I don't believe in the "arrow of time" thing. Or, at least, my current understanding of physics is not sufficient to convince me that the "arrow of time" concept is worth considering. Time can't be only an indicator of entropy. For one thing, it doesn't reconcile with relativity. For another thing, on a quantum level it is actually possible for entropy to spontaneously decrease, as far as I know; entropy only tends to increase on a macroscopic scale.
You know what? I'm going to point out all logical fallacies in this thread. I don't mean to offend anyone with this post. So if you think I'm sounding condescending, deal with it.
The most prominent logical fallacies in this thread are ambiguity, and the lack of internal consistency. A number of hidden assumptions have also been made, but not explicitly stated, making the ambiguities worse.
Time has a problem. It can't logically exist.
Here, look at it this way. Everything has an opposite that it exists with. Life has death. Love has hate. Time has stasis, but where is stasis shown?
Stasis only appears in our perception of time, yet it doesn't affect anything else. This means that Time is only a part of perception, and not a real event or thing. It is only an abstract word for an experience that happens during our life.
This means we can perceive time however we like, with a second being forever or an hour being a very short length of experience in the world.
1. You assume that everything has an opposite. You have not stated why this is so, and you have not stated clearly just exactly what it means to be opposite.
2. You assume that if an object possesses some property, its opposite also possesses that property. You then concluded that if "stasis" has the property "is a part of human perception", its opposite, "time", has that property as well. You have not stated why this is so.
3. You have not distinguished between time itself, the dimension, and movement through time. "Stasis", the lack of movement through time, is only the opposite of movement through time, not time itself. This is one of your many ambiguities.
Everything has an opposite that it exists with.
What's the opposite of a book.
Journal or movie.
As long as there is a defined line, something can have many opposites.
4. You are being very ambiguous here. How many opposites can an object have? Why?
5. In #2 you assume that if the opposite of an object has some property, then the object has that property as well. But what if one of the object's opposites has some property, but another of the object's opposites doesn't have that property? A journal has the property of being composed of words, but a movie has the property of being not composed of words; they're supposedly both opposites of a book. When you have conflicting properties like this, which one takes precedence? Why?
Opposite: Adj. A term used to describe a cancellation of each other in some way or form.
6. This definition is highly ambiguous. What does it mean for two objects to cancel each other? What remains after the cancellation? What are the limitations to "some way or form"?
.... then you have to explain how a journal/movie cancels a book, in any way or form.
A book you read. It is physical.
A movie you watch. It is more static.
Physical movement=/=automative movement
A journal you write.
A book you read.
Read=/=write
7. Here, you're speaking as though inequality is the same thing as cancellation. No, they are not the same thing. 1 is not equal to 2, but they do not cancel each other in any way, as far as I know, assuming that we're operating in the system of mathematics accepted by the general populace.
8. Here, you've violated your assumption #2. Back then, you assumed that if an object possesses some property, its opposite also possesses the same property. A book is a physical object, but a movie is not. If only certain properties are shared between opposites, you have not clearly defined what these properties are.
It depends on what height. If it is general height, then height will cancel itself out.
9. You are stating that some objects are their own opposites, but haven't clarified when, how, or why. You are also not being clear exactly what you mean by "general" height.
Hmph. I guess you're right.
10. You are admitting that your opponent is correct. You are not continuing to defend your position. Does this mean you surrender?
Why do you guys have to find opposites for everything that other people have made?
Granted, every push has the opportunity for a pull, but how can you pull the push of, say, moss?
WAT.
Well, you guys were talking about opposites. In fact, you started out talking about opposites.
So I found the flaw in your argument. That's how debating goes, right?
I meant to say that what you said makes no sense to me.
11. Your inability to understand your opponent does not necessarily make your opponent's argument incorrect or invalid.
