Elvis Sibilia's Philochrony theory of everything

Asexperia said:
That's a summary that I've said so far.
Click to expand...
You post a summary about every dozen posts.

When are you going to actually develop anything you say? So far, it's all beem pseudo-science word salad rhetoric.

I made a "philochrony generator" a while ago that spit out pithy sentences that look a lot like yours, none of which are backed up by logic or maths or anything. How do the things you claim hold any more water than the output of my Philochronizer? Serious question.
 
Asexperia said:
2- Does time exist?
Yes, time exists because it is a measurable quantity and affects all of reality.
3- Can we perceive time?
No, we only perceive changes or becoming. The intervals are subperceptible.
Click to expand...

2 and 3 contradict each other. If we only perceive change, then how is anything but change a measurable quantity? We measure change, not time. Time is an abstraction of measurements of relative rates of change.
 
TheVat said:
2 and 3 contradict each other. If we only perceive change, then how is anything but change a measurable quantity? We measure change, not time. Time is an abstraction of measurements of relative rates of change.
Click to expand...

There is no such contradiction. We measure intervals. As change I refer to phenomena. Time or intervals is the distance between two moments in the becoming (changes). Time is not an abstraction, it is magnitive, that is, objective, subperceptible and measurable.
 
Is time a fundamental or emergent property of the universe ?

Time, as Philochrony conceives it, cannot be a fundamental property. Therefore, it is an emergent property. Before we go any further, let's look at some examples of emergent property. A drop of water does not have a tide, but many drops of water forming a sea do have a tide. Tide is an emerging property.

Another example is ants. A single ant does not perform a task, but in a group of ants there are different functions that make up a society.

Another emergent property is life, and with a fundamental property, molecules with carbon.

A fourth example is mind. A single neuron does not generate the mind (intelligence and consciousness). These clump together to form tissues and various tissues make up the brain. From the brain emerges the mind.

Returning to time, a single moment that is like a point without dimension has no time, but in a succession of moments (becoming) a dimension is generated and time emerges.
 
Last edited:
Asexperia said:
Just as matter manifests itself in three states: solid, liquid, and gaseous
Click to expand...
Nope, you forgot plasma.
The jury is out on things like "time" and "life" those things will be illuminated by physics and biology not thought experiments by philosophers.
 
Natural time vs abstract time

With the development of Mathematics, abstract time arises. According to the equations, time flows from the past to the future and from the future to the past. For equations it is the same that time is irreversible.
But natural time only flows in one direction: from the past to the future. This is the law of the arrow of time. The arrow of time is the law itself. Entropy is a law of Thermodynamics, and is an application of the law of the arrow of time.
The events of reality are governed by the law of the time arrow. for example, the life of animals develops from birth to death. An egg that falls to the ground breaks and does not come back up and put itself back together. A song develops from the beginning to the end. Etc etc. etc
Let's remember the definition of time given by Philochrony: time is the periodic evolution that we use to measure the duration of things and determine when events occur. While duration is the continuous succession of irreversible changes that go from the past (before) to the future (after) passing through the present.
 
Last edited:
Asexperia said:
With the development of Mathematics, abstract time arises.
Click to expand...
As opposed to what other kind of time?
According to the equations, time flows from the past to the future and from the future to the past.
Click to expand...
No. That's actually the thing. The equations don't describe time as flowing anywhere.
For equations it is the same that time is irreversible.
Click to expand...
No. Hence we have the idea of time reversal symmetry in physics.
But natural time only flows in one direction: from the past to the future.
Click to expand...
What is "natural time"? The time we experience? Hawking called that "psychological time".
This is the law of the arrow of time. The arrow of time is the law itself.
Click to expand...
That's circular and therefore useless. The law describes time, but time is the law, which the law describes, but the law is time and time is the law. Word salad.
Entropy is a law of Thermodynamics, and is an application of the law of the arrow of time.
Click to expand...
Hawking, in A brief history of time, described several arrows of time. Two of those were what he called the thermodynamic arrow and the psychological arrow.

You have the causation backwards. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not an "application" of the arrow of time. Hawking said, on the contrary, that the 2nd law is what establishes the direction of the thermodynamic arrow of time.
The events of reality are governed by the law of the time arrow.
Click to expand...
You mean, the order of events. But the arrows don't really "govern" the order. They just describe the direction in which events are observed to happen: from "past" to "future".
Let's remember the definition of time given by Philochrony: time is the periodic evolution that we use to measure the duration of things and determine when events occur.
Click to expand...
An empty, useless definition, like all the rest of "philochrony". This is pseudoscience writ large.
While duration is the continuous succession of irreversible changes that go from the past (before) to the future (after) passing through the present.
Click to expand...
You're begging the question by assuming that the changes are irreversible, without doing anything to establish them as such.
 
James R said:
As Asexperia said: ↑
1- With the development of Mathematics, abstract time arises.
Unlike what other kind of time?

Asexperia: of real time, natural

2- According to the equations, time flows from the past to the future and from the future to the past.
That's actually the question. The equations do not describe time as something that flows anywhere.

Asexperia: Even worse. Time in equations is a dead thing.

3- For the equations it is the same that time is irreversible.
No. Hence we have the idea of time reversal symmetry in physics.
Asexperia: But if it doesn't flow, asymmetry is no use.

4- But natural time only flows in one direction: from the past to the future.
What is "natural time"? The time we live? Hawking called this "psychological time."
Asexperia: Both abstract time and psychological time are merely subjective.
Natural time is the time of reality.

5- This is the law of the arrow of time. The arrow of time is the law itself.
That is circular and therefore useless. The law describes the time, but the time is the law, which the law describes, but the law is the time and the time is the law. Word salad.
Asexperia: The arrow is the direction in which time flows. You created the salad because you doesn't have argument.

6- Entropy is a law of thermodynamics, and is an application of the law of the arrow of time.
Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, described several arrows of time. Two of them were what he called the thermodynamic arrow and the psychological arrow.
Asexperia: The thermodynamic arrow is objective and the psychological arrow is subjective.
You have causality backwards. The second law of thermodynamics is not an "application" of the arrow of time. Hawking said, on the contrary, that the 2nd law is what establishes the direction of the thermodynamic arrow of time.
Asexperia: It is the same as what I propose.

7- Let's remember the definition of time given by Filocronía: time is the periodic evolution that we use to measure the duration of things and determine when events occur.
An empty and useless definition, like all the rest of the "philochrony". This is full-fledged pseudoscience.
Asexperia: No, Philochrony is a science not understood by some.

8- While duration is the continuous succession of irreversible changes that go from the past (before) to the future (after) passing through the present.
You are asking the question by assuming that the changes are irreversible, without doing anything to establish them as such.
Asexperia: I gave several examples of irreversible changes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No, Philochrony is a science not understood by some.
Click to expand...
A science makes testable predictions and is falsifiable. Philochrony has neither of those features, as far as I can tell.
 
Asexperia said:
Enlighten me, what's a science that makes testable predictions and is falsifiable?
Click to expand...
I'll give you an example from the laws of thermodynamics. The Second Law of thermodynamics says that heat will flow spontaneously from one system to another when they are placed in contact, and that the heat flow is always from the hotter object to the colder object, and that the heat flow continues until the two objects reach the same temperature.

Here's a test: heat up a rod of iron in a blast furnace or forge. Then, dunk the iron rod into a bucket filled with cold water. The prediction from the second law of thermodynamics is that the iron rod will cool down and the water in the bucket will heat up (due to the heat transfer between the rod and the water), until eventually the rod and the water are both at the same temperature.

This is a testable prediction since we can use thermometers to measure the temperatures of the rod and the water continuously, before and after the rod is placed in contact with the water.

The second law would be falsified if this experiment showed that the rod's temperature increased after it was placed in the cold water, or if the cold water got colder after the rod was placed in it, or if no heat exchange occurred and both the rod and the water stayed at their original temperatures.

So, you can see that the second law makes a simple, testable prediction and that the law could, in principle, be falsified in several different ways.

Does that help?
 
James R said:
Does that help?
Click to expand...
Being that this it is now 4 years and 437 posts of the same silliness expressed about 400 different times, I'm gonna say no.

What Asexperia does not know about science would take ten years of elementary school to undo.
 
James R said:
I'll give you an example from the laws of thermodynamics. The Second Law of thermodynamics says that heat will flow spontaneously from one system to another when they are placed in contact, and that the heat flow is always from the hotter object to the colder object, and that the heat flow continues until the two objects reach the same temperature.

Here's a test: heat up a rod of iron in a blast furnace or forge. Then, dunk the iron rod into a bucket filled with cold water. The prediction from the second law of thermodynamics is that the iron rod will cool down and the water in the bucket will heat up (due to the heat transfer between the rod and the water), until eventually the rod and the water are both at the same temperature.

This is a testable prediction since we can use thermometers to measure the temperatures of the rod and the water continuously, before and after the rod is placed in contact with the water.

The second law would be falsified if this experiment showed that the rod's temperature increased after it was placed in the cold water, or if the cold water got colder after the rod was placed in it, or if no heat exchange occurred and both the rod and the water stayed at their original temperatures.

So, you can see that the second law makes a simple, testable prediction and that the law could, in principle, be falsified in several different ways.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. But that could be more a testable conclusion than a prediction.
 
Last edited:
Asexperia said:
Yes, thanks. But that could be more a testable conclusion than a prediction.
Click to expand...
No. In the example, the theory allows us to make a specified, testable prediction about what will occur if we carry out a specific experiment. The test is the process of actually carrying out the experiment and comparing the results to the prediction. If the theory made an incorrect prediction, then it has been falsified by the experiment (or there's some problem with the experiment, or a confounding factor separate from the theory being tested, which we didn't control for). If the theory made a correct prediction, then our confidence in the truth (or usefulness) of the theory should rise in proportion to the specificity of the prediction and the stringency of the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top