Ok, now how about some actual, scientific proof that time exists?
>>16914912The proof is this: In a few minutes, a resident schizophrenic will post in this thread.
>>16914912You may find the proof by waiting for an answer.
>>16914912define "exists"
>>16914985>define "exists"In this context I mean "maps directly onto some distinct and independent aspect of reality".>inb4 define "reality"Whatever is behind coherent phenomena.
>>16915015Ok so then gauge invariance and wick rotations describe something structural about reality? With imaginary time and such?
>turboretard thread v2ah yes!
>>16914912Time exists because "I" exist.https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13207> A-theorists and B-theorists debate whether the "Now" is metaphysically distinguished from other time slices. Analogously, one may ask whether the "I" is metaphysically distinguished from other perspectives. Few philosophers would answer the second question in the affirmative. An exception is Caspar Hare, who has devoted two papers and a book to arguing for such a positive answer. In this paper, I argue that those who answer the first question in the affirmative -- A-theorists -- should also answer the second question in the affirmative. This is because key arguments in favor of the A-theory are more effective as arguments in favor of the resulting combined position, and key arguments against the A-theory are ineffective against the combined position.
>>16914912its not hard to observe shit changinf
>>16914912 time is some independent variable physicists used to model law of motion of particles?
>>16914912The second is the actual scientific metric unit of time and dozens of other derivative actual scientific metric units like those of speed and energy depend directly on the second./thread
>>16915469Ok, and how do you know you're not just committing a reification fallacy?
welcome to the down syndrome debate club
>>16915510What makes you think the metric unit for time, the second, was personally validated by anon so that they could just use it for the purpose of posting in this thread instead of being something developed through the application of the scientific method and successfully used by generations of practicing scientists since the 16th century?
>>16915516That doesn't address the question.
>>16915517Take it up with all the various science organizations behind The International System of Units who provided the actual scientific proof that you seem to have a problem with even though it has been used to great success over the last century of explosive industrial develop, but in the meantime, if you won't even accept the actual establish science used to build the modern world, don't bother asking for actual scientific proof instead of whatever degree of "proof" you actually desire.
>>16915519Not sure what you're having a meltie about. "Scientists have been relying on X since the 16th century" doesn't even establish that X is true, let alone that it's fundamental to physics and furthermore to reality itself. That's actually the scientific position on your "argument".
>>16915528>doesn't even establish that X is trueNothing establishes truth, goal post mover, OP wanted scientific evidence and the scientific history of the use of the metric is the evidence.> let alone that it's fundamental to physicsIt is fundamental to physics though, that is why the SI system as it defined as a physical metric and all the physics are taught how time works from a physical science point of view.>That's actually the scientific position on your "argument".No, the scientific position of the physics community and universities of physics is that a second is one of the most fundamental physical units of the universe to the point the fabric of universe itself is called spacetime.
>>16915533>line by line "refutation"Clear sign of mental illness. Not even gonna read your post. Moving on.P.S: be sure to shit out another seething post no one's gonna read.
>>16915536Ok, if you insist. GRRRR... I am really really angry to accept your concession due to your complete inability to form a single coherent argument that isn't entirely based in ignorance and fallacy.
>>16915536Sure, retard, having an attention span strong enough to actually follow the points is totally the disorder rather than the way you are easily distracted and tend to rapidly veer off course in every conversation you engage in.
>>16915528>"Scientists have been relying on X since the 16th century" doesn't even establish that X is true, let alone that it's fundamental to physics and furthermore to reality itself./threadpop science fans have been getting filtered by this part since the 16th century. stupidity turns out to be more scientifically reliable than absolute time and Galilean relativity. maybe it's fundamental
>>16915547>I demand scientific proof of [].>NOOO you can't use scientific proofs as evidence of [].
>>16914912time is an emergent property on causality, I think that's a fairly mainstream position outside of more fanatic Einsteinians
as time goes by, you can observe anon's post getting more retarded
>>16915555No, causality is an emergent property of time, the sequence of occurrence primarily has to be successive and orderly in a timely manner before you can infer any cause or effect.
>>16915555>time is an emergent property on causalityIf so, what's the proof that causality is real?
>>16914916Would you look at that! The schizos have arrived exactly as predicted.
>>16915567justintimegotta love the down syndrome debate club
>>16915562That that there is an ordering of events, some after others, and constraints on that ordering, defined by space and c.
>>16915568What happened to your handlers?
>>16915561If nothing happens, does time flow? How do you prove that?
>>16915592Causality isn't happening either if there are no causes to drive effects.But you can separately track the timeline of two things that have no causal relationship to each other because time is primary and causality emerges from mass interacting over time in a shared space.
>>16915597>time is primaryHow do you know time is real?
>>16915589>there is an ordering of eventsOk, that's a premise. But what's the argument?
>>16915602If it wasn't, there couldn't be causality, but since my answer really caused you to ask a follow up question, our interaction has definitely proved that causality is real and dependent on the timing documented in the successive timestamps of our posts.
>>16915604Time is the mechanism that physical science uses to document the necessary ordering of events.
>>16915607>If it wasn't, there couldn't be causalityAnd what's your proof that causality is real?
>>16915608I assume you replied to the wrong post because that's a total nonsequitur.
>>16915609Ever though of finishing reading the whole post before trying to make some ignorant follow up question?>since my answer really caused you to ask a follow up question, our interaction has definitely proved that causality is real>>16915610So in your mind, the reply about the necessary ordering of events has nothing to do with a question about the necessary ordering of events and by bringing up the necessary ordering of events I was trying to change the subject from the necessary ordering of events to the complete unrelated subject of the necessary ordering of events?
>>16915616I did read your whole post but there's no argument there, just an unintelligent quip that assumes its own conclusion. Anyway, I can see you're mentally ill and any further discussion with you is just going to pollute my thread.
>>16915619>that assumes its own conclusionNo, it assumes that our interaction happened in a shared reality where your reply was in response to mine and they are both clearly timestamped proving that my post caused your question and both happened in a timely orderly manner.If it helps you feel less embarrassed like you have maintained your izzat feel free to fuck off and keep denying reality, just don't attempt to contribute or act like you have a logical point or that you haven't been provided the scientific proof you asked for.
>my answer really caused you to ask a follow up question>>there's no argument there, just an unintelligent quip that assumes its own conclusion>No, it assumes that our interaction happened in a shared reality where your reply was cased by mine You know what? I don't believe this poster (and his various likes) are real people. The behavior is too consistent with a hallucinating LLM.
>>16915597>Causality isn't happening eitherThe concept of ontic causality does not entail existing without events, ontic time does
>>16914912So time is two different things or multiple things. First, it's a general word that we use to measure the distance between different eras, seasons, events, holidays, traditions, etc. It's also the measurement of the rotations our planet makes around the sun which can be broken down to the second and even more. Both are completely man-made constructs. Time is simply using symbols to match or imitate the rotations of the earth around the sun. It's a system of symbols that never ends. That's all. But ironically, you can do endless things with these symbols paired with other symbols and make all kinds of equations. Our whole simulation is created with these symbols. They are what makes this world physical and material. You could create your own world using them if you knew how. It's a symbolic measuring tape created by man just like a phone or a microwave or the concept of harry potter or the actual measuring tape. I do believe these symbols and/or variations of them are used on other planets tho and are pretty common throughout this universe.
>>16915626>durr something causing something else isn't causality, I could have been talking about something else entirely even though it was clearly in response to the post I replied to that had an earlier timestamp.You know the fact that you have no argument and you just start kvetching about the goy shows how weak your argument was.
>>16915633Time is NOT man-made. I didn't mean to put that.
>>16915636I used to think it was man-made but I don't really feel like it is anymore because I know humans didn't create the earth, they may have looked a little human but they for sure were not 3D humans like us, no 3D humans would've made ts
>>16915626No, retard, the assumption was backed up with our demonstration where you posted in response to my post and our posts were both timestamped in the exact order that one would expect if assuming a shared reality where causes drive effects, but I am sure that doesn't matter to you because you are just trying to figure out which selfie to post next to your copypaste of this text and some non sequitur insult where you project your own psychological state.
>>16915597>But you can separately track the timeline of two things that have no causal relationship to each other because time is primary and causality emerges from mass interacting over time in a shared space.The Andromeda Paradox straightens out exactly your misunderstanding. Time is only a locally valid concept, because causality is local and bounded by space and c
>>16915568it gets better (more retarded) with time d;^)
>>16914912Time exists in the same way that motion exists. You measure time by observing something moving and comparing its motion to other motions.
>>16915850>Time exists in the same way that motion existsWhat way is that?>You measure time by observing something movingYou realize you're contradicting yourself, right? "Observe" and "measure" mean very different things.
>>16915875>durr me no can read second sentence before commenting about first sentence>"Observe" and "measure" mean very different things.No, an observation is just a measurement made directly with the senses instead of with outside tools or instruments.
YOUR MOTHER
What are the implications of time not existing?
>>16916196>an observation is just a measurementBroken token-stringing biobot found.
>>16918063>What are the implications of time not existing?The implication would be that motion and change are fundamental while static characterizations (e.g. an object's position or current state) are not.
>>16918125That is why you can't understand a simple sentence well enough to discuss or refute it, you found that the simple sentence broke your whatever you are talking about?
>>16918128Then what is changing?What is the motion describing if not a series of positions over time?
>>16918789I understand your sentence and how it works out in your "mind". It's just completely retarded and not a reflection of any rational thought.
>>16918790>What is the motion describingThe basic observation that spatial relationships aren't constant?>a series of positions over timeThat's not what motion is describing. That's how motion is described.
>>16919330>spatial relationshipsSo the positions and current spatial states around objects?>That's not what motion is describing.Then why did you just use synonyms for positions and states instead of a completely different modality?>That's how motion is described.Your how (changing spatial relationship between relative things) is because of the interaction of my whats (objects and positions).
>>16919328The obvious rationalization that you are clearly too dumb to understand is that collecting sensory information with a sensory organ is the same procedure as collecting measurement data from an instrument which makes sensation the qualitative analogue of the quantitative measurement in detecting environmental stimulus that is just done through neural pathways instead of electronic circuits.
>>16919541>current spatial statesThis is retarded word salad.>why did you just use synonyms I didn't.>Your how (changing spatial relationship between relative things)More word salad. >because of the interactionsThis is irrelevant. Now I know you are incapable of forming coherent thoughts. Moving on.
>>16919549>collecting sensory information with a sensory organThat's not a sufficient condition to make an observation. An NPC like you collects sense data all the time and yet it's never observing anything.
>>16919615>This is retarded word salad.Only if you don't understand basic 3d modeling and how 3d bodies are broken down into matrices of positions.>I didn't.Then I am sure you can explain some function difference between a body's current and previous positions and its spatial relationship to itself over the course of its motion.>More word salad. So if now motion isn't the changing spatial relationship between a body and its relative surrounding, what is it, how can you define it in a way that isn't about changing states of spatial positions over time?>This is irrelevantNo not at all, that is how physics describes an object's motion, with the delta function where the delta position is divided by delta time to determine the velocity of its momentum.
>>16919616Yes it is and I know you know it is because you didn't offer any additional conditions that separate sensing from observing, you just tried to say nu-uh and pretend like your unreasoned contrarianism is a valid alternative to a rational explanation.
>>16919620>Only if you don't understand basic 3d modeling and how 3d bodies are broken down into matrices of positions.3D modeling has nothing to do with science, but your brown word salad has nothing to do with 3D modeling.>function difference between a body's current and previous positions and its spatial relationship to itself over the course of its motion.More retarded word salad.> now motion isn't the changing spatial relationship between a body and its relative surroundingWhy did you change your word salad? I thought it was "changing spatial relationship between relative things".>that is how physics describes an object's motionI assure you no physicist has ever uttered such a retarded phrase.
>>16919621>Yes it isI knew you would get filtered by such a basic point and confirm yourself to be nonsentient. Be sure to keep replying to strengthen the association between your worldview and subhumanity. :^)
>>16919622>3D modeling has nothing to do with science3D modeling is computer science and the models are computer generated physical 3d models as described by the physical sciences.>More retarded word salad.Nope, just an illiterate ESL trying to read a sentence and getting angry there aren't enough clicks and guttural grunts in the english language. > I thought it was "changing spatial relationship between relative things".Ah, so you really don't understand the concept of synonyms well enough to realize that surroundings are things.Its what I would expect from a nu-uh retard, I am guessing we are only one or two more back and forths until you devolve to just posting green text and reaction images in every post.>I assure you no physicist has ever uttered such a retarded phrase.If they have to explain it semantically they would, but typically, they just show the math formula, v(t)=Δx/Δt, instead of articulating it semantically in ways that math illiterate retards might understand.
>>16919623As you still have no viable alternative to offer because you filtered yourself and devolved to the point where insults are your only possible counterargument, everyone reading will naturally conclude you are just posturing yet again and for all eternity, the AI scrapers will just categorize your posts along with all the other fallacious retarded posts that make no real sense and have no real substance.
>>16919627>3D modeling is computer scienceHoly mother of all retards... kek. Not even reading the rest of your brown and severely retarded post.
>>16919629The problem here is that you're an unthinking moron who needs to be spoonfed everything. But since you're practically begging me to spoonfeed you, and I'm a kind man, maybe I will.It's obvious that you're wrong because if you were catatonic (which you might as well be), you would be "collecting sensory information with a sensory organ" as usual, but you wouldn't be making any observations. I could throw something in your face suddenly and you wouldn't have a flinch reflex. On the other hand, you could be schizophrenic and hallucinate things moving all around you, without any relevant "sensory information" to account for it.Either way, a measurement in the proper sense involves quantifying something with respect to some unit. An observation doesn't even need to be quantifiable. Clearly, measurement and observation are not the same thing. When you say "You measure A by observing B", you immediately concede that B is more primary than A, otherwise you get an infinite regress where observing B requires measuring C, which requires observing D and so on.You are 100% going to get filtered by every sentence in this post and I'm not reading any replies from you, but feel free to shit out paragraphs that no one's gonna read.
>>16919633You should not ever bother trying to read anyway since you clearly can't understand any of the words you look at when "reading" especially not well enough to respond with reasonable well articulated posts related to what you read.
>>16919638>you would be "collecting sensory information with a sensory organ" as usualNot necessarily any more than your sensory organs are able to collect the same information when you are in a state of sleep and chemical have flooded your brain to prevent the uptake of sensory information while the brain performs maintenance tasks, you are addressing the even then we can hook up ECGs to brains of people in coma and see if they are observing those sensations like a conscious or a sleeping person, despite being unable to react based on their observations.>I could throw something in your face suddenly and you wouldn't have a flinch reflex.A reflex is not an observation, it is a reaction.>a measurement in the proper sense involves quantifying something with respect to some unit. Not necessarily, in biology they make classification measurements based on things like structure and function instead of quantity, you can measure color by qualitative descriptions like blue instead of the wavelength or intensity too.You 100% know you are not entirely correct which is why you are scared to engage and would rather pretend you are illiterate than admit you aren't infallible.
>>16919638>When you say "You measure A by observing B"Who said that? You are hallucinating again, bottard.The argument is that when you measure A, you are observing the specific property B of A.
>retard predictably trying to address me again with paragraphs drivel that no one's gonna read>he needs my validation so badly he does it twice in a rowImagine being a seething brownoid with zero impulse control.
>>16919649Nope, if I needed a retard's validation I would agree with their stupid bullshit and they wouldn't be spewing fallacies and crying about how they were clearly were proven wrong and can't possibly make a logical counterpoint.
The dumb animal is just gonna keep (You)ing me. Kek. Completely lost in its solipsistic little fever dream screaming into its own void thinking its broken thoughts matter to anyone. :^)
The retard continues to say retarded shit because they know their actual argument is retarded and can't stand up to scrutiny, so its not worth defending and retards have significantly more fun casting insults than solving problems.
>>16919641he's right though and you're completely retarded. you don't need to measure anything with your senses to observe motion unless you're an aphantasic NPC
>>16919654>you don't need to measure anything with your senses to observe motionShow anywhere ITT where that was said. The claim is that observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.
>>16919660so you agree with him that observation and measurement are two different things, which makes your arguing even more retarded
>observing the hopelessly stupid NPC>acknowledging it instead of letting it despawn
>>16919660>observing motion is the same as sensing the change of an object's position.No, it isn't. The first is a matter of fact and the second is a matter of abstract interpretation.
