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.

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

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.

Lol macroscopically?

>The problem with change is that locally things aren't always changing

Until absolute zero is reached, change is constantly taking place

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.

Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states. Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.

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.