Modern mankind lives in the greatest illusion ever invented; her own. We literally invented and named everything around us; Tables, chairs and even time. Apples fall from trees, that’s a fact, and probably have been doing so long before mankind picked and ate them. Before that those fallen apples rotted away on their own pace, a pace not designated anything and certainly not time.

Time is but the art of reflection in mankind. the ability to remember and measure one’s own evolution. The evolution of a day, a week, a month or a thousand years.
Or the decay of a single apple.

But in doing so, do we not merely remember the invention of time?

It seems to me that the concept of ‘iteration’ was introduced by you, not me. I’ve shown initially that what we regard as ‘time’ is actually a transition from a more ordered to less ordered state; that transition doesn’t need to be objectively based on time, my point about comparisons of distances in photon paths shows that there’s no concrete reason to believe it is.

If we consider a piece of rope that at one end is well braided together whilst at the other end is totally frayed (with the rope between showing the transition from one state to the other), we have in concrete form a clear illustration of a transition from order to disorder. There’s nothing preventing those two states (and every state in between) existing simultaneously, nor is there anything preventing us from experiencing that steady transition from one state to the other in one visual snapshot. Most importantly, there’s nothing iterative, in terms of a time-sequence, between one end of that rope and the other.

If you wish to introduce a time parameter into consideration of such a scenario, that’s fine – but I’m happy for you NOT to attribute to me a construct that you yourself have chosen to add into the mix.

However, the iteration count is a time parameter, which you hid (probably without realizing it) in the structure of your argument.

since you’ve taken the trouble to comment I feel it would be ungracious not to include your submission, but I’m afraid it’s rather longer than its content seems to merit. Approx. the last 40% consists of VS explaining how the human race is too preoccupied with profit to recognise his genius; this is a common complaint among those who can’t seem to get their ideas out there.

I’m more than a little puzzled by a book that includes “What gravity is”, “Why gods do not exist”,”Why there is homosexuality in humans” and “What ‘happiness’ actually is” all under one cover. I don’t feel that such a text is really in the spirit of what this blog, or this blog post, is about. Nevertheless, as you’ll see, I’ve posted your first para, which will enable anyone who so wishes to find out about this guy and his ideas – I recommend judicious use of Google by anyone so inclined.

The universe is a machine, we are machines, everything is running on constant energy like a car engine.