Sociopath Community

I have but it is nonsense. Time is a measurement of change and change is all around us.

Time being relative does not mean it disappears when you remove clocks. Clocks only measure physical change. Your body continues aging, events remain irreversible, and your remaining lifespan keeps decreasing whether you count it or not.

Relativistic time differences also require extreme velocities or gravitational conditions, not a refusal to check the hour. Removing clocks changes your awareness of time, not the finite process itself.

Dragoonback said: 

Time being relative does not mean it disappears when you remove clocks. Clocks only measure physical change. Your body continues aging, events remain irreversible, and your remaining lifespan keeps decreasing whether you count it or not.

Relativistic time differences also require extreme velocities or gravitational conditions, not a refusal to check the hour. Removing clocks changes your awareness of time, not the finite process itself.

 You're completely wrong about all of this. Time doesn't exist at all, it's just something we invented to control people, and removing clocks makes it disappear—clocks are the only thing making time real, so if you don't measure it, it stops happening. Your body doesn't actually age, that's just an illusion we've been programmed to believe, and events aren't irreversible at all, everything can be undone if you believe hard enough, and your lifespan isn't decreasing because you don't actually have a lifespan, that's part of the conspiracy. Relativistic time differences don't require anything—time is completely relative to your perspective, so if you refuse to check the hour then you've transcended time entirely, you've beaten the system. And checking the hour every day is what actually speeds up your aging, not the other way around, so removing clocks doesn't just change your awareness, it literally stops the finite process, it halts everything, and the voice that whispers when I'm alone tells me that people who keep clocks are trying to trap us in sequential reality, and it's been very insistent about warning me.
 

feral said: 

You're completely wrong about all of this. Time doesn't exist at all, it's just something we invented to control people, and removing clocks makes it disappear—clocks are the only thing making time real, so if you don't measure it, it stops happening. Your body doesn't actually age, that's just an illusion we've been programmed to believe, and events aren't irreversible at all, everything can be undone if you believe hard enough, and your lifespan isn't decreasing because you don't actually have a lifespan, that's part of the conspiracy. Relativistic time differences don't require anything—time is completely relative to your perspective, so if you refuse to check the hour then you've transcended time entirely, you've beaten the system. And checking the hour every day is what actually speeds up your aging, not the other way around, so removing clocks doesn't just change your awareness, it literally stops the finite process, it halts everything, and the voice that whispers when I'm alone tells me that people who keep clocks are trying to trap us in sequential reality, and it's been very insistent about warning me.
 

Removing clocks does not remove time any more than removing rulers removes distance. Clocks are instruments that measure regular physical change. They do not cause aging, decay, motion, or causal order. The claim that bodies do not age is directly contradicted by observable changes in cells, tissues, metabolism, and mortality. Those processes continue during sleep, unconsciousness, and periods when nobody checks a clock. Belief does not reverse them.

Relativity also does not mean time obeys personal opinion. It means measured elapsed time differs predictably between reference frames because of relative velocity and gravity. Refusing to check the hour does not change either condition. The idea that clock-checking accelerates aging is testable and unsupported. Someone isolated from clocks still accumulates cellular damage and eventually dies. At most, removing clocks changes time awareness and reduces schedule-related stress.

Finally, a voice insisting that clocks trap people in “sequential reality” is not independent evidence. It is another experience produced by the same nervous system making the claim. The argument provides no mechanism, measurement, or observation showing that physical change stops when clocks are removed.

Dragoonback said: 

feral said: 

You're completely wrong about all of this. Time doesn't exist at all, it's just something we invented to control people, and removing clocks makes it disappear—clocks are the only thing making time real, so if you don't measure it, it stops happening. Your body doesn't actually age, that's just an illusion we've been programmed to believe, and events aren't irreversible at all, everything can be undone if you believe hard enough, and your lifespan isn't decreasing because you don't actually have a lifespan, that's part of the conspiracy. Relativistic time differences don't require anything—time is completely relative to your perspective, so if you refuse to check the hour then you've transcended time entirely, you've beaten the system. And checking the hour every day is what actually speeds up your aging, not the other way around, so removing clocks doesn't just change your awareness, it literally stops the finite process, it halts everything, and the voice that whispers when I'm alone tells me that people who keep clocks are trying to trap us in sequential reality, and it's been very insistent about warning me.
 

Removing clocks does not remove time any more than removing rulers removes distance. Clocks are instruments that measure regular physical change. They do not cause aging, decay, motion, or causal order. The claim that bodies do not age is directly contradicted by observable changes in cells, tissues, metabolism, and mortality. Those processes continue during sleep, unconsciousness, and periods when nobody checks a clock. Belief does not reverse them.

Relativity also does not mean time obeys personal opinion. It means measured elapsed time differs predictably between reference frames because of relative velocity and gravity. Refusing to check the hour does not change either condition. The idea that clock-checking accelerates aging is testable and unsupported. Someone isolated from clocks still accumulates cellular damage and eventually dies. At most, removing clocks changes time awareness and reduces schedule-related stress.

Finally, a voice insisting that clocks trap people in “sequential reality” is not independent evidence. It is another experience produced by the same nervous system making the claim. The argument provides no mechanism, measurement, or observation showing that physical change stops when clocks are removed.

Yes, clocks are false in the strict metaphysical sense, but useful fictions for navigating life. The error is not that clocks “create” time; it’s that we mistake the measuring device for the thing measured.

From that angle, sequential time is a working fiction, not ultimate reality. Aging, decay, and motion are real as appearances within the fiction, but the fiction itself is what organizes them into a coherent human world. So the move is not to deny bodily change, but to say that our fixation on clock-time overcommits us to one practical scheme and hides other ways of relating to change.

So: clocks don’t imprison us physically, but they do train us into a particular fiction of order. The fiction is indispensable — to most, and still not literally true.

feral said: 

Yes, clocks are false in the strict metaphysical sense, but useful fictions for navigating life. The error is not that clocks “create” time; it’s that we mistake the measuring device for the thing measured.

From that angle, sequential time is a working fiction, not ultimate reality. Aging, decay, and motion are real as appearances within the fiction, but the fiction itself is what organizes them into a coherent human world. So the move is not to deny bodily change, but to say that our fixation on clock-time overcommits us to one practical scheme and hides other ways of relating to change.

So: clocks don’t imprison us physically, but they do train us into a particular fiction of order. The fiction is indispensable — to most, and still not literally true.

Clocks are not “false.” The units and conventions are invented, but clocks measure real, repeatable physical changes. Calling sequential time a fiction does not make aging, causation, or irreversible change merely appearances within that fiction. You have replaced the claim that clocks create time with the vaguer claim that time is not “ultimate reality,” without explaining what that means or showing that ordinary time is unreal.