Science is about being objective. Of course it has its caveats because humans only interpret the world with their senses. Therefore it can never be 100% objective. However, when people are not even close to being objective and rely mostly on theory and not evidence, that is when the science is questionable. It starts following the logic of religion. For example, people using faith as a basis instead of evidence.

¿ Who does need evidence ?

¿ Your neighbour ... the neighbour of you aunt ... ?

All YOU need is to feel/trust what's ( coming ) inside you ... thus shut '' your '' head/brain and let re-connect with your childhood ... become once again a children ...

Happiness slices should arise ( if not now, maybe this evening ... or tomorrow ( ...or later 3 months, 1 year ... ) , just let things happen ) then .... eventually Questions will vanish and unfortunately .... you'll be left with only Answers !

-----------------------------
tl;dr => feeling & honesty toward yourself ... and the time will feed you ( slowly or brutally ) with your needs


Good Luck FEELINGS :ninja:

Not really.. you only encounter those paradoxes with your point of view...

You have a real talent for using words to say nothing. You could give an explanation of how I'm wrong, but I don't think you really have one. I think you just disagree but aren't willing to actually think it through. Prove me wrong!

In truth though, since there are formulations of physics that require full paths to be proposed before they can be predictive that indicates there is more than simply "now". There are non-temporally local physical laws, and that is pretty strong evidence for a non "now" to exist in some fashion. There's also some interesting math involving time warping around black holes where you could see yourself exit the system at the same time you enter it, so that's also a good indication that as long as relativity applies to those situations then a non "now" exists simultaneously.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 17 2019 08:36pm

Prove it. How does a non-now exist?

Are you looking for a concordance of evidence, or are you wanting an a-priori logical proof?

Probably the latter since the first doesn't exist.

Then you need to go to a different section because science doesn't work that way.

If "now" was the only thing that existed then lots of phenomena wouldn't happen. One example would be quantum entanglement since no past means to entanglement event (no, hidden variables isn't a possibility).

What you're basically saying is that because I can't perceive any other time then it doesn't exist. Might as well be saying that the whole universe is what I can sense right now, since there's by definition no direct proof that anything else exists (ya know, since I can't sense it).

Quantum entanglement doesn't necessarily require a past, two particles just end up sharing a trait due to the mathematics involved.

What we can sense is limited by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle so you can never sense “everything” in the universe but you're on the right track.

I view the universe more or less as a very complicated cellular automaton.

You are just wrong. Entanglement requires an entanglement event, period. There is no underlying variable that can explain the "trait" shared without it, in fact one isnt defined until you define the other, and that is only true because they were entangled previously.

What we can sense isnt limited by heisenberg in any meaningful sense. The accuracy limit is so small that it's not perceptable in the macro world.

You have a very weird non falsifiable view of the universe, but that doesnt really matter to the conversation.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 18 2019 11:43am