Playful Question #1: Newest Statements?

(Playful Questions are mostly for humor moreso than anything else. I'm not really being serious about it, but rather am interested in challenging the audience to try and argue something utterly ridiculous. Pro Tip: Thinking outside the box takes practice.)

Isn't it moot for people to constantly post pictures, or videos, or other materials on sites, stating with each new post that "This is the newest *whatever*!"

Constantly calling the newest thing new is not only redundant, but renders the previous statements false. It's rather misleading and is a practice that should be stopped.

Don't you think?

I think that there is an objective physical reality, and that if something is newer than something else, then it is newest. There is no redundancy unless they are just posting various pictures of different versions of it or if new copies come out continuously.

However, such a statement would require a view of time that supposes that a "present", a "past", and a "future" exist. Basically a linear pattern of time is assumed. Your statement is such that a new object is new relative to all objects in the past.

However let us suppose that time is non-linear, since time can be (and often is) envisioned this way for the purposes of advanced physics. Time may be on an axis not centered on the normal origin of the familiar three dimensions of space we envision, it may be on a mobile axis. Therefore what is "past", "future" and "present" from one axial position is different from another axial position. For example, consider the hypercube (a cube in four dimensional space). If we let one of those dimensions be time and then fix it to the same spatial origin then the hypercube will appear to be a cube only at specific moments in time. However if we let the time axis move the hypercube may appear to be a cube at all moments in time depending on where we station the time axis.

With this in mind, calling something new can be viewed to be redundantly misleading since new depends solely on where the time axis is fixed. Think of it as a temporal frame of reference as compared to an inertial frame of reference.

Whether time is linear or not doesn't matter to a human mind when we can only perceive it as so. Thus making an assumption or argument based on a perception that can't be objectively proven (religion for example) is like explaining color to someone born blind. Outside of what we can experience there is little use for such pedantic an fanciful thinking lol.

Yet if we can imagine nonlinear time, then is it truly beyond our perception?

Not to mention that Einsteinian space-time as developed in general relativity exhibits time as combined with space in as a smooth and continous topogical fabric. Various experiments, such as the famous nuclear clock in a rocket ship experiment, have shown that Einstein's general relativity is amazingly correct and possessed of incredible predictive power. So a system of time that is not necessarily linear has not only been envisioned, but has the support of the scientific community.

I have this problem, I can't actively discuss things that aren't realistic or applicable to life. I swear dragon, if this were ancient greece I would be Aristotle and you would be Plato >_>

Until the day comes that I, myself, experience time in any manner other than that way in which I currently do, I see time as being expressed in other ways as nothing more than a novelty of thought for me, and of importance only to the scientific community lol.