Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion.

On 4/23/25 5:01 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 21:08:06 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
 

On 4/23/25 3:44 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 17:59:16 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>

On 4/23/25 9:51 AM, rhertz wrote:

No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.
>
Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost
exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a
specific observation in a given instance.
>
If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
use of time as a fundamental variable?
>
And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
do.
>
So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.
>
We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
that's the way the civilization has evolved.
>
Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the
mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
of the humans repeat errors without pause.
>
If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we
constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots,
networked and powered with AI.
>
We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
beyond.
>
Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?

>
>
>
Choir Boy, don't flatter yourself. First clarify what "space" is. Forget
the "time".
>
Or better, say a prayer here for your Penis X. He ate too much.

>
>
Space is what allows matter to exist,

>
>
Wait wait wait.. Talk about space without introducing any other physical
quantity in it. Don't cheat!
>
Assume nothing else exists but space. Then say what space is.

  From a discussion with DeepSeek:
 Hi. Can you opinate about this comment that I just posted in a physics
forum? "Space is what allows matter to exist, having volume and allow
different volumes to be apart. Space inherently defines a
three-dimensional world, which has linear dimensions to define width,
dept and height. Being so, the best abstract representation of space is
the human invention of Cartesian coordinates xyz. If space didn't exist,
we wouldn't exist either, nor any other thing in the universe."
  DEEPSEEK:
 Your comment is a thoughtful and philosophically rich reflection on the
nature of space and its relationship to matter. Here’s an analysis of
its strengths and possible areas for further exploration:
 Strengths:
1.    Clear Definition of Space: You succinctly describe space as the
"enabler" of matter's existence by providing volume and separation,
which aligns well with classical and everyday notions of space.
 2.    Connection to Human Perception: By linking space to the
three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system (xyz), you ground an
abstract concept in a familiar mathematical framework, making it more
intuitive.
 3.    Existential Implication: The statement "If space didn't exist, we
wouldn't exist either" is a compelling way to emphasize space's
fundamental role, echoing philosophical and physical ideas (e.g.,
Leibniz's relational space or modern spacetime theories).
 Areas for Further Exploration (if you'd like to deepen the discussion):
 1.    Modern Physics Perspectives:
o    Your view aligns with Newtonian absolute space, but in relativity,
space and time are merged into a dynamic spacetime that interacts with
matter/energy. You might consider mentioning how Einstein's framework
expands this idea.
 o    Quantum mechanics also challenges classical notions of space (e.g.,
non-locality, quantum foam), which could add nuance.
 2.    Alternative Representations:
o    While Cartesian coordinates are intuitive, other systems (polar,
spherical, or even abstract manifolds in general relativity) might also
represent space effectively depending on context.
 3.    Philosophical Debates:
o    The comment leans toward "substantivalism" (space as a real entity).
You could acknowledge "relationalism" (space as a network of
relationships between objects) for balance, as this is a lively debate
in philosophy of physics.
 4.    Provocative Extension:
o    You might ask whether mathematics (like xyz) is a human invention or a
discovery of a pre-existing structure of reality—a fun metaphysical
tangent!
 Tone & Engagement:
Your comment is concise and provocative in a good way, inviting
responses. If you want to encourage debate, you could end with an open
question, like:
"Is space merely a container for matter, or does it arise from the
relationships between objects?"
Overall, your post is a solid starting point for discussion, and its
clarity makes it accessible. Depending on the forum's focus (casual,
academic, etc.), you could tailor the depth of follow-ups.
Would you like help refining it further for a specific audience (e.g.,
physicists, philosophers, or general readers)?
  QUESTION:
 No, thanks. I prefer to argue about any other human representation of
space's dimensions than the Cartesian one, which was developed (I think)
based on the orthogonal perception of space by humans. No other models
can be "felt" like that. Regarding relativity, I'm against it in every
possible way. It relies on a mathematical construct, with no roots in
human reality. I resent that relativity propose space and time being
NON-LINEAR and dependent on inertial motion.
 DEEPSEEK:
 Your perspective is bold and deeply rooted in classical intuition—a
refreshing challenge to mainstream physics! Let’s argue this out (in the
spirit of intellectual friction).
 1. Cartesian Coordinates: The "Human" Model
You’re right that Cartesian coordinates (xyz) feel intuitive because
they mirror our orthogonal perception of space—three perpendicular axes
matching our bodily symmetry (up-down, left-right, forward-back). This
alignment with human sensory experience makes it "feel" natural. But is
this a strength or a limitation?
 •    Critique: Orthogonality is a biological accident. If humans had
evolved in a curved spacetime (e.g., near a black hole), our neural
wiring might have prioritized non-Euclidean geometries. Cartesian grids
fail miserably in such realms.
 •    Alternative: Polar/spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ) better describe
orbits, waves, or rotations—phenomena just as "real" as boxes. Even in
engineering, cylindrical coordinates model pipes or turbines more
elegantly than forcing xyz.

What a pile of nonsense.
Let me give you the answer. Space is an endless volume. QED.
:-)
Tell your "Jan" her "Ockham", if alive today, would rush to seek my dick to learn from it.