-
I am wondering though are there physicists who say time is completely man made and is not real. Thought for 6s Yes — some physicists say that, but almost none mean “time is a made-up calendar like money.” They mean the flow, the global now, or time as a fundamental ingredient is not in the basic laws. Clocks, aging, and change still happen.Einstein already wrote that for physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is “only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” He meant there is no single moving present for the whole universe. He did not mean clocks are fake. physicsworld.com Julian Barbour is the blunt case. In The End of Time he argues there is no flowing time and no hidden time axis. Reality is a heap of complete “Nows.” What we call history is structure inside a Now (a “time capsule”), not travel along a line. Motion and passage are how we read differences between configurations. That is as close as a working physicist gets to “time is not real.” It is a minority view, taken seriously as a research program, not as settled fact. en.wikipedia.org Carlo Rovelli is the most visible living voice. He has written that time does not exist at the fundamental level: loop-quantum-gravity equations need no time variable; past and future look the same in microscopic laws; the “flow” is largely how a coarse-grained, heat-sensitive brain sits inside rising entropy. He also says our experience of time is not a mere error — it is real for us, like the sky “turning” because Earth rotates. So: not fundamental, not man-made from nothing, but perspectival. theguardian.com Others nearby, not identicalPage and Wootters: in a globally frozen quantum universe, “evolution” is entanglement with a clock subsystem. Nima Arkani-Hamed and many quantum-gravity / holography people: spacetime itself is probably emergent, not basic. Lee Smolin often disagrees with full timelessness and defends a real present; useful as a contrast. What almost nobody in physics claims: that seconds, cesium clocks, or “Tuesday” are arbitrary social inventions with no physical correlate. Units and calendars are human. Duration, causal order, and proper time along a worldline are not.So the accurate map is:Claim Who Status No universal flowing now Einstein, most relativists Mainstream Time not in the deepest equations Rovelli, some quantum gravity Active research Time is only an illusion; only static Nows Barbour Minority, discussed Time is a human convention like money Almost no physicist Not a physics position Your “time doesn’t exist” slogan sits nearest Barbour and popular Rovelli. The field’s careful version is: the thing we feel as a river is not a basic piece of the world; change and clocks still are.
-
-
-
-
For decades, the mainstream Jewish community and conservative Christians often found themselves on opposite sides of domestic cultural issues. However, the aggressive overreach of radical activist networks in public education has shattered old political divisions, forging an unprecedented, highly effective coalition [10.1].This unexpected alliance works in practice through three major common interests:1. A Shared Stand for Parent Rights and TransparencyThe underhanded tactics used to advance curricula like San Francisco’s Voices—such as midnight votes and copyright shields—alienated Christian families just as much as Jewish families.Breaking the Monopolies: Conservative and Christian legal networks have joined hand-in-hand with Jewish advocacy groups to mandate total educational transparency. They are deploying joint resources to demand that public school boards publish every single reading list and lesson plan online, permanently dismantling the ability of radical administrators to hide their work.Electoral Force: In suburban communities like Fremont and across Silicon Valley, Christian, Jewish, and immigrant parent groups (such as East Asian and Indian coalitions) are combining their voting power [10.1]. They are pooling campaign funds to systematically remove radical progressive officials from local school boards and replace them with moderate, transparency-first candidates.2. Uniting Against the "Oppressor vs. Oppressed" FrameworkTraditional Christians and Jewish advocates share a fundamental rejection of radical identity-based theories that divide children into rigid moral categories based on race or religion.Defending Basic Values: Both communities view the "Liberated" framework as an assault on universal values, meritocracy, and individual character. Christian parents refuse to let their children be taught that their faith or traditional values are inherently oppressive, while Jewish parents refuse to let their children be targeted by biased political dogmas.3. Bipartisan Legislative and Federal EnforcementThis alliance has successfully elevated local school board grievances into historic federal and state-level protections.The Right to Worship Act: Just days ago, on August 6, 2026, a major bipartisan, bicameral coalition led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced the federal Right to Worship Act. Backed heavily by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), this bill establishes strict 100-foot protective buffer zones and heavy civil fines to stop hostile activist crowds from blockading or harassing congregants outside houses of worship.The Federal Crackdown: The Trump administration’s upcoming 15-city DOJ task force and FBI deployment is heavily cheered by red-state conservatives. They view the federal audits into deep-blue California municipalities as the ultimate enforcement of civil rights, proving that local progressive immunity expires where federal law begins.The progressive establishment completely miscalculated. They assumed they could isolate Jewish families by using anti-racist language, but their reliance on secrecy and radical tactics instead forced a historic real-world alignment. Mainstream Jews, traditional Christians, conservatives, and diverse immigrant communities have formed a massive, united front—permanently forcing the radical movement into a corner as the legal guardrails close in [10.1].
-
-
-
-
Here is some more of my work: 0→1→2→complexity It captures an intuitive story: a lack of distinction, the emergence of unity, the appearance of difference, and then the growth of relationships and patterns. That kind of simplicity is often what makes ideas worth investigating. Many powerful mathematical ideas begin with a pattern that feels fundamental before the formal machinery is developed. At the same time, its appeal and its scientific status are different things. Right now, 0!=1 in the way you are using it is best viewed as a conceptual framework or metaphorical organizing principle, not a demonstrated physical law. The next step, if one wanted to develop it, would be to see whether it can generate precise mathematics or predictions. But as a piece of conceptual thinking, yes—the focus on unity as an organizing principle is a genuinely interesting question. It asks something very fundamental: Why does reality contain coherent structures at all? That question has been at the heart of mathematics and physics for a long time. It could help in determining when polarities are possible Yes, that is one of the more interesting ways to frame it. If your idea were developed mathematically, it could be viewed as asking: Under what conditions can a system move from a unified state into a state with distinguishable opposites or polarities? In existing science, this question appears in several forms: Symmetry breaking: A system may begin with many equivalent possibilities, then settle into a state where distinctions appear. For example, a magnet can have a preferred direction even though the underlying laws are symmetric. Phase transitions: A system can change from one type of organization to another when conditions cross a threshold. Bifurcations in dynamical systems: A small change in conditions can cause a system to split into different possible behaviors. A mathematical version of your question might be: When does a unified state become unstable and allow two or more distinct states? The "polarity" would not necessarily mean good/bad or opposite forces in a philosophical sense. It could simply mean two distinguishable states that are related by a rule. For example: 1→(+1,−1) could represent the emergence of a pair of complementary possibilities. The challenge would be defining what triggers that transition: an energy threshold? a symmetry condition? an information constraint? a mathematical instability? That is actually where your focus on 1 becomes useful. Rather than starting with the opposites, you are asking about the origin of the conditions that allow opposites to exist at all. A rigorous version of the idea would need to specify a mathematical system where: a unified state exists, a polarity can emerge, the transition point can be calculated. That would put it in conversation with existing work on symmetry, phase transitions, and emergent structures. Could you simplify this for my small human mind Absolutely. The simple version is: You are asking: How does one thing become two things? Imagine a perfectly calm, undivided situation. There is no difference, no "this side" and "that side." Then something changes, and a difference appears: 1→+1 and −1 Now there is a relationship. There is a "push" and a "pull," a direction, a pattern. A simple example: A perfectly balanced pencil standing on its tip has no chosen direction. A tiny disturbance happens. It falls one way or the other. A difference appears. The important part is not the two directions themselves. It is the moment when a difference becomes possible. Your idea with 0!=1 seems to be asking: Is there a basic mathematical rule that explains how a state of pure possibility becomes a real, organized state? Then the next question is: Once a "one" exists, when and why can it split into a "two"? That split is where polarity appears. In very simple terms: potential→unity→polarity→complexity You are not really asking about numbers. You are asking about the birth of differences and relationships. That is a big question. It is the kind of question that sits underneath ideas like symmetry breaking, the formation of structures in the universe, and how complexity arises. Your intuition is trying to find the "first step" where the universe goes from one possible state into many possible states. Here is the short version of what you have, without dressing it up.You are drawing a ladder:0 — no distinction. Nothing to count, no “this” versus “that.” 1 — a whole. One situation that can stand as itself. 2 — a split. Two related sides: +1+1+1 and −1-1-1 , here and there, this way and that way. complexity — many relations among those distinctions.That is a story about how difference appears, not a formula that already predicts anything.Physics already has names for the middle step, the jump from 1 to 2:A pencil balanced on its tip is a kind of 1: no chosen direction. A tiny shove and it falls left or right: 2. That is the everyday picture of symmetry breaking. A magnet, a cooled metal, a particle that picks a vacuum: same pattern. One balanced possibility becomes two (or many) actual sides.Your “ones” from the last message fit the 1. Each complete moment is a whole. Polarity is what happens when a whole can support two opposite markings that still belong to the same rule ((n) and −n-n-n , or a turn and its reverse).What this is not yet:It is not a new law. 0→1→20\to 1\to 20\to 1\to 2 does not tell you when the pencil falls or what the two sides are. 0≠10\neq 10\neq 1 as a slogan is not the same as the factorial fact 0!=10!=10!=1 . Those are different uses of the symbols. Time being “measured in ones” does not follow automatically from this ladder. You can tell the same story with no clocks at all. The useful question hiding in it is only this:When is a single whole unstable enough that a pair can appear?Until you name the system (a number, a field, a magnet, a Now) and the trigger (energy, noise, a rule that forbids staying balanced), it stays a map of ideas: emptiness, unity, opposition, tangle.That map is old and respectable. It is how people first notice symmetry breaking and complexity. It becomes science when the arrows get equations and a number you can check. Until then it is a clean sketch of the birth of difference — which is exactly the interesting part.
-
