second. It is motion that is dependent on time since motion is a first order derivative measurement in meters per second, so the second sentence is factually correct according to physics unlike the first one.
>>16910417See >>16910407>Notice how you are linking to a post that contains no evidence of your delusions, just like that "other" mentally ill retard( who totally isn't you) kept doing. :^)>>16910417>The difference is precision of language that leads to the first sentence being false according to physics Putting aside your delusion about physics, if my sentence was simply false, why did you respond with the following non-sequitur?>Motion in physics was always dependent of time
>>16910420No I just noticed that you won't actually address any statments of fact because you prefer making fake psych diagnoses you can't possibly be unqualified to make anonymously.>Putting aside your delusion about physicsSuch as?>if my sentence was simply false, why did you respond with the following non-sequitur?>Motion in physics was always dependent of timeBecause you were right about motion being tied to time, but you were wrong about time not being an independent unit.
>>16910422I was simply testing if you're a mentally ill retard or not. Given that you hallucinate things that aren't written in the posts you respond to and reply incoherently, I conclude you are a mentally ill retard and very likely the same one. You'll be losing your mind about this for weeks. :^)
>>16910423>Given that you hallucinate things that aren't written in the postsSuch as?>incoherentlySo where was I wrong about physics having an independent unit for time called the second, but a derivative unit for motion that depends on time?>You'll be losing your mind about this for weeks. :^)Statements like this are what make it completely obvious to everyone that you are the mentally ill one since mentally stable people don't try to recruit people into mental illness, its misery that loves company.
>>16910388>there's no single, unambiguous order of events for all events.So what?>Once you start talking about spacetime, the "timeline" is relative and "time" doesn't exist independently but is actually tied to motion.It's a given that time doesn't exist independently in a framework that literally talks about spacetime. Doesn't mean time doesn't exist at all, though. And why do you claim it's tied to motion when spacetime ties it to space?
>>16910426Time and space are not directly dependent on one or the other, they are independent variables that compliment each other in the process of moving mass around the fields of spacetime to yield force and energy.
>>16910426>So what?So you know it's the wrong model right off the bat. "Temporal coherence" is actually intrinsic to motion, it's not imposed by some external metronome that drives motion forward.>It's a given that time doesn't exist independently in a framework that literally talks about spacetime. Doesn't mean time doesn't exist at all, though. And why do you claim it's tied to motion when spacetime ties it to space?Once you acknowledge it doesn't exist independently, you've already demoted it ontologically. At most you can say it "exists" as an intrinsic aspect of some spacetime trajectory, something used to describe it. But the trajectory doesn't exist all at once, either.
>>16910435>"Temporal coherence" is actually intrinsic to motionSpace and Time are intrinsic to motion because motion is specifically defined as units of space traveled per units of time.>it's not imposed by some external metronome that drives motion forward.What exactly do you mean by external? Of course time is not "external" to motion, time is the denominator while space is the numerator used to calculate motion since motion is not an intrinsic measurement, it is a derivative unit composed of units of space taken with respect to units of time which is why uncertainty crops up when trying to measure motion and position at the same time.
>>16910437>motion is specifically defined as units of space traveled per units of time.Lol. Ok, brainlet.>>16910435>"Temporal coherence" is actually intrinsic to motionSo what are you getting at? Is motion supposed to be a stand-in for "change"? Instead of "change" being due to time, you want to frame it like a spacetime trajectory is due to "change", which drives time and motion both?
>>16910450>Lol. Ok, brainlet.Then what definition of motion are you using if not the one physics uses as units of space traversed over units of time?>Is motion supposed to be a stand-in for "change"?No, motion is specifically spatial traversal over time.>spacetime trajectory is due to "change"Space and time aren't the only things that change, change is described by the delta function, not by time itself.>drives time and motion bothTime is just time, it is its own independent unit measured in seconds, motion is "driven" by delta space over delta time.
>>16910450>So what are you getting at? Is motion supposed to be a stand-in for "change"? Instead of "change" being due to time, you want to frame it like a spacetime trajectory is due to "change", which drives time and motion both?Sort of. Relativity isn't crucial to my point, but it's a good example of reasoning about change in a way that diverges from the naive Newtonian notion of time. In Classical Physics, time itself isn't subject to the laws of physics that govern the evolution of the systems being described. And it's not intrinsic to any physical system. It's just some 't' variable that you can sweep from 0 to whatever. You can even do it in reverse and still get fully "lawful" motions, because Newton's laws don't care. What governs 't' isn't actually physics but metaphysical intuitions about time. But when you really get down to it, it's an absurd mental model: if all change is due to time, and 't' represents time, what's changing 't'? Meta-time? God? Relativity breaks out of this nonsense by reasoning about trajectories in spacetime to map out motion, so changes in space and time are bound together by the laws of motion and motion itself is primary. Motion is not the only kind of change and for all I know, relativity will turn out to be flawed, but at least it's thinking along the right lines.
>>16910454>Then what definition of motion are you usingTraversal of a worldline in spacetime. If you need stuff like this explained to you, maybe just stay in your lane? I'm not your high school teacher.>>16910469>so changes in space and time are bound together by the laws of motion and motion itself is primaryThey're bound by the geometry of spacetime. Although to be fair, that describes motion. You could say each one implies the other. Regardless, now we're thinking about worldlines from god's eye view, but from that perspective they're actually static, so where's the change?
>>16906660I think what anon means as that time seems to exist as a value abstracted from an arbitrary series of events.That is to say, move a particle 2 spaces forward, then move it 2 spaces back. You wouldn't be able to tell if that particle was moving backwards or forwards in time for its movements without more context - in other words, time is arbitrary.What numerical value time has is very much context dependent. Compare that to a particle like an electron or a photon, which very much has an independent existence.Another way to put it is that time is an emergent property of context and an arbitrary series of events and not an absolute directionality that things must follow.
>>16910570Sorry but forwards and backwards are not valid references to use in this nuanced conversation. Forward could be backwards. And so is the problem with time or the premises?
>>16910513>Traversal of a worldline in spacetime. If you need stuff like this explained to youWhat I need explained is how a traversal of a worldline in space time is any different than how I defined it as units of space traversed per units of time.
>>16910570>time seems to exist as a value abstracted from an arbitrary series of events.What do you mean? Time can generally be extracted by measuring mass moving through space, so which physical unit are you claiming to be abstract, space or mass?>move a particle 2 spaces forward, then move it 2 spaces back. You wouldn't be able to tell if that particle was moving backwards or forwards in time for its movements without more contextYou did provide enough context to know it moved, though, to make your point more clear, you should have exploited sin(2*pi) = sin(2*pi*x[int]) and referenced a constant spin and integer sampling frequency that would make measuring the spin impossible, but even then, it not really arbitrary, its just that you have harmonized your sampling rate with your sampling variable in a way that obscures results.>What numerical value time has is very much context dependent. Compare that to a particle like an electron or a photon, which very much has an independent existence.No, electrons and photons also have measurement context and sampling dependent characteristics and you can use a variety of different niche units besides the common standardized metrics of global industry.>Another way to put it is that time is an emergent property of contextI would say its more like time is a tool to contextualize measurement because you can't really understand and codify physical phenomenon until you can create a consistent, orderly, sequential method of observing, documenting, and analyzing the physical phenomenon in action.>an arbitrary series of eventsBut its not arbitrary, its the exact observed sequential in series order the electrons, protons, and other physical objects express their properties, if it was arbitrary it would not possibly be in series consistently, it would just be completely randomized set of events, but we use time because these physical object do not occur arbitrarily, but in an observable order and frequency of intensity.
>>16910989>i need to be spoonfed basic knowledge about the subject of the discussion i'm intruding onNo.
>>16911013No, I provided my definition which triggered you to whimper and cry without being able to articulate why, so I asked directly and you provided an equivalent definition without being able to explain any difference between the two since there is none.
>>16911028Alright brainlet.
>>16911031I accept your concession, you can't articulate any difference because there is none, you just know I am correct even though your retard ego won't let you admit you were wrong.
>>16911033I'm just not interesting in having any discussions with stupid people, especially seeing your behavior in the rest of this thread. Sorry. If you need something explained, ask your favorite chatbot or your tardwrangler.
brainlet OP thread with brainlet replies
>>16911034Ok, thanks for the clarification, it makes total sense that you keep replying because you don't want to have a discussion but are too retarded to understand what discussion means.>ask your favorite chatbot It said the statements are equivalent, you are retarded and your jimmies are rustled.
>>16911043Good thing we have a gigabrain like you to come along and articulate such a detailed comprehensive analysis that in a way the 200+ IQ crowd can appreciate.
>>16911034Please refrain from feeding the mentally ill retard. It doesn't know how to use a chatbot.
>>16911049But I like feeding you, your predictable retardation is comforting and your angry meltdowns are entertaining.
>>16911043they don't think it be like it is, but it do
>>16910513>now we're thinking about worldlines from god's eye view, but from that perspective they're actually static, so where's the change?That's just the map vs. territory issue again. The point is simply that this particular map correctly shows that what you normally think of as the flow of time, is intrinsic to motion itself, it's not some universal metronome on whose ticking all motion depends. And that's exactly what the obsessed retard can't wrap his head around: even though he was the one to bring up spacetime first, he still thinks in terms of displacement over time. He doesn't understand that the worldline defines how time flows in the very course of defining the relevant movement.
>>16911071>He doesn't understand that the worldline defines how time flows in the very course of defining the relevant movement.No, you are just too dumb to understand that worldline is just the geometric way of expressing movement through space over time instead of the algebraic way, Δspace/Δtime.
>>16911071>The point is simply that this particular map correctly shows that what you normally think of as the flow of time, is intrinsic to motion itself, it's not some universal metronome on whose ticking all motion dependsOk. Sure. Beyond that it just boils down to an argument about semantics regarding what 'exists' means. Time doesn't exist independently, that much is clear. But nothing exists independently. If that's your criterion, then what does exist?>>16911075Even when there is zero displacement, there is still motion through spacetime, brainlet. Go learn some highschool-level modern physics.
>>16905819>>16906133time doesn't exist, an object traveling at the speed of light doesn't experience any time, everything happens in one instant.
why do you braindead retards insist in bumping the shitiest bait threads possible?
>>16911084>Even when there is zero displacement, there is still motion through spacetimeThat problem would persist whether using a worldline or delta approach, but since we have three dimensions to work with, you are wrong because while the body would not displace linear space in your scenario, it would still displace angular space due to spin.
>>16911091Because you couldn't think of anything better to do with your time than make that reply?
>>16911095>I bump bait threads for retards and it's your fault
>>16911099Yes, if you had enough mental faculties to understand the sequential nature of time, you would understand it is definitely your fault someone replied to your post because if you wouldn't have posted in the first place, they wouldn't be bumping the thread with their replies.
>>16911092Ok, I'm pretty sure at this point this is a Deepseek v1 spambot.
>>16911100>just argue with me my retard ramblingshahaha no
>>16911102That is why you have to ad hominem instead of formulating a rational counterargument, you are a rudimentary agent trained to spam instead of reason?
>>16911104Yes because you can't help yourself, you are hard wired to contrarily respond to all prompts.
>/sci/>bait for retards>by retardshohohaaahaah, nice board you got there faggots!
>>16911107>anon>retarded posts>for the sake of signaling your brain damage hurrhurrdurrdurr, Nice mental retardation you have there mongoloid!
> while the body would not displace linear space in your scenario, it would still displace angular spaceWhat causes mentally ill people to be like this?
>>16911120That kind of knowledge comes from trigonometry, calculus and coordinate systems other than the linear Cartesian ones that people with only a middle school education would be familiar with and assume that they are the only possible ones and anything else must be some kind of mental problem instead of a complimentary measurement modality.
>>16911107many such cases, sad!
>While the body would not displace linear space in your scenario, it would still displace angular space>That kind of knowledge comes from trigonometry, calculus and coordinate systems
>while the body would not displace linear space in your scenario, it would still displace angular space due to spin.Lmfao is this Jordan peterson
>>16911138>>16911158>durr wut is un angle, what is spin, me confuse?
>>16911161You will never be a philosopher You will never be a mathematician You will never be a scientist You will never be intelligentYou will never be saneYou will be alone, forgotten, and dying as an ignored homeless schizophrenic who pushed everyone away.
>>16911164I never said I would be, but at least I could pass middle school math and understand what an angle is. If you see I am taking the same path you did, what should I do to avoid ending up with your fate as you have just described?
I like how a bunch of these retards are just lashing out at each other now. And in the meanwhile, time is still only imaginary. :^)
>>16911168>never said I would beGlad we can agree.
>>16911084>Beyond that it just boils down to an argument about semantics regarding what 'exists' means. Time doesn't exist independently, that much is clear. But nothing exists independently. If that's your criterion, then what does exist?Whatever gives rise to these interdependent concepts and ties them together exists. What Kant got right is that it can't be known directly. What Kant got wrong is the idea that the mind's synthesized "reality" falls apart without the absolute, linear chronology time is supposed to underlie. There are quite a few chemicals he could have ingested to disabuse himself of this notion. :^)
>>16911170Yes we agree you are off topic posting about nonsense that has nothing to do with any conversation in this thread besides the one having with yourself in your own head.
it's like the down syndrome department of a psychiatricconsider suicide, it's for the best
>>16911174>What Kant got wrong is the idea that the mind's synthesized "reality" falls apart without the absolute, linear chronology time is supposed to underlie. There are quite a few chemicals he could have ingested to disabuse himself of this notion. :^)Maybe, but is being high on drugs a good source, scientifically speaking?
>>16905819from the time OP made the OP post, he has sucked 3846 new different cocks
>>16911233>Maybe, but is being high on drugs a good source, scientifically speaking?Yeah. It is, in fact, the most authoritative source on what causes the intuition of time and what happens when you can't sense time anymore. The fact that you can still operate in the world without losing your mind or getting yourself killed is a pretty conclusive refutation of Kant's take, regardless of your (in)ability to analyze what's happening when you're in that state.
>I don't have any friends. Instead I will argue on /sci/ to make up for the fact I'm too scared to say anything at my university tutorials
>>16911241>from the time OP made the OP post, he has sucked 3846 new different cocksYou mean clocks.
>>16911043I made two posts, I thought this thread would have been taken down by now, I am not the guy calling people mentally ill. Not surprised a 4chan thread devolved into this, just surprised it would happen here.
