> Time is a kantian a priori for us Exactly. That's what I said. I just didn't want to drag Kant explicitly into it for various reasons. So if you've read Kan

> Time is a kantian a priori for us Exactly. That's what I said. I just didn't want to drag Kant explicitly into it for various reasons. So if you've read Kant, you understand that time is impossible to say whether it's an attribute of the world, or an attribute of us. In particular, claiming to have empirical evidence of one or the other is nonsense - yet it's what this physics paper does, at least in its clickbaity title. > In general, don't try to beat down advanced physics, QM, etc with appeals to "common sense" logic Don't be condescending just because you've taken physics courses. Basic category errors is something everyone's entitled to call out, you don't even have to have read Kant to understand it.