michel123456

That's a tough one. I have to think about that. Woaw. Tougher one. I have understood almost nothing.

Maybe. But how can you even imagine existence without Time. Something suspended in the air just like that? The number 1 "existing" in a virtual platonic "space"?

Yes. From the link : I have never succeeded to persuade anybody here so that will be difficult.

My point is that there is an arrow between the two mathematical statements. Statement 1: x2 = 4 => x=+ - 2 This arrow has no reverse (like the arrow of time). You cannot state; x=2 => x2 = 4 It makes no sense (though it is correct). I mean: it is not an equivalence, it is not a relationship. It is a result. You know my answer to this: Time is observer dependent, Time comes from inside out of the observer. Objects far away from you belong to the past. As closer they get to you in space, the closer in time. When the object reaches you (the bus hits you), it is the present. If the Past is outside, if the Present is at your coordinates, where is the Future? Well if you continue the same thinking, the only place where the Future can be is inside you (inside the observer). Time comes from inside you (or gets inside you if you think time going from the past to the future). Whatever that means physically.

Well at the risk of disagreeing with all of you: Ontology ((the existence of the underlying object) needs time. You cannot "exist" without time. IMHO Time is sooo fundamental that it underlies almost everything.

Ok, I have a question for you: x2 = 4, what is the value of x?

There is no ‘input’ and ‘output’; those terms are not part of the theory of equations in pure mathematics Replace "input" by "question" and "output" by "answer.

There is an input x2 = 4, And there is an output x = 2 (and x=-2) But If you do the reverse Input x = 2 What is the output? Where is the equivalence?

That is not a coincidence. I wonder. "If blablah, then blabah2". There is no time in the If - Then relationship? No causality?

Exactly, you wrote it better than I ever could.

But when you make a derivation, there is a kind of causality, going from one equation to the other.

That is directly physics. I meant yes time-ordering but in maths.

I was not that serious. However, I think that our intelligence is a spark. It can become a fire or it can vanish just like that.

Yes. My bet is that first we will become dumb (I am afraid it is happening right now). Then we will become a new specie of marine mammals.

How do you state the chronological order in math?

Did we answer the OP question? I am not a linguist & I have a limited interest in linguistics. A quick search in Greek reveals some complications. The prefix Μετα (after) indicates the notion of time. About the others I have no idea*. The Greek language is abyssal. *correction: the prefix άλλ probably comes from άλλο (other, something else) or άλλος (the other, someone else).

Nicely done. Nice. Again.

Maybe the most interesting thread of this Forum so far. It looks like the philosophy section is the most civil of all. Here we can disagree & continue the discussion, very nice. But you were using the concept of "variable" (was that you or Studiot?). Sure the concept of fractal is an interesting way to overcome the question of the original dimensioning in a universe where everything is relative. The trouble with fractals is that AFAIK from the extremely small till the extremely big there is no repetition. But that is very far out of topic. Imagine this mirror being installed 30 years ago (as observed by us) 20 LY away. When graduating, the mirror wasn't installed yet. So Joigus 40 years ago couldn't observe the mirror. The rays of lights expelled by graduating Joigus's happy face (his image) are travelling through space towards the mirror & reach it after 20 years of travel. They are eventually reflected to us & reach him today so that he can see his own image as he was in the past. In the same time interval, Joigus has traveled in time: he has aged. Now: where is Joigus? Is he today with us? Or is he 40 years ago? (sorry) Or was he 40 years ago? Or both? Are there 2 Joigusses one today & one 40 years ago? The conventional answer is that Joigus exists today & Joigus existed 40 years ago: it means that Joigus is a 4D object that extends in spacetime from his birth, his graduation until today. My (unconventional) answer is that there exist only one 3D Joigus that have changed location (he has moved) in time (he has aged) and the image in the mirror is, well, an image. It is a completely different concept but AFAIK it is compatible with the existing physics.

That corresponds to the concept of the Block Universe, isn't it? Under this concept, everything is already "recorded" and static, and time is the very bizarre effect of reading the information that is already there. Although I was very surprised that the wiki entry about the B.U. has changed (in English) into the "growing block universe", excluding the future, while the French page has not been updated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe As if the recording process is the process of time.

Try it. Put that in numbers & tell me if joigus can put a mirror anywhere in the universe to see himself graduating.

I do.

Have you ever asked yourself why you can see in the sky a star as it was thousand years ago, but you cannot directly observe yourself at your graduation? Why in the concatenation the one position is not able to directly observe the other one?

Very interesting. I have missed the discussion this W.E., I will have to cope. Before erasing something, you must be confident that it does not hide anything. To the point: Time is the thing that is needed to transmit information from one point of the space to another. Without time, space would be opaque: in no time no information can be transmitted at all (including light). Or the other way out: if time is not needed for information to go from one point to another (we know it is wrong) space would be fully transparent. Since we know that the maximum speed for information is C (wathever its value really is), we (should) know that space is neither fully opaque, neither fully transparent. And if space is not fully transparent, it means that the 4th dimension is hiding something. The 4th dimension allows us to observe only a part of the B.U. So IMHO if you work without the axis of time, you must be extremely cautious that your description of things includes everything.

No there is no change in this picture. You posted it 18 hours ago and it hasn't changed a bit. There are 2 colors (B&W).

Stop there: Your point 4 is the nail of the discussion. It clearly shows that we have different definitions of what the word "change" means. Clearly, to you, "change" equals what I call "different". To me (and to MigL), "change" equals some process, and thus involves Time. Which means that we will never agree. We haven't set our definition properly. Do not take as granted that your post has been accepted & understood. Personally I had the patience to read it all. Once. I have understood very little of it & I don't see the relevance. See, we are working on the basis of different definitions.