Something which cannot be annihilated cannot be created, etc.

[bahman]

Using bahman's version of my argument and revising it once more...

1. Assume -A and C [i.e. given]
2. Assume C [i.e given]
3. If action and time are reversed [premise]
4. then A [first conclusion]
5. #1 and #4 contradict each other (I don't know what to call this – contradiction is good enough)

Great. So we agree up to here.

6. Therefore #1 is wrong; or #4 is wrong [intermediate conclusion]

#4 could not be wrong if we accept that #3 is correct.

7. Therefore A and C; or A and -C [final conclusion]

You can also start with A and -C (as #1) and reach to conclusion that this assumption is wrong (as #6). So among the options, {A and -C} and {A and C}, only {A and C} is acceptable.

Everything that follows the contradiction is not valid (i.e. #'s 6 & 7 as they appeared before this revision). Since one condition of the contradiction could be right or the other could be, this is what we call karaaazy.

I hope that thing is clear. And many thanks for discussion. Things are more clear now.

[-1-]

When you reverse time, everething in time gets reversed, including all the stipulations. Therefore things would fall up, for instance.

I don't agree with the bold part.

I'd suspected as much.
Your disagreement goes without saying.
Well, naturally.
No surprise.
Would be difficult to imagine otherwise.
Right on track.
Right on the target.
Bang, bulls eye.
As you were.
Carry on.

[commonsense]

Gaaaaah!

[bahman]

When you reverse time, everething in time gets reversed, including all the stipulations. Therefore things would fall up, for instance.

I don't agree with the bold part.

I'd suspected as much.
Your disagreement goes without saying.
Well, naturally.
No surprise.
Would be difficult to imagine otherwise.
Right on track.
Right on the target.
Bang, bulls eye.
As you were.
Carry on.

Do you have any proof for the bold part? Time reversal symmetry could be correct. It could be a property of matter.

[-1-]

I don't agree with the bold part.

I'd suspected as much.
Your disagreement goes without saying.
Well, naturally.
No surprise.
Would be difficult to imagine otherwise.
Right on track.
Right on the target.
Bang, bulls eye.
As you were.
Carry on.

Do you have any proof for the bold part? Time reversal symmetry could be correct. It could be a property of matter.

I don't think either of us has done physical experiments already carried out and replicated by peers that neatly reverses time.

Do you have any proof that the bold part is not true?

It's your words against mine.

[-1-]

Gaaaaah!

You fool! You inhaled it!!

Some threads ought to come with a warning label, "don't try this thought experiment at home".

[bahman]

I'd suspected as much.
Your disagreement goes without saying.
Well, naturally.
No surprise.
Would be difficult to imagine otherwise.
Right on track.
Right on the target.
Bang, bulls eye.
As you were.
Carry on.

Do you have any proof for the bold part? Time reversal symmetry could be correct. It could be a property of matter.

I don't think either of us has done physical experiments already carried out and replicated by peers that neatly reverses time.

I already agree that time cannot be reversed. Time reversal symmetry however explains that a process and its time reverse are both possible, can be observed, in reality.

Do you have any proof that the bold part is not true?

No I have no proof fir it. But I will think about it.

It's your words against mine.

Hmmm!

[commonsense]

Do you have any proof for the bold part? Time reversal symmetry could be correct. It could be a property of matter.

I don't think either of us has done physical experiments already carried out and replicated by peers that neatly reverses time.

I already agree that time cannot be reversed. Time reversal symmetry however explains that a process and its time reverse are both possible, can be observed, in reality.

Do you have any proof that the bold part is not true?

No I have no proof fir it. But I will think about it.

It's your words against mine.

Hmmm!

A negative (such as "the bold part is not true") cannot be proved,
but a positive ("the bold part is true") needs to be proved true to be recognised as true.

bahman.....1
-1-.......…..0

[commonsense]

Gaaaaah!

You fool! You inhaled it!!

Some threads ought to come with a warning label, "don't try this thought experiment at home".

Lovin' it

[bahman]

I don't think either of us has done physical experiments already carried out and replicated by peers that neatly reverses time.

I already agree that time cannot be reversed. Time reversal symmetry however explains that a process and its time reverse are both possible, can be observed, in reality.

Do you have any proof that the bold part is not true?

No I have no proof fir it. But I will think about it.

It's your words against mine.

Hmmm!

A negative (such as "the bold part is not true") cannot be proved,
but a positive ("the bold part is true") needs to be proved true to be recognised as true.

bahman.....1
-1-.......…..0

Great. I forgot about that.

[-1-]

A negative (such as "the bold part is not true") cannot be proved,
but a positive ("the bold part is true") needs to be proved true to be recognised as true.

bahman.....1
-1-.......…..0

But... But.... But.... in science, only the negative can be proven. Postulates or theories can't be proven by science.

So what's the score now.

[commonsense]

bahman.....1
-1-......2-1=1
brandt…... -2