People always talk about going forwards or backwards in time,

>>9151537
That really electrifies my synapses

>>9151537

Define the difference between up and down in time.

What would an observe actually experience?

We only talk about going forwards or backwards in time because of how our language works.

Chinese actually go down in time. If some system wrote upwards, they'd probably go up in time. And there are Peruvians who say the future is behind them, so they're going back in time when we go forward.

You stay in the same time, but you move to a different space.

>>9151567
>We only talk about going forwards or backwards in time because of how our language works.
This.

There is no 'forward' in time. It's just a linear model we use in order to visualise the changes of states. A to B. Past to future. Young to Old. Time is an illusion.

You're just playing with words. How do you expect anyone to answer when you don't even know what you're asking?

>>9151537
Two time theories don't really exist.

'time' is a degenerate dimension , only now exists there's no 'after' or 'before' . theres only one moment and no proof any others exist.

File: 1503284652542.png (279KB, 478x603px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 478x603px

i'll give a real answer because everyone else is retarded with muh time illusion bullshit

imagine a ball on an x/y grid moving 1 unit of space per 1 unit of time. so at t = 1 the ball will be at x = 1.

if you move from t = 0 to towards t = i (upwards in time), the ball moves towards y = 1 (instead of x = 1), in a straight line.

you can do some fun rotation stuff too, but basically moving up in time is like going into alternate timelines where stuff moved differently

after all, time is just a measure of change

>>9151594
>implying you didn't write this seven minutes ago
>implying you won't read this until after I post it
Yeah there's no proof of the continuity of time. None.

>>9151606
there is none , find one piece of evidence for it that doesn't assume its existence in advance .
if you just assume things before proving them pretty much anything can be handwaved

>>9151600
>time is just a measure of change
>time isn't a dimension
>therefore 'time' is an illusion
Was my point, faggot. >>9151581

Translator student here. This is just a semantics problem. You see, we configure our languages in a matter of verticality, and so you have expressions like "I'm feeling up" or "I'm falling sick". This problem also goes to horizontality, where you have your experience of travelling and experiencing the world. So you say you go "forwards" in time because your experience of life is horizontal. This is called image schema in linguistics, more accurately the path schema. If we configured our experience through life in a vertical way, we probably would say that we travel "up" in time instead of "forwards".

>>9151537
Transcendent space-time browsing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

>>9151793
this is the only reply to this thread that wasn't made by a pseudo-intellectual brainlet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

>>9151537
Time is a one dimensional construct so it only makes sense to go in two opposite directions.
What you are asking does not make sense in the ordinary concept of time.
Maybe some autism like this:
>>9151793
>>9151868
Is more suited to your preferences.