Submitted by [deleted] t3_zqsnbt in Futurology
GenericHam t1_j0zobn5 wrote
Reply to comment by Few-Swordfish-780 in What if time travel is impossible because of this? by [deleted]
I worked with a physic PhD once. He said "Time is just how we measure change"
illuminatecho t1_j0zpaz7 wrote
Bingo. Time is something we perceive in order to define change. You cannot travel back in time because there is nothing to travel back to.
lordbruwin t1_j0zst3p wrote
I have always preferred “causality” but it is essentially the same.
illuminatecho t1_j0ztkbr wrote
Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states. Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.
lordbruwin t1_j0zu5rm wrote
>Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states.
Not exactly sure what you mean by this.
>Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.
I disagree. I think change is simply a less precise way to sum up causality. Things “change” over time because from t1 to t2 a force caused a change in state. The progression of time is “required” for forces to act on things.
illuminatecho t1_j0zwl5g wrote
I just mean that, when you apply a force to an object, you can know what the effect will be without applying the measurement of time. It's only with the metric of time that you can define the entire process of change.
You would know that heat + ice will work out to water. The application of time tells you at what point the ice will be 1/4 melted, 1/2 melted, entirely melted.
lordbruwin t1_j0zx80w wrote
I don’t think that differentiates those things like you think it does. That “critique,” in so far as it actually has any validity, applies to the two words equally. The problem with change is that locally things aren’t always changing.
illuminatecho t1_j0zy9i7 wrote
>The problem with change is that locally things aren't always changing
Until absolute zero is reached, change is constantly taking place
lordbruwin t1_j10kmwj wrote
>locally
No it isn’t.
illuminatecho t1_j10mjip wrote
Lol macroscopically?
lordbruwin t1_j10nqrg wrote
Lol what?
Look you are missing the point. Change is just a clumsy way to describe something because it depends too much on reference frames and is a less precise way to describe the fact that time is just the measure of causality. “Change” is the result of causality. When you just say “change” you are missing the fundamental driver of change which is the interaction of forces that cause things to change. The speed of causality (time) is affected by the frame of reference and forces themselves.
illuminatecho t1_j10ow9h wrote
Our disagreement was on your statement that "change" and "causality" are "essentially the same". Am I crazy or are you literally saying that they are entirely not the same?
>"Change" is the result of causality.
lordbruwin t1_j10q6ft wrote
I wouldn’t use the word “crazy” but I’d assert this is a reading comprehension issue on your end. They are “essentially” the same. They are not the same. I have explained why. Change is a less precise term.
illuminatecho t1_j10qvdw wrote
How can they be at all the same if one is the result of another. Lolol
lordbruwin t1_j10rkxd wrote
Lolol can you really not see how one can be an umbrella term that describes the effects from our pov while the other is the underlying mechanism? Come on buddy, stop pretending it’s that hard to parse.
illuminatecho t1_j10sd6f wrote
Change doesn't describe the effects though friend. "Change" is quite abstract. Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.
lordbruwin t1_j10sp66 wrote
It does though friend. It describes the consequence of the laws of physics in action.
>"Change" is quite abstract.
That has literally been my point lmfao.
>Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.
Nonsense.
olbettyboop t1_j10euhh wrote
Lol what the fuck is this take
lordbruwin t1_j10klcm wrote
Lol the correct one. Seriously you must not have much actual exposure to modern physics.
olbettyboop t1_j114sq4 wrote
lordbruwin t1_j1151e5 wrote
It’s adorable that you think this makes what I said incorrect.
In fact, please direct yourself to the subheadings about “the causal arrow of time”
olbettyboop t1_j12z5ft wrote
I’m not saying your pedantic causality argument is wrong. I’m saying your statement about “locally, things aren’t always changing”. Which is not true, and actually runs counter to your causality argument.
Things are in a constant state of flux. Please show and provide sources on how there is no change and please define what is “locally” in regards to there being no change.
Also, it’s interesting that you call it adorable. Weird thing to say.
lordbruwin t1_j12ze3b wrote
The irony of calling me pedantic after this bad faith interpretation of my point. You are not a serious person.
olbettyboop t1_j12zjw3 wrote
Nice sources, bum.
lordbruwin t1_j12zp4j wrote
Locally is a frame of reference. You need a source for basic physics you clown?
olbettyboop t1_j130v7p wrote
Yes, please provide a source on locally and what it means in the context you provided.
Also, again, please provide a source on your claim that things actually don’t change locally.
lordbruwin t1_j131l0n wrote
I’m not going to sit here and explain basic physics to you. Learn it or don’t, I don’t care. Some basic reading comprehension would help too. Just know that you are embarrassing yourself.
olbettyboop t1_j132mqr wrote
Got it. No sources or even any attempt to explain. Have a good rest of the year and take care.
lordbruwin t1_j148kb8 wrote
Lol. Yeah you caught me, I didn’t bother to link you to the frame of reference wiki page nor do I have any intention of teaching you basic physics.
[deleted] OP t1_j14nd8x wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments