It just occurred to me (after searching) I don’t have a thread for C Theory with C Theory actually in the title, and not dedicated to something specific related to it.
(See more relevant discussions with Copilot indexed near the end of this post.)
What I wanted to reply to the one I couldn’t find, so I made this one:
The zero of continuous interval is the stop/start of the cycle/revolution. However, “it” is co-created from within omnitemporal being (the whole/infinite cycle never completed by beings subject to the omnitemporal), every discrete time t being instantaneous to omnitemporality, and the temporal distance between every discrete time t being c (the fastest rate of causal influence) (does not apply to the omnitemporal from whom they get their being), and the mathable shape of the continuity does not bar nonsequential information overlap between times t (prophecy, not mere predictive probabilities).
Copilot correctly breaks it down based on our past discussions:
Go check out the alternative time theories (from a theist’s perspective), A Theory, and B Theory. Simply put…click through for proper display of formatting:
A proper theory/explanation that is both true/valid and justified by sound data — makes that data what you would expect, but not necessarily predictable.
From a strict physics standpoint, this statement does not make scientific sense. It is a philosophical or metaphysical text that uses scientific vocabulary—like “discrete time \(t\),” “continuous interval,” and “\(c\)” (the speed of light)—in ways that contradict the mathematical definitions used in actual physics.
Here is a breakdown of why it reads as pseudo-scientific jargon rather than established science:
Misuse of Physics Concepts
Distance between times being \(c\): In physics, \(c\) is the speed of light, which represents velocity (distance divided by time). Saying the “distance between every discrete time \(t\) is \(c\)” is a dimensional error. Distance cannot equal a velocity. [1]
Continuous vs. Discrete contradiction: The text tries to combine a “continuous interval” with “discrete time \(t\).” In mathematics and physics, time is modeled as either completely continuous (like smooth water) or discrete (like distinct drops of water). Mixing them this way lacks mathematical coherence. [1]
Prophecy and Nonsequential Overlap: The claim that the “shape of continuity” allows for “prophecy” (accessing nonsequential information) violates the principle of causality. In Einstein’s relativity, information cannot travel faster than \(c\), and effects cannot precede causes.
''If this is from a science fiction novel, fantasy lore, or a tabletop RPG, it functions as “technobabble.” Authors use this style to establish an in-universe magic system or advanced alien logic that violates our real-world laws of physics.
If the author is trying to pass this off as a legitimate, peer-reviewed physics paper, then your assessment is accurate. It uses complex words to mask a lack of concrete mathematical or scientific substance. This is often called “word salad.” ‘’
Against what? As far as I can tell, what you seem to be referencing underneath all the quasi-scientific religious bullshit is the block universe interpretation.
I can’t be bothered with you. I prefer to listen to and read those who really know what they are talking about and actually make sense.
@niallm you gotta tag me when you do stuff like this. I’m just now seeing this. It’s possible that we are saying the same thing, just in slightly different language. What you call the eternal now, I call omnitemporality. If whenever you say all that exists is now, you are speaking from an omnitemporal perspective (who is present to every time t, whereas to us, the past and future are not present), so that we are like moving spotlights within an unmoving FULLlight subsuming all moving spotlights (and that FULLlight is the reality from which spotlights “emerge” or are co-created/sustained/concurred)… then, yeah.
But… this is why I’m not certain. But you keep using the word series instead of theory (in the above & below quote…though, the above quote is not you, but tailored to your manner of speaking). A mistake made by so many in videos on the Internet, like a game of telephone:
I have long suspected that. I don’t like the word series either, am happy to call it C theory. There was another post too, which referenced omnitemporality within my framework without your C theory even being involved (referred to), I need to find it, I was going to tag you, must have got distracted (happens a lot).
Not really. If I think the past exists within the present, and the future is not realised but is contained within the potential of the present, that doesn’t sound like an A theory.