Time

>Nope. One way only.
You obviously didn't understand what I said. There is no thing such as cause and effect. Things just exist. It is retarded to say cause and effect when you understand things just exist. People speak of paradoxes because they think of time as a line you can only walk in one direction, you can either go forwards or backwards, but it's not how it works. Time is really just space. When you reach relativistic speeds you're just moving along the 4th axis. We constantly are actually, but our normal speeds are so slow we don't perceive it. The Universe is an infinite grid of dimensions on top of each other, each dimension is time to its relative lower dimension, and there is an infinity of everything you can possibly imagine and you can't possibly imagine. It is a very hard concept for brainlets like you to imagine it, so don't be upset if you can't grasp it.

>There is no thing such as cause and effect.
Oh rly? Wow. I'm pretty drunk, but how fucking high do you have to believe that bullshit?

>I don't understand what you are saying
t. brainlet

It is a simple conclusion that even a child could arrive to. Let us assume cause and effect are true. One things comes from a previous thing, that comes from the previous thing, that comes from the previous thing... and you track the origin of things all the way to the beginning of everything. Where did the first single thing come from? What is it's cause? There are two possible answers:
1- Something has always existed.
2- It came from nothing.
Both answers destroy the idea of cause and effect. If something has always existed, then that something doesn't have a cause. And it can't have come from nothing, because otherwise it wouldn't be nothing and you'd end up with "something has always existed". What I find so beautiful about this is that you don't need any experiments or complicated math to reach this conclusion, all it takes is thinking.
So now that we know that cause and effect is bullshit and you are a brainlet for believing it, we can get to the more complicated part.
I'll go straight to the point and tell you that everything is basically a quantum computer that is constantly switching between 0 and 1. 0 being absolute non existence. No space, no time, no matter, energy, absolutely nothing, it's an unthinkable concept. 1 being absolutely everything. When I say everything, I do mean absolutely everything. There is an infinity of infinite infinities. Infinite dimensions that are built on top of each other. Just think. We represent dimensions with x^y, x being whatever the hell the thing is and y being the dimension. Example, square meters. Mathematically you can substitute x for any existing number and y for any existing number. So this infinite existence is true. And it is constantly switching between on and off practically if not effectively in a superposition state. In a way, the purpose of your life is to merely complement this endless existence. I could take more time to explain the concept better but you're drunk anyway.

quantum mechanics tells us that time doesn't exist.

No one thinks everything has a cause. Only contingently existing things have a cause. Necessary things have no cause, because they don't need causes.

This discussion is always much easier in real life because I can keep smacking you in the head till you acknowledge me smacking you inflicts pain.

you're super dumb, the people who take long winded, overly verbose paragraphs to state simple, wrong ideas are the worst

every integer x has a predecessor x-1, and there is no first number. does that destroy the idea of predecessor and successor?

Of course it does. It makes it impossible to determine which is the successor and which is the predecessor non-arbitrarily. This is solved with a first or last number.

Aquinas go to bed

How do you know which things are "necessary"?

>Necessary things have no cause, because they don't need causes.
Then where did they come from? We're they always there? If so, just how? Please realize how just stupid you are.
I'm 6'4 tall and have practiced martial arts since a young age. You'd get killed if you tried. And your stupid, unfortunate comment does not prove causality. As I already said, things just exist.
Your argument is self defeating. I said that everything is infinitely infinite, that things are not just limited to this Universe and absolutely anything you can imagine not only is possible but also exists. If you are using integers as an argument then you cant locate what caused the integers to exist, an integer does not exist because it was caused by and is the effect of another. Integers just exist and they are infinitely infinite like everything else.
Everything is necessary because it complements absolute existence (1) as opposed to non existence (0). Think about it. It's really a strange thing that the Universe exists. It shouldn't. So why should it exist the way it does? Why these particles? These constants? These measures? These people? It would make more sense if the Universe was either absolutely infinite or just nothing at all. And as it turns out, the Universe is infinite. Everything that exists exists. Imagine that every possible instant of this Universe with our models of Physicis is a cube. Spacetime is an infinite tesseract made of these cubes. And it gets better than that. There are infinite infinite tesseracts making up a five dimensional hypercube and then there is another dimension on top of it and it goes on forever. There are Universes exactly like this one the only difference being America is written with a k as Amerika. There are infinite Universes where stars take the shape and color of ponies and planets take the shape of dildos. All is constantly switching with non existence.

Grab a flashlight and shine it on the wall from very close. You now have a circle projected on the 2D wall.
Start moving the flashlight in the third dimension (i.e backwards) and you will start seeing that circle expanding, with every photon expanding away equally from one another (the light will become weaker as the result of those photons scattering).

Time (i.e progression of matter) in this Universe is the flashlight's movement backwards, while the matter is the light that is being projected on a 3D surface.

What you're asking is the equivalent of, "Do centimetres exist?"

Time isn't a dimension. There is no "Time". It's a measurement of motion against another motion.

When denying them is self-contradictory.
From a self-sufficient cause, you dingus. i.e. what is the argument from contingency.

>And as it turns out, the Universe is infinite. Everything that exists exists. Imagine that every possible instant of this Universe with our models of Physicis is a cube. Spacetime is an infinite tesseract made of these cubes. And it gets better than that. There are infinite infinite tesseracts making up a five dimensional hypercube and then there is another dimension on top of it and it goes on forever

Stoppu.

>hits blunt

>Everything is necessary because it complements absolute existence (1) as opposed to non existence (0). Think about it. It's really a strange thing that the Universe exists. It shouldn't. So why should it exist the way it does? Why these particles? These constants? These measures? These people? It would make more sense if the Universe was either absolutely infinite or just nothing at all. And as it turns out, the Universe is infinite. Everything that exists exists. Imagine that every possible instant of this Universe with our models of Physicis is a cube. Spacetime is an infinite tesseract made of these cubes. And it gets better than that. There are infinite infinite tesseracts making up a five dimensional hypercube and then there is another dimension on top of it and it goes on forever. There are Universes exactly like this one the only difference being America is written with a k as Amerika. There are infinite Universes where stars take the shape and color of ponies and planets take the shape of dildos. All is constantly switching with non existence.
Literally absolute nonsense
>it's a really strange thing the universe exists. It shouldn't
Why?

>it would make more sense if the universe was absolutely infinite or just nothing at all
Why? The only thing that's absolutely infinite is the depths of unqualified bullshit you can spout. I'm beginning to agree with
>
>you're super dumb, the people who take long winded, overly verbose paragraphs to state simple, wrong ideas are the worst

Everything I did was present an explanation of a model that is very similar to the Many Worlds interpretation and M theory except time as a dimension of space and with infinite dimensions and some other things. If you want to prove me wrong present a more consistent model that explains things.

>Time isn't a dimension. There is no "Time".

Lrn2generalrelativity

Your own common sense should be the proof.
The Universe being infinite is conjecture.

The very notion of existence itself is in finiteness.
An infinite reality is meaningless in both a physical sense and an emotional sense.

You don't need a cube or a tesseract to describe reality.

You best be jesting.

It's a dimension of space. You are an organism which has evolved to perceive one spatial dimension as "time" and the rest as space. Evolutionarily this would be quite helpful - an organism which could perceive space in this way would have advantages over organisms which were time blind, as perception of time in this manner allows for nervous systems to "pick"/"choose" more successful behavioral paths through space, for selection purposes. A floating rock in space has but one path through space. But an organism with a nervous system has multiple possible paths. "Time" facilitates this "choice". In fact there is no difference between space and time except what you perceive about them.

There is great confusion over what the universe expands with respect to. If there's no time, how is the rate of expansion measured?

Now it is believed that what we know as space and what we know as time, being the same thing, implies that neither is the objective interpretation of the thing from which they both are realized by our minds, leaving us as blind to the universe as a mathematician to an n-dimensional object.

The concept of "rate" itself, being based on a contrast between two dimensions of space means that spatial expansion is being measured with respect to space itself.

In fact, space just expands. That's it. It just expands. Where space expands, internal to the system, there's no "rate" except a relative rate (though it does appear to be positive - that is, space doesn't seem to be getting smaller but the opposite). The rate of expansion for you is not the same as the rate of expansion for somebody else, though it can be very, very close. Outside the system, rate is meaningless. The boundary expansion can only be calculated with respect to the internal expansion.

I was objecting to your claim that we must view the world as an infinite causal regress as one of two possible ways of viewing the world. You did not at all respond to me pointing out that a series of contingent beings, which everything in the universe is, eventually terminates (i.e. the argument from contingency).

Look at this stuff. Fucking Christ.
It's not a dimension of space, it's a measurement.
There's no evolutionary aspect of "time" embedded into humans, it's a sociological thing.

Existence expanding and contracting is just more conjecture.
The relativistic concept that two people/beings can observe a motion in two completely separate systems of reference is banal.

>does time exist?

Of course time exists, OP. just look at your watch. Is it moving? Then yes, obviously time exists.

But OP, never, ever let the battery run out or we're all fucked.

These guys get it.

Noooo it's just the watch moving you're confusing people with sarcasm reee.

Whatever you say brainlet. I won't waste my time explaining my model to you, I know it's right and I will be laughing my ass out when you have to accept it as the truth. Just don't forget of what I'm telling you. Time is a fourth dimension of space, the Universe is infinitely infinite just like numbers are infinite, "time" doesn't really exist, this Universe exists within an infinite grid of other Universes, this god having infinite dimensions, everything is constantly switching between nothingness and absolute existence all within a singular point that doesn't a occupy time or space. I could go on but in due time you'll see I'm right. Think of it like a scientist explaining Quantum Mechanics to a 19th century physicist.

*this grid having
Sorry typo.

I love how, when you are called out on your bullshit, you go into maximo autismo drive and don't answer anymore questions.

Pretty embarrassing.

does existing exist?

>Time is a fourth dimension of space that doesnt exist
>Also the Universe has grids or something
>Numbers are infinite

Wow!

Wow.
I'm sober now, and you seem even more retarded.
Maybe causality doesn't apply to the singularity?
Perhaps it breaks down under extreme conditions, but otherwise operates normally.
Hell, skip that; what if cause always leads to effect, but effect doesn't necessarily require cause?
That's starting to sound like everyday QM to me.

>every single instant of this Universe is frozen forever

There's a serious semantic problem with this sentence.
Fine, let's treat time like a fourth temporal dimension.
But "frozen forever"?
"Forever" means "at every point along the temporal axis".
So for anything to be "forever" it has to exist at every point along the temporal axis.
The moment the Wright brothers first flew? "Frozen forever"?
No, not "forever", that event only exists at one point along the temporal axis.

Ultimately, it's just a semantic issue, and yet...

Semantics is the current problem with science, namely physics.
People run on forever with conceptual mental models with equations and conjecture as the proof.

Time is an Archon.

Don't QM experiments which involve superposition and events that happen one after another tell us that time doesn't really matter and probably doesn't even exist?

What have I said that's wrong?

No.

That's because physics is an experimental science. It doesn't need rigorous mathematical proof if it agrees with experiment, because experiment is always right whether or not it conforms to formal definitions.

Now hold on there. Just because time isn't a necessary parameter in the system does not mean it doesn't exist.
Secondly, you can't be that general. In many cases in experiments involving quantum mechanics, time is absolutely essential. Time-reversal symmetry breaking happens all the time in condensed matter physics, which means time (it's direction and different time scales) is DEFINITELY an important parameter in the system.
Another example is radioactive decay. How do you explain the concept of half lives without time? How do you say "uranium has an average lifetime of about 10^3 times that of carbon" without having some concept of time?

Alright ya noobs, I'm settling this time travel hoax once and for all.

First and foremost: Time is an arbitrary notation created by man. If the whole concept were to die out, none of our (correct) maths would be any different. All you're giving meaning to is MOTION. Same with energy, there is no such thing, just different forms of motion. Kinetic energy is a pleonasm.

Now back to time. How the FUCK would you translate said arbitrary time notation to a machine somehow connected to space-"time"?
Pro tip: You can't.

>Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe.

Unless you manage to install a framework in the universe with a functional API it's not happening. Yes, mass and speed (same thing) slow down motion but that's it. You can slow down your RELATIVE MOTION as opposed to others but that's not time travel. There's no destination as defined by con-artists getting grant money for fake/stupid study and spend it on booze and cocaine (like my money).

Get over it. There's no such thing as fucking time travel. Niggers.

Also, time TRAVEL implies a destination. Beyond our high level, abstract communication method (which I'm not fond of either). Tell me, where exactly is next week? or last week? Break out the maths faggot, oh, you can't. Because even Einstein didn't predict destination-based time travel. And none of his maths allow for a stable "wormhole".

Checkmate muggles.

>so don't be upset if you can't grasp it.
my sides

This ...makes sense

How do you explain that superposition and observation of particles later in time influences particles in the past?

>implying one experiment completely invalidates a well-established physical concept such as time
>being this new to physics

I L L F O R M E D H Y P O T H E S I S

>a well-established physical concept such as time
Define time then. Can you even explain what it is?

>does it exist, Veeky Forums?
No. What's funny is that when you use time in physics equations, it can run backwards and forwards without any change.

Is time just an illusion produced by entropy?

If it doesnt exist, what are you measuring?

cant tell if trolling or brainling

the problem with this is your definition of nothing.

the big bang happened in a state of maximum entropy

Which isnt nothing in the sense that nothing is a total lack of anything in any aspect on any scale

it was a soup of disordered energy which didnt follow the same set of rules reality plays by anyways since for all intents and purposes it was before reality was reality.

Why should all things for all time be bound by the rules of the universe as we understand them intuitively?

How can you have a continuous sequence of understandable events when some of those events happened before anything that could even be called empty space existed?

or before time existed, as paradoxical as that sounds.

reality is inherently symmetrical, How does that mean time doesnt exist?

a measure of the rate of progression of events

It might as well not exist if it can't be altered or manipulated.

but user, time doesnt pass at the same rate everywhere in the universe.

in fact you can make time pass differently for yourself if you charge yourself up with enough energy

Of course, but you won't be satisfied with the definition because you want a philosophical answer rather than a physics answer.
The definition is the same for all physical quantities in a system. Mass, length, and time are all like this. They appear as parameters in equations. Mass is the quantity which causes objects to resist changes to acceleration, length is the physical separation between objects and/or events, and time is the relationship between two events.

Tell me, how does one arrive at the equation for electrostatic force between charges, F=kq1q2/r^2? You have to form and experiment. You place two charges of some known charge q at some DISTANCE r away from each other. Then you track the movement of each particle by measuring the amount of DISTANCE it covers in a certain TIME to get the acceleration, which then gives the force.
Physics is experimental and most experiments cannot be done with a notion of time. If you can find a way to experimentally measure the force described above without using time, please share.

Without* a notion of time

movement.

You guys should seriously read some philosophy. Start with Aristotle's Physics.

No. It's just a meme.

>philosophy
you mean drug addicts saying the first shit that comes to their mind? no thanks jaden smith, I'll take words from people who actually investigate and base their theories on actual facts

are you bullshitting or can i read about this

philosophy gave birth to physics and science itself depends on philosophical postulations.

>actual facts

kek. I mean real philosophy. Try to read Aristotle Physics, he speaks about time, analyzing it based on his observations. Real facts, yea.

Nothing exists but fundamental particles

In your mind it does. But all existence, never happened outside of time. It was less than an instant. It was void. The void of course being all counteracting forces in existence balancing each other out to a return value of zero.

Not at all.
I recommend everyone in this thread drop a shit ton of acid and see if the answer to this question is more apparent

obfuscate loquaciousness

>drop a shit ton of acid
... and fry 100k brain cells. that will surely make us smarter!