Arrow of time points to missing dark matter?

v = dt/dt is totally sensical to me

Well, I tried. See ya around, daveS. Mapou

Mapou,

It’s no more complicated than “v = dt/dt is nonsensical”. It means that changing time is self-referential.

v = dt/dt is totally sensical to me, but I think we've been over this before. Does anyone else agree with you, and have they published on this topic? The fact that dt/dt is self-referential in some sense also isn't problematic to me. As an example, take a finite nonempty set S of real numbers. We can define the minimum of this set by:

min(S) = the number x in S such that x is less than or equal to y for all y in S.

which is self-referential. For another example, define x to be the real number such that x = (x^2 + 9)/6. Again, x is defined in terms of itself, so this is another case of self-reference. daveS

Time’s arrow is explained by the idea that the universe is a “virtual” reality, that is, an algorithmically implemented system. mike1962

daveS:

I’m still trying to understand what this is supposed to mean. Have any reputable physicists or philosophers spelled it out in greater detail than “v = dt/dt is nonsensical”, or “time is abstract, bruh”?

It's no more complicated than “v = dt/dt is nonsensical”. It means that changing time is self-referential. The simplicity of it all is so devastating to the physics community, they just ignore it and act as if Einstein's time dimension is a fait accompli. As I said earlier, the physics community is gutless that way. By the way, "reputable physicists" has nothing to do with it. It's a simple explanation that anybody can understand if they put their minds to it. I see you are one of those who must always have someone else do your thinking for you. That's lame, man. You are condemned to believe in lies because our world is filled with lies. The more reputable they are, the bigger are their lies.

"There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster." Source: "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?" Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994 by Professor Joe Rosen

Mapou

Time cannot change by definition.

I'm still trying to understand what this is supposed to mean. Have any reputable physicists or philosophers spelled it out in greater detail than "v = dt/dt is nonsensical", or "time is abstract, bruh"? daveS

Crackpot comment? So the hare never catches the turtle, and the arrow never moves? I believe Zeno brought these problems up long ago. Aleta

My comment at the end of Quanta's crackpot article is still in moderation. I copied it below:

Aw, come on, people. Time cannot change by definition. This is the reason that Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides and called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." Source: "Conjectures and Refutations". Nothing moves in spacetime. Why? It's because motion in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical. That's it. There is only the present. A time dimension is abstract. PS. The unchanging and abstract nature of time has been known for ages. Why does the physics community act as if has no clue?

Here's a link to Popper's paper: Conjectures (PDF) [edit:] I suspect Quanta's moderators will trash my comment. The physics community is gutless like that. LOL Mapou