Whoever gets the last post wins!

[Piotr]

M-theories, strings and the likes are just mathematical toys, they do not describe any part of reality that we know of.

Which Einstein's equations? I believe you are mistaken.

My notion of time forbids time travel and therefore describes reality accurately.

[Splicer]

M-theories, strings and the likes are just mathematical toys, they do not describe any part of reality that we know of.

Which Einstein's equations? I believe you are mistaken.

My notion of time forbids time travel and therefore describes reality accurately.

True. These constructs are an attempt to understand the world at it's largest and smallest scales. It is difficult to find direct evidence.

I was mistaken; Einstein did not come up with the idea, Minowski applied time as a fourth dimension to Einstein's equations and came up with correct answers. We can therefore say that it been theorised that time as a fourth dimension is a possible model of the universe.

To clarify your last point, do you mean the fact that time travel is impossible in your model makes it the correct one? In which direction? Time travel to the future is possible through relativity, to the past is a very different question.

[LinkCelestrial]

These things exists as illusions created by the neural network which is your brain. They do not exists objectively in our shared reality. There is no time.

Nothing exists. What your eyes see is an illusion caused by your brain's interpretation of the signals it receives from your eyes.

Yes, that's technically a straw man. But the point is still valid.

Just because you can control pain does not make it any less real, and I doubt that notion would help somebody getting tortured.

Not allowing time travel is not a valid reason to justify your rejection of time. The current model that I live in doesn't allow it either. You've been using subjective arguments about perception, which I find unconvincing.

[Apathy Reactor]

Landing rockets on boats is more interesting.

[MarduArrow]

Fun

[Piotr]

No, travel to the future is impossible the same way as it is not possible to travel to the past. Neither of these exists in reality, future is not decided and past is no more.

What general relativity describes and explains, is the fact that order of things affects remote observers in what they perceive as their time.

When small enough change separates these objects, their time perception is very similar, but never the same. Time is just the perception of us in changing reality.

[Piotr]

It has been proven by reliable math that if free will exists, nothing else does.

[Piotr]

Did you fix the bed?

[Rass]

Did you fix the bed?

I would wait for her version.

[LinkCelestrial]

This all stems from a Schrödinger's Cat way of thinking that I am strongly opposed to.

Let's say that the cat died. Whether or not you know it is irrelevant. The universe doesn't hit some sort of pause button and wait for you to open the box. That is a foolish way of thinking built simply on the fact that you can't prove it wrong, and proof by lack of evidence is a fallacy.

"When small enough change separates these objects, their time perception is similar, but not the same."

So time is relative, as we already know. Just because it can be perceived differently doesn't make it non-existent.

Besides, where is the practicality in your idea? Time doesn't exists, it's our perception of the order in which change happens. That doesn't free us from the constraints of time. It's just a different way of looking at it.

[Piotr]

Lets us free our focus from impossible tasks such as travel to the future or to the past.

[Splicer]

This all stems from a Schrödinger's Cat way of thinking that I am strongly opposed to.

Let's say that the cat died. Whether or not you know it is irrelevant. The universe doesn't hit some sort of pause button and wait for you to open the box. That is a foolish way of thinking built simply on the fact that you can't prove it wrong, and proof by lack of evidence is a fallacy.

"When small enough change separates these objects, their time perception is similar, but not the same."

So time is relative, as we already know. Just because it can be perceived differently doesn't make it non-existent.

Besides, where is the practicality in your idea? Time doesn't exists, it's our perception of the order in which change happens. That doesn't free us from the constraints of time. It's just a different way of looking at it.

Schrödinger's cat and the Copenhagen school are similar, with one major exception: the cat was a thought experiment that proved nothing except that quantum theory and the Heisenberg principle make no sense at the macroscopic level(and they shouldn't).

I don't think time is non-existent(not sure if that's Piotr's argument). Whether it's a seperate dimension, a rule of this universe, or an entirely human construct based on the order of progression, it still exists. Just because something is in your head doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Otherwise memories would be an issue.

This is a philosophical conversation. Who said anything about practicality?

[LinkCelestrial]

Lets us free our focus from impossible tasks such as travel to the future or to the past.

I don't believe in time travel either.

Splicer: Philosphical conversation is great, but I was making a point about how even if time does not exist it still applies to us.

[Splicer]

Lets us free our focus from impossible tasks such as travel to the future or to the past.

I don't believe in time travel either.

Splicer: Philosphical conversation is great, but I was making a point about how even if time does not exist it still applies to us.

I know. My point was that time exists regardless.

[LinkCelestrial]

Papa Roach retweeted my cover of Gravity o.0 I have no words. Absolutely none.

Serious‽