Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time"

[AFTT47]

I did and it's bullshit.

We may not be able to directly confirm 4-D space-time but we sure as hell can falsify the theory of which it is an integral part. You can't make it go away that easily.

"It's bullshit" is not a compelling argument.

Science deals with phenomena. The experience of time =/= time itself. It would help if you actually knew what science was addressing.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

I always get the "It's bullshit" response from stupid people who don't understand stuff. It's bullshit as in, it's nonsense, as in, it doesn't make sense to you, as in, it doesn't make sense to you because you can't fucking grasp it and/or are unwilling to research what I'm actually talking about before you spout irrelevant shit about science. We're doing philosophy and logic here. Science deals with what we experience as humans.

Saying that what used to exist but no longer exists still exists or what will exist but doesn't exist yet already exists is just talking utter nonsense. You may as well say square circles are real because science. When science studies that the way we experience what we call "time" appears to be that way when we get into the physics of our experience of reality, that's very different to saying that a square can be a circle which is what you're saying by pretending that science is relevant to the arguments that are being made here. Regardless of what we seem to experience or whatever the science is about it, what existed but no longer exists by definition existed but no longer exists, what doesn't exist yet by definition doesn't exist yet, and to say that all times exist equally at the same time is more nonsense. The entirety of the science about time is wholly compatible with the philosophical notion that time itself is an illusion and all that really exists is the present because science then simply is studying the experience of that illusion. This is all something that you just clearly can't grasp.

You're partially right in that I don't get exactly what you're saying about what science can study. I don't believe I need to for 2 reasons:

1. I'm sure any theoretical physicist gets it. And they talk about 4-D space-time as if talking about fact. That tells me either you don't grasp what you're talking about either or more likely, it doesn't apply here.

2. General Relativity is a falsifiable theory. It is science. It has been confirmed over and over and over. We continue to test it even today as new technology makes new tests possible. It continues to pass every test with flying colors. While that can't be said of 4-d space-time by itself, it doesn't stand by itself. It is an integral part of relativity. Relativity doesn't work without it. Let that sink in. You can't have the theory of relativity if you throw away 4-D space-time.

Saying that a particular thing that theoretical physicists say is "utter nonsense" when you are not a theoretical physicist is arrogant and stupid. Obviously, you have a difficulty wrapping your head around 4-D space time or have some philosophical prejudice against it. You know you cannot dispute it with science so you concoct an argument that science doesn't even apply. Sounds like a desperation ploy to me. If there was any validity to it, I have to think physicists like Brian Greene would have already recognized it. Even if not, other physicists would have and critiqued Green and others like him for talking about 4-D space-time in factual terms.

Should I listen to you or theoretical physicists on the subject of theoretical physics?