—“+Curt Doolittle I’m always worried about these revisionist solutions since it seems so strange to tell someone, when you say “is”, you think that you mean one thing, but actually you mean several different things. But that aside, it seems that your solution just bites the bullet and admits that there is no such thing as identity since the only way that we can actually talk about identity is to talk about some component of identity: ownership, differentiation etc. It seems that this solution gives up the game since it just acknoledges that there is no real relation we are talking about when we are talking about identity. When someone asks you on the witness stand, “is this the same gun that you saw the defendant shoot your wife with?” Your only response can be in some ways yes and in other ways no, but identity is always a deception. If you think this, that’s fine, it is jsut a big bullet to bite. Or perhaps I have misrepresented your position?”— Carneades.org
Apologies in advance that this is a bit heavy, but I have been thru your (wonderful) set of videos and you are clearly sophisticated enough for substantive discourse.
THE CURSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PARADIGMS
😉 It seems strange to tell someone that the earth is round, or that the stars are not pricks in the fabric of the sky, or most of all that velocity through space significantly alters the rate of change we call time. The fact that we continually correct ourselves is the purpose of reason. The strangeness of an increase in parsimony is evidence of the substantiality of error given its absence.
Why? because by the combination of memory, action, and reason, we can continually increase our agency (physical, emotional, intellectual, social, political, evolutionary) and continually increase the capture of differences in state of the universe through our actions.
OBSCURANTISM
When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud.
In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit..
THE FICTION OF CONFLATION OF LAW(SCRIPTURE) WITH SPEECH.
And so, while we can interpret scripture, the written word, and the recorded law, when we are dependent upon appeals to the authority of scripture, written word, and recorded law, in any circumstance where recursive discourse is possible, we produce statements that are undeniable (false), decidable(true), informative but undecidable, undecidable, and incomprehensible. And we can determine intentions are scientific and logical (false), testimonial and constructive (moral/true ), honest(moral), considerate(polite), immoral (coercive), and criminal (fraudulent).
TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND DECEPTIONS
And to determine degree of decidability, and intentionality requires little more than complete sentences(full accounting) in operational grammar and semantics (complete transactions). And exercises in the ‘interpretation’ of incomplete transactions is … well, something close to a victorian parlor game.
For example:
“The cat is black” vs “I promise I see a cat, and I promise that its body appears black.”
Is very similar to:
“It’s a rational number” vs “That number consists of a fractional ratio of two or more positional names converted to decimal notation, that produces a equi-divisible, and therefore terminating, positional name” (where fraction is defined elsewhere).
is very similar to:
“The square root of two” and “infinity”, neither of which can exist, for precisely the same reasons: limits.
And in the Ship of Theseus “of” serves that same function as ‘is’: to mislead.
Stating the question as “That ship we contractually refer to as the ship owned by, paid for by, designed by, crafted by, constructed of….” each asks a different question.” (Our nouns contain these general properties of ownership, probability etc).
While nouns, ( or referrers ) may be constructed by many means, from the arbitrary, to the fictional, to the allegorical, to the analogical, to the normative and traditional, to the descriptive to a set of measurements, to a set of relative measurements of a set of constant relations.
So the ship of theseus consists which category of referrers? A contractual (normative) one.
THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF “LOGIC”.
The word “logic”, operationally refers to ‘the preservation of constant relations’ between states (statements) by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
1 – So far as we know, the universe consists entirely of a hierarchical network of constant relations. (Soft Determinism)
2 – While that universe appears to consist of a small number of constant relations (state) and possible operations (changes in state), through layers of permutations of possible operations great complexity can emerge.
3 – Statements Definitions, tautologies, deductions, inductions, abductions and guesses (even free associations) require some set of constant relations between states (statements), by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
4 – We are able to promise descriptions through guesses
5 – We are able to state Tautologies through Guesses (even free associations) as a means of suggesting relations.
6 – And we are able to state sets of tautologies through guesses to cumulatively (repeatedly) suggest relations.
7 – And we are able at times (special cases) to construct proofs of possibility that survive competition with proofs of impossibility. (Where a proof consists of demonstration and survival of the preservation of constant relations between states (Statements).
STRONG LANGUAGE WITH WEAK GRAMMAR
Lucky as we are that english provides as a low context high precision language, and luckier that we are that english grammar generates an analytic rather than synthetic language, and lucky as we are that english contains semantics dialects such as working class germanic, aristocratic french, and intellectual latin and greek. And lucky as we are that english preserves methodological dialects, each of which varies in the preservation of one or more constant relations, including but not limited to the categorical (differences), arithmetic (positional), mathematical, financial, (formal) logical, algorithmic, scientific, legal, experiential(ordinary), fictional, mythic, supernatural, and occult. We remain somewhere between unlucky and primitive, because our grammar remains tainted by the 20th century failure of brewer, bridgman, mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others to complete the transition through probabilistic to operational semantics and grammar.
But as lucky as we are and as unlucky as we have been, it is quite possible to produce a semantics, grammar and syntax of universal commensurability across all methodological dialects, using each to falsify the other. And that is the continued evolution of inventions of science, (inherited quite honestly from engineering), of the limit of testimony (descriptions) to operational language.
THE SHIP OF THESEUS AS AN EXERCISE IN THE STUDY OF DECEPTION.
Rational (kantian) Philosophy, mathematical platonism, pseudoscientific ficationalsms, hermeneutics, the interpretation of scripture, and the interpretation of law, all are
So the proper answer to the Ship of Theseus, is that names consist of some combination of promises, and the contract for the name of the ship of theseus is by definition provided by the question, one of ownership, and our underlying cause of this undecidability begs the questions:
1) why are we ignorant of grammar and semantics of the language we use, and
2) why does sophomoric philosophy consist largely of questions employing this weakness in our semantics, grammar and its understanding,
3) why is it, that we do not ask the question why most paradoxes of this nature are not in fact paradoxes, but deceptions. And
4) why do we not learn that our world is full of deceptions because of the persistence of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? And
5) why do we not punish people who perpetuate such deceptions by use of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? 😉 (The last a bit tongue in cheek.)
So this particular ‘deception’ (by means of suggestion) is interesting because it provides a vehicle for exploring the techniques of deception and the techniques we use to construct names, and the REASON we use those names rather than other names. So we could say the ship built for theseus, using money he’d made from trading olive oil, by tom, dick, and harry, and designed by eric, during a certain date range, at a certain port, out of materials obtained from here there and everywhere.
So the question is, which constant relations are we discussing? If the ship is dismantled and rebuilt by the same design I would say that one does not testify falsely by using the same short-name (theseus’s ship Mathilda).
(more…)
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
Curt Doolittle
35 minutes ago (edited)
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
NOW, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.
Does any ideal exist? No.
Identity requires a contract for constant relations.
The question is, who is that contract with? And what are the terms?
Because while a positional name cannot vary except in scale and referent, nearly all other names refer to some contractual necessity, norm, or habit.
Can I use a better name than another to refer to the same entity under the same terms? Of course.
The most parsimonious operational description possible constitutes the least erroneous name. Unfortunately, the terms of semantic contract vary substantially over time.
Yet if all are expressed in a universally commensurable language of operational descriptions, then it is very difficult for the contractual terms of that contract to vary over time.
Attempts to conflate the identity of positional names of scale independence with contractual references is rather foolish when we give it even the most tepid bit of thought.
Either we speak in measurements of we speak in fantasies, and the most important question is not whether we speak the optimum: the most parsimonious description possible at the current level of understanding (truth), but whether we testify falsely as to the state of our knowledge.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Original Site Post
-
French Quiche, Pastry, Cheese and egg. German Strudel. Pastry, no (or little) ch
French Quiche, Pastry, Cheese and egg. German Strudel. Pastry, no (or little) cheese, no egg. Italian Calzone, Pastry, Cheese, no egg. English ‘Pie’. Pastry, no (or little) cheese, no (or little) egg. American Sandwich. Bread, cheese, no egg. -
French Quiche, Pastry, Cheese and egg. German Strudel. Pastry, no (or little) ch
French Quiche, Pastry, Cheese and egg. German Strudel. Pastry, no (or little) cheese, no egg. Italian Calzone, Pastry, Cheese, no egg. English ‘Pie’. Pastry, no (or little) cheese, no (or little) egg. American Sandwich. Bread, cheese, no egg. -
Q&a: “Should War Be Conducted Morally?”
Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?” Simon asks two questions, and offers his analysis. I offer mine, with a very different answer. Cooperation is only valuable if it advances ones line, kin, and people. —“1) Should warfare be conducted morally or is that an oxymoron? In my opinion, the answer is yes, it should – and no, it is not an oxymoron. Because morality exists only in reciprocity, and warfare is in fact the ultimate instrument of reciprocity. 2) Should we follow internationally agreed upon regulations of warfare? Yes, until we don’t, which is at a point when signaling adherence to convention in order to maintain a reputation for maximizing future cooperative exchange is more costly, or too great of a discount granted, than the infamy incurred from shoving the charter up the enemy’s rear entry while appropriating his wealth using any imaginable means. A well calibrated algorithm of foreign policy will not abuse that course of action, but it will make prudent use of it, and without mercy.”— Simon ———- Simon, Violence is a resource that can be put to good (reciprocity) or ill (irreciprocity). From the entire spectrum of creation of reciprocity, restoration of reciprocity, or exhaustion of reciprocity, or conquest, or extermination. Reciprocity purchases future cooperation which is, in general, the means of advancing your line, kin, and people. However there are many conditions under which the purchase of cooperation is against the interests of your line, kin, and people. a) When cooperation is impossible due to extreme differences in ability, intention, or interest. b) Or when when the effects of long term cooperation are detrimental. c) Or when the returns on conquest or extermination are higher than the returns on cooperation. Now, the central issue is that once beyond the value of agrarian slavery, returns on conquest and extermination are ALWAYS higher than the returns on cooperation, it is just that given marginal differences its often unaffordable to do so. And that is our current situation. If conquest and extermination are not possible, then cooperation is preferable. If cooperation is not possible, or too costly, then resistance and boycott, and threat are preferable. But war, conquest, extermination are always more profitable than cooperation. As long as one does not build institutions that require continuous profiting from conquest and extermination. Or as long as one retains enough free capital from one’s expansion to organize a productive rather than predatory economy once efforts are completed. Because eventually one does run out of prey. However, if one succeeds in predation, at sufficient scale, then the people have no need or interest in the predatory order of economy and polity. As such there are two forces at work: either the underclass (abrahamic) warfare or the upper class (aristocratic) warfare that seeks genetic peerages. We have seen what happens in the underclass models and seen what happens in the aristocratic models. And the underclass model is merely devolutionary, while the aristocratic model is evolutionary – in fact, that is precisely what defines feminine, underclass, communal, equalitarian, and masculine upperclass, kinship, egalitarian. Christianity has been a cancer. The Romans were (as are we today) too greedy for consumption, and were the victims of dilution, and conquest by islam. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Q&a: “Should War Be Conducted Morally?”
Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?” Simon asks two questions, and offers his analysis. I offer mine, with a very different answer. Cooperation is only valuable if it advances ones line, kin, and people. —“1) Should warfare be conducted morally or is that an oxymoron? In my opinion, the answer is yes, it should – and no, it is not an oxymoron. Because morality exists only in reciprocity, and warfare is in fact the ultimate instrument of reciprocity. 2) Should we follow internationally agreed upon regulations of warfare? Yes, until we don’t, which is at a point when signaling adherence to convention in order to maintain a reputation for maximizing future cooperative exchange is more costly, or too great of a discount granted, than the infamy incurred from shoving the charter up the enemy’s rear entry while appropriating his wealth using any imaginable means. A well calibrated algorithm of foreign policy will not abuse that course of action, but it will make prudent use of it, and without mercy.”— Simon ———- Simon, Violence is a resource that can be put to good (reciprocity) or ill (irreciprocity). From the entire spectrum of creation of reciprocity, restoration of reciprocity, or exhaustion of reciprocity, or conquest, or extermination. Reciprocity purchases future cooperation which is, in general, the means of advancing your line, kin, and people. However there are many conditions under which the purchase of cooperation is against the interests of your line, kin, and people. a) When cooperation is impossible due to extreme differences in ability, intention, or interest. b) Or when when the effects of long term cooperation are detrimental. c) Or when the returns on conquest or extermination are higher than the returns on cooperation. Now, the central issue is that once beyond the value of agrarian slavery, returns on conquest and extermination are ALWAYS higher than the returns on cooperation, it is just that given marginal differences its often unaffordable to do so. And that is our current situation. If conquest and extermination are not possible, then cooperation is preferable. If cooperation is not possible, or too costly, then resistance and boycott, and threat are preferable. But war, conquest, extermination are always more profitable than cooperation. As long as one does not build institutions that require continuous profiting from conquest and extermination. Or as long as one retains enough free capital from one’s expansion to organize a productive rather than predatory economy once efforts are completed. Because eventually one does run out of prey. However, if one succeeds in predation, at sufficient scale, then the people have no need or interest in the predatory order of economy and polity. As such there are two forces at work: either the underclass (abrahamic) warfare or the upper class (aristocratic) warfare that seeks genetic peerages. We have seen what happens in the underclass models and seen what happens in the aristocratic models. And the underclass model is merely devolutionary, while the aristocratic model is evolutionary – in fact, that is precisely what defines feminine, underclass, communal, equalitarian, and masculine upperclass, kinship, egalitarian. Christianity has been a cancer. The Romans were (as are we today) too greedy for consumption, and were the victims of dilution, and conquest by islam. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Clarity (Time)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire Simple. WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS: Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space. I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind. And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it. But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally. The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels. I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces. The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’. -
Clarity (Time)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire Simple. WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS: Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space. I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind. And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it. But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally. The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels. I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces. The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’. -
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that changes at different rates at different velocities consist of nothing other than experience, is nonsense, because all change in velocity produces uniform changes in everything at every level of reality. If we send a mechanical device, or a decaying radioactive element to space and back they do in fact change at different (miniscule) rates. So it’s not psychological phenomenon. I hate pseudoscientific nonsense. AFAIK its just as likely that the rate of change is exaggerated by the expansion and contraction of space time, but that the rate of change is a constant (time), as it is that time is fully dependent upon the rate of change of the universe, and that it ceases if expansion ceases. I mean, I would love it if someone would correct me if I err, but you know, I haven’t found anything in any discipline that is terribly complicated. In fact, most of the problems of complexity were manufactured by the development of symbols. If we had done mathematics like they did in the time of newton then every idiot in the world would understand it. To say time passes, is simply a statement of memory. To say that all changes in state occur in sequence and that such a sequence occurs independent of perception, regardless of whether space-time is expanding or contracting. I perceive a sequence of changes in state. We can increase our velocity and slow or decrease our velocity and speed changes, but we cannot reverse it, nor can we speed or slow it to extremes. Now, there is a vast difference between observing phenomenon and travelling phenomenon. Light is just a view into history. And that light-history may be created at different rates. that’s all. I am not sure why this leads philosophers and scientists to disagree – or to fail to articulate such differences. I suspect that it is the open question of whether time (change) exists (and universe exists) beyond the expansion of our universe. (or if we are even correct about our vision of a universe.) Public Physics has become all too much like magic. -
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that changes at different rates at different velocities consist of nothing other than experience, is nonsense, because all change in velocity produces uniform changes in everything at every level of reality. If we send a mechanical device, or a decaying radioactive element to space and back they do in fact change at different (miniscule) rates. So it’s not psychological phenomenon. I hate pseudoscientific nonsense. AFAIK its just as likely that the rate of change is exaggerated by the expansion and contraction of space time, but that the rate of change is a constant (time), as it is that time is fully dependent upon the rate of change of the universe, and that it ceases if expansion ceases. I mean, I would love it if someone would correct me if I err, but you know, I haven’t found anything in any discipline that is terribly complicated. In fact, most of the problems of complexity were manufactured by the development of symbols. If we had done mathematics like they did in the time of newton then every idiot in the world would understand it. To say time passes, is simply a statement of memory. To say that all changes in state occur in sequence and that such a sequence occurs independent of perception, regardless of whether space-time is expanding or contracting. I perceive a sequence of changes in state. We can increase our velocity and slow or decrease our velocity and speed changes, but we cannot reverse it, nor can we speed or slow it to extremes. Now, there is a vast difference between observing phenomenon and travelling phenomenon. Light is just a view into history. And that light-history may be created at different rates. that’s all. I am not sure why this leads philosophers and scientists to disagree – or to fail to articulate such differences. I suspect that it is the open question of whether time (change) exists (and universe exists) beyond the expansion of our universe. (or if we are even correct about our vision of a universe.) Public Physics has become all too much like magic. -
“Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slowe
“Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slower we experience relative change. The shower we move through space, the faster we experience relative change. We are always in motion. The higher the gravity (density) the slower the relative change. The lower the gravity the faster the relative change. As far as I know the universe (space) that we exist within is expanding. Expanding at something approaching the speed of light. The speed of light appears to be the maximum rate of expansion at our current pressure, but the rate of expansion appears to have been higher at earlier pressure. Would the rate of change been different at higher pressure and higher velocity – as far as I know it was the same. So the rate of change at any point in the universe is determined by the rate of expansion minus the local density of space time that creates the opposite of expansion: gravity. So the fact that we experience entropy (change) faster or slower does not mean that time (change) ever stops, only that maximum and minimum rates of time change are existentially possible. Nor does it mean that it’s reversible. So when a physicist proposes that time is an illusion that’s nonsense. Memory allows us to differentiate between a sequence of states. And the rate of change that we call time varies depending upon relative velocity. And yes you can slow time down at higher velocity, although it is extremely expensive to do so (and dangerous). And yes you can speed time up at higher density. But it is expensive to do so (and dangerous). So the conflation of space and time into space time is a half truth. The truth is we have no idea what happens to the rate of change (speed of time) at the margins. It is possible that time has no meaning outside of expansion or contraction. But it is more likely that rates of time (change) are consistent and that expansion(faster) and contraction (slower) merely alter that rate of change. Similarly it is very difficult to believe that our universe is the only universe and that other universes don’t behave by the same laws. But for scientific purposes at the scale of our ability to act, it is certainly better science to assume we are alone than to envision standing on the backs of turtles ‘all the way down”.