Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lordbruwin t1_j10nqrg wrote

Reply to comment by illuminatecho in What if time travel is impossible because of this? by [deleted]

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.

0

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.

1

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.

1

illuminatecho t1_j10qvdw wrote

How can they be at all the same if one is the result of another. Lolol

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1