black science kid strikes again

>>7936132
You're a dick. Ergo, QED.

>>7936132
>gorillas
>bears
>jaden
are we gonna switch animals every three days?

>>7936182
>still no octopus

I am disappoint.

I don't remember freezing time...

>>7936132
>believing in past and future
>clinging to memories
>believing you and your dog are fundamentally different entities
>believing you and a cup of tea are 2 different things
top kek lads

>>7936132
>you can't prove that the past ever existed or the future ever will
Of course you can't prove that. It's a metaphysical problem created by your own misunderstanding and mistaking mere concepts such as past and future for something that actually exists.

>you can't prove that we're all frozen in the present moment with fake memories
Of course you can't, that's just confusion arising from the misunderstanding you showed with your first statement above

>>7936132

Hello, this is the science board. Science requires hypothesis that are principally falsifiable. What you ask is not falsifiable, much like a conspiracy theory (every proof against it is just planted by THEM).

So your question is not /sci/. It's more philosophy than science and I say that without any negative connotation.

>>7936544
Hello,
>equating philosophical problems with conspiracy theories
Good bye!

>>7936589
you're right. philosophy is even more autistic than conspiracies

You are correct, I can't prove that human abstractions exist, because then they wouldn't really be human abstractions anymore would they?

The past is nothing but a term for the collection of all events in our past light cone, or at the very least all spacetime events which have a value of t less than that of the spacetime event in which the concept is being considered. I guess the distinction here is whether an event is still considered to be "in the past" if it lies outside our past light cone but still occurred before the current t-value

>>7936190
I'm working on it anon :^)

>>7936132
If we had a way to objectively view a model as true or false we would have done so. We use the passage of time as a dimension as we do because our current models require us to do so. Just like how we Newtonian mechanics was sufficient until we reached relativistic speeds. We simply need to find what the equivalent of the Lorentzian transformation is. If we cannot find something that better describes reality than we'll probably stick with keeping time the way it is. It's worked out well for us so far.

>>7936132
>you can't prove that the past ever existed or the future ever will
>you can't prove
>prove
>not referring to math
Fuck off faggot