>>16915778
Special relativity already debunks this. There is no special "now"

File: brainlet3.jpg (78.8 KB)

78.8 KB JPG

>I know Einsteins GR model has 4 dimensions, but that's clearly just an analytical tool and never meant to be understood as an ontic claim.

3D only describes either 2D points in motion or 3D points without motion. Since there is 3D with motion, motion as by time is amongst 4D.

>>16916103
Dimensions the concept was invented to describe space. Sure you can extend it to model motion and change too, but that doesnt mean that motion and change is the same thing as change. They're ontically different. They are clearly somehow structurally related, true, thus GR. But related does not mean ontically the same thing.

>>16916121
*is the same thing as space

File: beyond the black rainbow.jpg (102 KB)

102 KB JPG

>>16915778
3D motion is like wriggling like a worm. What does it mean?

>>16916121
And how do you defend any "ontic claims" about normal 3D space? A brain can make you perceive whatever, but all you have is inferred spatial relationships suggesting a corresponding space, i.e. the same as spacetime.

>>16916141
I guess the point is that euclid/descartes mathematical model of 3d space arose as a mathematical representation of [our experience of] some ontic physical reality, and clocks as a representation of our experience of some kind of ontic events, and GR is a mathematical representation of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Mercurys orbit. The latter offered an at-the-time more accurate math for describing movement through space, and it did that by hijacking the "dimension" concept by introducing "time" as as an imaginary 4th dimension. The difference between recognizing this as a mathematical convenience and making some larger ontic claim is that in the latter you end up with the idea that these four dimensions are ontically equal and interchangeable and obeys the same rules where whatever the equations give you can be reified back into reality. You believe wormholes and time-travel are real things, when we have no reason to believe that's the case.

>>16916150
>the difference is that "ontic claims" about 3D space align with my naive realism
I don't see why this purely subjective difference is scientifically or philosophically relevant.

>>16916169
aligns with observations, yes. Michelson-Morley experiment and Mercurys orbit are observations. Wormholes and timetravel are not, just artifacts of pushing the mathematical model beyond it's domain into underdetermined regimes

>>16916170
>ignores the question a 2nd time
Concession accepted.

>>16916174
You've only asked one question. Are you ok?

>>16916189
Yes, mentally ill retard. And you ignored it twice: when I first asked it, then again when I explained why your attempt to dodge it is inadequate.

>>16915778
>that's clearly just an analytical tool
How is that clear?
> never meant to be understood as an ontic claim
Never? Such a statement would require evidence to back it up. The guy who came up with GR also disagreed with you.

>>16916194
It's clear because euclid/descartes were modeling ontic physical reality while einstein was only doing some gay math, even if he wasn't aware of it.

>>16916197
Ah, I see. You are both ignorant and a retard. A winning combination. You'll go far in life.

>>16916198
I'm only retarded in your model. Ontically, I'm a genius like euclid/descartes.

>>16916199
> I'm a genius
You're posting on 4ch, reality would say otherwise.

>>16915778
Try to do a Lorentz Transformation without the time coordinate and see if it's right

>>16916193
Show me where you asked the same question two times. Prove it. Use the quote function. Thanks.

>>16916230
Show me where I said I asked the same question two times. You're literally mentally ill and hallucinating over and over.

oh fuck! I realized OP is right and I cant even understand what I was trying to say here >>16916194
also I'm choking on a bag of dicks right now, halp!

>>16916231
here >>16916174 >>16916193

>>16915778
This is true. Everything takes place within the 3d realm created by consciousness called imagination. It can be accessed by the inner eye if your not aphantasiac

>>16916233
Kek. Your psychotic illness plays out the same way in every thread: starting with pseudointellectual delusions and ending with clinical symptoms like literal hallucinations.

>>16916237
i think that's projection, anon
you seem butthurt, and to be perfectly frank, confused about things

>>16916238
Since you've made it explicitly clear that you're hallucinating, nothing else shit out matters, naturally including your regression to kindergarten "no u" retorts.

>>16916243
sorry for apparently insulting your buttbuddy Albert "Chaim" Einstein. Looking forward to seeing what your next strategy for filling the offending thread with shitposts will be... Spamming CP? Gore? Coprophagia? Or just obstinately ranting about "schizophrenia" and "hallucinations"?

File: dicapriokek.png (799.2 KB)

799.2 KB PNG

>mentally ill retard realizes he's been found out and stops trying to hide his schizophrenia

>>16916248
maybe you should go back to /pol/, faget
https://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/filename/dicapriokek.png/

you seem quite the combative little buttmuncher

https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search2&ghost=false&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=dicapriokek.png&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_media_hash=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

what you need is some good organic food, time alone in a hyperbaric chamber, a joint, and just a break from arguing on 4chins

It's clear that you're losing your mind with psychotic rage, but my post stands completely unchallenged:
>>16916141
>And how do you defend any "ontic claims" about normal 3D space? A brain can make you perceive whatever, but all you have is inferred spatial relationships suggesting a corresponding space, i.e. the same as spacetime.

File: original_jpg_92(1).jpg (69.5 KB)

69.5 KB JPG

Moldova Ahahaaahaaha

It's you Weev

40 years old, posting assmad on /sci/ from transnistria

Are you sad how your life turned out?

>>16916248
This thread is clear proof, never go full schizo.

File: kakokek.png (151.7 KB)

151.7 KB PNG

>psychotic patient with zero impulse control can't stop giving me the satisfaction of knowing he's obsessed with me
Imagine being this mindbroken and unaware of it.

>>16916249
>the schizo was from moldova
Kek. That explains a lot.

>obsessed mentally ill retard resorts to samefagging because no one cares about his reddit-style drama

>>16916261
https://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/filename/kakokek.png/
>90 hits
holy kek, get help anon

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39 KB)

39 KB JPG

>holy kek, get help anon
I like how this mindbroken reddit dropout thinks his obsessively looking up every pic I post is supposed to upset me.

Hey guys, do you think weev is gone and we can have a normal thread?

>>16916393
I think this thread can be a PSA/containment thread until it goes away.

>>16916194
>How is that clear?
Because Einstein himself knew it had to be true, or else the laws of physics are indeterminist. See the "hole" problem. You really should read up a bit before exposing yourself as a midwit

>day goes by
>mentally ill retard is still seething and replying to itself

File: brainlet-cube.png (184.8 KB)

184.8 KB PNG

>Einstein himself knew it had to be true, or else the laws of physics are indeterminist

File: 5oggsn8ypph51.png (571.5 KB)

571.5 KB PNG

>>16915778
Take a thin metal rod and shine a light straight on the top of it. The shadow you get is a dot.

Take a flat, square piece of metal and shine a light on it straight from the side. The shadow you get is a line.

Take a cube, shine a light on it straight from one side. The shadow you get is a square.

So, what shape do you need to have to get a cube as a shadow?

>>16916899
>>16916905
>Einstein believed that the hole argument implies that the only meaningful definition of location and time is through matter. A point in spacetime is meaningless in itself, because the label which one gives to such a point is undetermined. Spacetime points only acquire their physical significance because matter is moving through them. In his words: "All our space-time verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time coincidences. If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but the meeting of two or more of these points."

There, I spoonfed you so you can spend more time enjoying those moldovan loli hookers you came for

>>16916965
Notice how your mental illness once again causes you to hallucinate the text you just quoted contains support for your delusions in the OP. That's a consistent theme with you ITT.

>>16916966
This is usually referred to as the point-coincidence argument, and reflects in effect that Einstein arrived at the conclusion that events are ontic and spacetime is not

>>16916968
There is literally nothing in that quote or about the hole argument that supports your delusional take in the OP. What your quote actually supports is this: >>16916141
>And how do you defend any "ontic claims" about normal 3D space? A brain can make you perceive whatever, but all you have is inferred spatial relationships suggesting a corresponding space, i.e. the same as spacetime.
Seethe about it.

>>16916980
It clearly supports that spacetime is "an analytical tool and never meant to be understood as an ontic claim", specifically through Einstein himself acknowledging that spacetime is an analytical tool and not ontic. He arrived at that conclusion after he realized that if spacetime is ontic then the laws of physics are indeterminist in certain situations (the "hole" problem)

>>16917000
Your contention was:
>reality has exactly 3 dimensions
According to Einstein, reality is defined by spacetime trajectories, which are inherently 4-dimensional. Not only did he reject the naive realist notion that there exists some absolute and independent 3D space, but also preempted attempts to salvage some variant of that view by adding an extra dimension.

>>16917032
Einstein arrived at the realization that events are ontic and 4-dimensional spacetime isnt. Euclids & descartes 3-dimensions is the original mathematical representation of constraints on those events as pertains specifically to space. Those dimensions are arguably not ontic either but, as noted, model some ontic constraint on what events can happen, how.

Now it's perfectly fine to do as Einstein did and repurpose the "dimension" concept for another set of constraints on events. The problem is that calling space "another dimension" suggests a closer ontic relationship between space-constraints and time-constraints than what was warranted and opened the door to the 27-curled-up-dimensions retardedness.

>>16916896
What?? The "hole" problem has nothing to do with the number of dimensions.

>>16917041
it does though. It shows Einstein acknowledging that spacetime is a math model and makes no claims that time and space are "same" in the sense of popsci GR

>>16917037
Your contention was:
>reality has exactly 3 dimensions
According to Einstein, reality is defined by spacetime trajectories, which are inherently 4-dimensional. Not only did he reject the naive realist notion that there exists some absolute and independent 3D space, but also preempted attempts to salvage some variant of that view by adding an extra dimension (which is what your quote actually talks about).

>>16917048
that's wrong. Einstein came to conclude that (ontic) reality is just the intersection of trajectories (events). The trajectories themselves and the spacetime model within which they are defined is just math and means nothing in the absence of events

>>16917053
Your contention was:
>reality has exactly 3 dimensions
According to Einstein, reality is defined by spacetime trajectories, which are inherently 4-dimensional. Not only did he reject the naive realist notion that there exists some absolute and independent 3D space, but also preempted attempts to salvage some variant of that view by adding an extra dimension (which is what your quote actually talks about).

>>16917054
There's no shame in admitting that you couldnt understand my post. I'm not gonna call you a midwit, maybe. Just ask, and I'll explain

>>16917046
No, it shows he was struggling to understand the meaning of the mathematics in the *theory*. You also clearly don't know the difference between a model and a theory.

>>16917056
that's just semantics
the terms epistemic vs ontic are much more clear than theory, model, etc

>>16917055
Your contention was:
>reality has exactly 3 dimensions
According to Einstein, reality is defined by spacetime trajectories ("spacetime points only acquire their physical significance because matter is moving through them"), which are inherently 4-dimensional. Not only did he reject the naive realist notion that there exists some absolute and independent 3D space, but also preempted attempts to salvage some variant of that view by adding an extra dimension ("a point in spacetime is meaningless in itself").

>>16917053
>(ontic) reality is just the intersection of trajectories (events)
That's not what the quote you provided claims, but regardless, events are 4D, so you're contradicting yourself directly.

>>16917058
not to mention "meaning"
the phrase "understanding the meaning of the mathematics" can only cause confusion

>>16917060
>events are 4D
lmfao, midwit

>>16917055
Your contention was:
>reality has exactly 3 dimensions
According to Einstein, reality is defined by spacetime trajectories ("spacetime points only acquire their physical significance because matter is moving through them"), which are inherently 4-dimensional. Not only did he reject the naive realist notion that there exists some absolute and independent 3D space, but also preempted attempts to salvage some variant of that view by adding an extra dimension ("a point in spacetime is meaningless in itself").

>>16917053
>(ontic) reality is just the intersection of trajectories (events)
That's not what the quote you provided claims, but regardless, events are 4D, so you're contradicting yourself directly.

>>16917062
You've already concede that events are 4D right here:
>intersection of trajectories (events)

>>16917072
>You've already concede that events are 4D right here
>>intersection of trajectories (events)
That's how events are modelled in GR, yes. It does not follow that "events are 4D", unless you're a fullblown retard.

>>16917084
Event literally means a place + time. In what universe is that not 4D?

>>16917091
pretty sure event means something happening

>>16917092
When used in physics it has a more precise definition, but it's still the same thing. Something happened implies a where and a when.

A careless whisper from a careless man
A neutron dance for a neutron fan
Marionette strings are dangerous things
I thought of all the trouble they bring
An eye for an eye, a spy for spy
Rubber bands expand in a frustrating sigh
Tell me that she's not dreaming
She's got an ace in the hole, it doesn't have meaning
Reality used to be a friend of mine
'Cause complete control, I don't take too kind
Christina Applegate, you gotta put me on
But guess whose piece of the cake was jacked on?
She broke her wishbone and wished for a sign
I told her whispers in my heart were fine
What did she think she could do?
I feel for her, I really do
And I stared at the ring finger on her hand
I wanted her to be a big PM Dawn fan
But I had to put her right back with the rest
That's the way it goes...
....I guess.....

Set adrift on memory bliss of you

>>16917095
Things happening is ontic, the idea of where and when is emergent on how things happen and how they dont happen.

>>16917084
Ontologically, you're a mentally ill retard who cannot read or make coherent points. Being mentally ill and retarded is the very essence if your ontic nature.

>>16917110
>Things happening is ontic
Proof? Also why did you backpedal to this from your delusions about 3D space being "ontic" and then from your additional delusions about what Einstein believed?

>>16917145
>Proof?
logic, your post being impossible unless things are happening, Descartes

>>16917154
>your post being impossible unless things are happening,
Proof that "posts" are ontic?

>>16915778
We're actually in a 4.00000137-dimensional universe embedded in a 67-dimensional universe.

>>16916150
>latter you end up with the idea that these four dimensions are ontically equal and interchangeable
Dimensions are not interchangeable period.
>You believe wormholes and time-travel are real things
Do you think nobody thought of going backwards and forwards in time before GR?

>>16917095
In GR, events are 0D (points), not 4D. At least know your physics before trying to correct someone else.

>>16916233
He didn't ask it twice, he asked it once. You ignored it, and he pointed out that you dodged it in a bid to prompt you to answer it. Thus, he asked it once, and you ignored it twice.

Looks like the m*ldovan schizo still hasn't been detained by its handlers yet.

>>16917175
A point as an object may contain no additional dimensions (not actually true, but for simplicity's sake we'll pretend like it is since it doesn't matter in this context)
However as an object they describe information up the N-dimensions of the graph they're a part of. Thus, it's not incorrect to say an event is 4 dimensional, though there is an interpretation of this statement which is incorrect, which is that they do not have 4 dimensions of their own.

>>16917177
then where is the second question, ontically?

>>16917182
There is no "graph". You mean to say manifold. Spacetime in GR is the 4D manifold (more dimensions are added if you're a string theorist). Points (0D) in spacetime are events. No one (other than the resident moldovan schizo) says events are 4D.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-22 at 15-16-15 st small 507x507-pad 600x600 f8f8f8.jpg (JPEG Image 600 × 600 pixels).png (167 KB)

167 KB PNG

>>16917175
>ACH-CHUALLY
>points in 4D space are 0D
Not relevant to this discussion.

>>16917155
they arent, events are

>>16917190
>they arent
I accept your concession.

> events are
Proof? inb4 your psychotic illness causes you to repeat your "proof" in terms of entities with no ontological substance.

>>16917188
What language do your handlers speak? I must know so that I can post my advice to them in that language.

>>16917195
I accept your concession. The "events" in question are 4-tuples that invoke the 4 dimensions of spacetime. A point being technically 0D is irrelevant to this discussion. Now wipe the foam off your mouth.

>>16917199
Google says that Romanian is the answer to my question. I'm sure your handlers will find my comments useful from now on ;^)

>>16917206
I accept your concession. The "events" in question are 4-tuples that invoke the 4 dimensions of spacetime. A point being technically 0D is irrelevant to this discussion. Now wipe the foam off your mouth.

Adding "handlers" and "comments" to the filter now, but 100% that this brown animal will attempt to address me again using those words due to 0 impulse control. :^)

>>16917213
Why haven't your handlers added you to the filter yet?

>>16917191
you think, therefore something is happening, therefore events are ontically real

File: mental.jpg (6.2 KB)

6.2 KB JPG

>you think, therefore something is happening, therefore events are ontically real
Imagine thinking this is a coherent thought process.

File: images.jpg (7 KB)

7 KB JPG

>>16917276
he disagrees and also heres an oldie

Guess I'll wait for someone who is not mentally ill to explain why events are "ontic". The presence of a thought process doesn't tell me anything about "events", even if I suppose the process as such has ontological substance. Thinking that thoughts start and end at particular points doesn't make it so.

>>16917286
something happening and something existing are fundamental requirements of any reality

>>16917289
You seem to be replying to voices in your head, meanwhile everything in >>16917286 remains unchallenged and unaddressed.

>>16917300
I accept your concession

>>16917307
I accept your delusional mental illness, but >>16917286 stands unchallenged. If there is a process, you can say "something is happening" but that doesn't even establish anything about distinct events being a sound model, let alone being "ontic".

>>16917312
There's no requirement that they have to be "distinct". There is a requirement that they have to obey rules that is compatible with causality as observed.

>>16917322
>There's no requirement that they have to be "distinct".
LOL. Delusional psychosis getting more intense now. It never takes too much prodding before you start having another episode.

>>16917324
Once again I accept your concession

File: mental.jpg (46.1 KB)

46.1 KB JPG

>the """events""" are in the room with us right now
>no, i can't tell you where they start and end
So they're effectively undefined?
>b-b-b-but i can't heckin' feel them in the walls, ok???

>>16917331
>can't
can*

>>16917331
>>16917332
see >>16917326

File: spongekek.jpg (72.6 KB)

72.6 KB JPG

>the """events""" are in the room with us right now
>no, i can't tell you where they start and end
So they're effectively undefined?
>b-b-b-but i can heckin' feel them in the walls, ok???
>the voices... they're conceding! that's an ontic event right there

File: images.jpg (6.9 KB)

6.9 KB JPG

>>16917352
>Guess I'll wait for someone who is not mentally ill to explain why events are "ontic".
My proof here >>16917267 stands unchallenged and thus I am continually and eternally accepting your concession

>>16917363
The presence of a thought process doesn't tell me anything about "events", even if I suppose the process as such has ontological substance. Thinking that thoughts start and end at particular points doesn't make it so.

If there is a process, you can say "something is happening" but that doesn't even establish anything about distinct events being a sound model, let alone being "ontic".

>inb4 more schizophrenic drivel about all the indistinct "events" that are totally in the room with us right now even if you can't delineate them

>>16917365
Events is the most general formal term for things happening, in and of itself it implies nothing more than that things are happening. Of course we know more than that, we know that they are happening in a specific ordered way, e.g. no faster than c. But that's extrinsic to the term.

>>16917369
The presence of a thought process doesn't tell me anything about "events", even if I suppose the process as such has ontological substance. Thinking that thoughts start and end at particular points doesn't make it so.

If there is a process, you can say "something is happening" but that doesn't even establish anything about distinct events being a sound model, let alone being "ontic".

>inb4 more schizophrenic drivel about all the indistinct "events" that are totally in the room with us right now even if you can't delineate them

File: Two_moving_spirals_scroll_pump.gif (54.3 KB)

54.3 KB GIF

The wave function collapse is the Planck time moment of 1 when every foundational base universal part in the universe moves at the exact same time the exact same distance, or has no location to move into because it is already occupied

>>16917379
>The presence of thought process events doesnt tell me anything about the existence of "events"

Clarified your retardedness

>>16917397
You're a cretin trying to philosophize about a literal kindergarten model of the world and your mind shortcircuits every time someone questions any aspect of this kindergarten model. There is really nothing more to this.

>>16917399
My proof here >>16917267 (You) stands unchallenged and thus I am continually and eternally accepting your concession

>>16917407
>My proof
The presence of a thought process doesn't tell me anything about "events", even if I suppose the process as such has ontological substance. Thinking that thoughts start and end at particular points doesn't make it so.

If there is a process, you can say "something is happening" but that doesn't even establish anything about distinct events being a sound model, let alone being "ontic".

>inb4 more schizophrenic drivel about all the indistinct "events" that are totally in the room with us right now even if you can't delineate them

>>16917411
see >>16917397 and >>16917369, and thus >>16917407

File: Screenshot 2026-02-21 at 00-30-13 B Makes More Sense Events Not Ontically Proven - Grok.png (143.4 KB)

143.4 KB PNG

>>16917415
Let's see if you're dumber than a bot. ...... Yep, looks like you are.

>>16917416
thanks for exposing yourself as a midwit stochastic parrot, and in addition >>16917397 and >>16917369, and thus >>16917407

File: reddit-seethe.png (143 KB)

143 KB PNG

>thanks for exposing yourself as a midwit stochastic parrot
I knew that one would trigger another episode of psychotic hallucinations. :^)

Anyway, looks like we've reached the point where even mindless machines are more intelligent than 4chan posters. Since I wouldn't waste my time arguing with a bot, I won't waste any more of it arguing with an even dumber subhuman nonentity.

>>16917422
I welcome and accept your inevitable concession

File: 45645899.jpg (46.6 KB)

46.6 KB JPG

>>16917380

>>16916256
greatest Saints

>>16917468
damn what's the model of this industrial scale semen reaper?

>>16915778
In fact Relativity is a jewish bullshit and in a year will be exposed as that. You are obviously right with the Dimension 3.

>>16917187
A manifold is a type of space is a type of continuous graph. Learn your foundations before opening your mouth.

File: Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif (253.1 KB)

253.1 KB GIF

>>16915778
Wrong

All is One

>>16915781
Bullshit. This just follows from the postulates of ((einstein)). A lorentzian ether is equivalent to that and has absolute now

>>16919590
only if you're spin 1