Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Asexperia, Feb 14, 2020.
How many times are you going to reiterate the same dozen pseudo-sciencey points?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That's a summary of that I've said so far.
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.
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.
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.
And determine when events occur.
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.
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.
As opposed to what other kind of time?
No. That's actually the thing. The equations don't describe time as flowing anywhere.
No. Hence we have the idea of time reversal symmetry in physics.
What is "natural time"? The time we experience? Hawking called that "psychological time".
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.
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.
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".
An empty, useless definition, like all the rest of "philochrony". This is pseudoscience writ large.
You're begging the question by assuming that the changes are irreversible, without doing anything to establish them as such.
That's great. Now you're merely quoting yourself.
A science makes testable predictions and is falsifiable. Philochrony has neither of those features, as far as I can tell.
Enlighten me, what's a science that makes testable predictions and is falsifiable?
If it is science all of them.
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?
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.
Yes, thanks. But that could be more a testable conclusion than a prediction.
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.
Separate names with a comma.