>>11161570>Everything, if anything at all, will tend to become more complex.I'm not putting time into the equation yet, but that's what I can say without even thinking of any sort of equation or philosophical statement to prove it. In any case, even a systematical degradation would imply some type of higher order or elements, which justifies my first statement.
>Assuming a linear timeframe, everything that tends to become more complex will do so "in time".Even if you were to go backwards in time, it would appear that everything would become more complex as things go back in time, like a puff of cigarette smoke becoming a cigarette, a series of runners running backwards to the start of the race, an egg flying upwards which was broken. Etc. So any timeframe that you look at appears that it becomes more complex in any direction.
>Time itself has no real magnitude, unless you are counting the harmonics of waves.So, this is more complex, but time has no magnitude unless you are comparing different waves of different frequencies. A higher frequency would imply more node points per distance than a less higher frequency, which would imply that its period is different, which would mean that one wave is more complex in time than another wave. So, time is just a scalar energy component, even though there could be many scalar energy components in one function (timelines).
