>time like, isn't real, man. WHOAH. Why do pseuds who

What is time to you?

What interests me is that "Time" is actually 2 different things, a phenomenon, and a completely arbitrary and unrelated system of "measuring" the phenomenon.

>>9934765
time is real, but it's not linear. It's a dot. It's all happening at exactly the same moment.

>>9934765
They think the relativity of simultaneity implies a relational ontology of time as opposed to just a relativization of a quantity thought to be invariant in classical mechanics. Just ignore psueds

>>9934780
Hi pseud who flunked Algebra II

>>9934788
yeah. I hate numbers.
fuckin' fight me
liked geometry though.

>>9934793
stop opining on anything rigorous then you brainlet

>>9934799
make me, dingleberry

You can't get to an increment of time, because before you can get to an increment of time, you need to get to half of an increment of time, and you also need to get to half of half of an increment of time, and so on ad infinitum, so you need infinite increments of time to get an increment of time, thus since an infinite increments of time to get an increment of time then time can't be real because what is real must have motion, unless you can name one thing that's real without motion.

>>9934765

Physicist here. Time does not hold the status of an operator in quantum mechanics, how do you deal with that punk?

>>9934765
>frogposting

If we are to accept the axioms of science then time is a relation just like space.

>>9934765
>Most physicists don't agree.
Sauce please, homo.

File: 1501698708422.jpg (65KB, 546x678px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 546x678px

What is it with /lit/ and appealing to academia?

>>9934783
Holy fuck shut up

>>9934780
You have to be 18 to post here.