Something which cannot be annihilated cannot be created, etc.

[bahman]

Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created. Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time. Now let's reverse the action/time. What we observe is that this thing get annihilated which is problematic. Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

Following the same procedure one can show that something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

In the same way one can show that something which can be created can be annihilated.

Finally one can also show that something which can be annihilated can be created.

[commonsense]

Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created. Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time. Now let's reverse the action/time. What we observe is that this thing get annihilated which is problematic. Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

me: Let annihilation = A, Created = C, Problematic = P

bahman: Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created.
me: Assume -A and C

bahman: Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time.
me: Assume C exists for a period of time

bahman: Now let's reverse the action/time.
me: If action and time are reversed after -A and C,

bahman: What we observe is that this thing get annihilated
me: then A.

bahman: which is problematic.
me: A = P

bahman: Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.
me:-C implies -A

Do you see where Not Annihilation is said to result in Annihilation?

[-1-]

Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created. Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time. Now let's reverse the action/time. What we observe is that this thing get annihilated which is problematic. Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

Following the same procedure one can show that something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

In the same way one can show that something which can be created can be annihilated.

Finally one can also show that something which can be annihilated can be created.

1. Action in time positive must be reversed in time negative.

2. Therefore the quality of "can't be annihilated" is reversed into "can be annihilated".

People walk backward in time reversed, not forward.

If rose turns to green, and stays forever green in positive time, then in backward time green turns to rose, not that green stays on.

If you stipulate that green can't change colours again, ever, you stipulate that to be valid in positive time. When you reverse time, the stipulation gets reversed too. Much like in reverse time things fall up, not down. If you stipulate that green can't change colours again even in negative time, then it has never been rose, or else you have a contradiction of the law of the excluded middle.

It is easier to stipulate that rose turns to green, and green never changes after that, but time can't be reversed. This stipulation is also healthier because time can't be reversed. (FYI, I tried. I failed. If you, bahman, have any examples of a successful turning of time, then you must be a very rich man or woman by now.)

[Noax]

Time can be reversed except for entropy, which gives time its arrow.
So entropy is my entry for something which can be created but not annihilated.

Black holes also come to mind (there is very much an arrow of time to them), so they cannot be undone by reversing the process.
But they can be annihilated via Hawking radiation, so it fails as a candidate. At the heat death of the universe, the black holes will be gone leaving only entropy.

[jayjacobus]

If time is like a pendulum, it goes back and forth. Reversing the pendulum makes it go forth and back. But gravity, momentum, direction won't change. However time goes, it is the laws of physic that determine the direction the universe takes. Ten units of time is the same whether the units are all forward or all backwards.

Put another way, you can't go backwards in time. You can only go forward into the past. But that would defy the laws of physics.

[Walker]

Time can be reversed except for entropy, which gives time its arrow.
So entropy is my entry for something which can be created but not annihilated.

The principle is the ground state, and the proof of the principle is the rabbit hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

[bahman]

Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created. Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time. Now let's reverse the action/time. What we observe is that this thing get annihilated which is problematic. Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

me: Let annihilation = A, Created = C, Problematic = P

bahman: Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created.
me: Assume -A and C

bahman: Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time.
me: Assume C exists for a period of time

bahman: Now let's reverse the action/time.
me: If action and time are reversed after -A and C,

bahman: What we observe is that this thing get annihilated
me: then A.

bahman: which is problematic.
me: A = P

bahman: Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.
me:-C implies -A

Do you see where Not Annihilation is said to result in Annihilation?

We don't say that. We say that we observe that the thing annihilated when we reverse the movie/time which this is against our assumption, the thing cannot be annihilated.

[bahman]

Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created. Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time. Now let's reverse the action/time. What we observe is that this thing get annihilated which is problematic. Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

Following the same procedure one can show that something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

In the same way one can show that something which can be created can be annihilated.

Finally one can also show that something which can be annihilated can be created.

1. Action in time positive must be reversed in time negative.

2. Therefore the quality of "can't be annihilated" is reversed into "can be annihilated".

People walk backward in time reversed, not forward.

If rose turns to green, and stays forever green in positive time, then in backward time green turns to rose, not that green stays on.

If you stipulate that green can't change colours again, ever, you stipulate that to be valid in positive time. When you reverse time, the stipulation gets reversed too. Much like in reverse time things fall up, not down. If you stipulate that green can't change colours again even in negative time, then it has never been rose, or else you have a contradiction of the law of the excluded middle.

It is easier to stipulate that rose turns to green, and green never changes after that, but time can't be reversed. This stipulation is also healthier because time can't be reversed. (FYI, I tried. I failed. If you, bahman, have any examples of a successful turning of time, then you must be a very rich man or woman by now.)

Let's say that you take a movie and then reverse the movie instead of reversing time. What do you observe? The thing annihilated which is problematic.

[bahman]

Time can be reversed except for entropy, which gives time its arrow.
So entropy is my entry for something which can be created but not annihilated.

Black holes also come to mind (there is very much an arrow of time to them), so they cannot be undone by reversing the process.
But they can be annihilated via Hawking radiation, so it fails as a candidate. At the heat death of the universe, the black holes will be gone leaving only entropy.

We are not discussing about macroscopic phenomena.

[commonsense]

Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created. Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time. Now let's reverse the action/time. What we observe is that this thing get annihilated which is problematic. Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.

me: Let annihilation = A, Created = C, Problematic = P
bahman: Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created.
me: Assume -A and C
bahman: Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time.
me: Assume C exists for a period of time
bahman: Now let's reverse the action/time.
me: If action and time are reversed after -A and C,
bahman: What we observe is that this thing get annihilated
me: then A.
bahman: which is problematic.
me: A = P
bahman: Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.
me:-C implies -A
Do you see where Not Annihilation is said to result in Annihilation?

We don't say that. We say that we observe that the thing annihilated when we reverse the movie/time which this is against our assumption, the thing cannot be annihilated.

Y’all made the following logical statements:

1. Assume -A and C [i.e. given]
2. Assume C [redundant]
3. If action and time are reversed [premise]
4. then A [conclusion]
5. and -C implies -A [conclusion]
6. If -A then A [by conjoining #1 w/ #4 resulting in contradiction]
7. the thing annihilated is against our assumption, the thing cannot be annihilated [i.e. #6 restated as statement you said you don't say]

But the OP need not be contradictory. It can be trivial, thusly:

A created thing can be annihilated in normal time.
An annihilated thing can be created in reverse time.
This means that what cannot be annihilated cannot be created, or can be.

The OP is defeated [by ILLI Postulate].

[-1-]

Let's say that you take a movie and then reverse the movie instead of reversing time. What do you observe? The thing annihilated which is problematic.

You made the stipulation that the thing can't be annihilated. But that's a stipulation in forward time. When you reverse time, everething in time gets reversed, including all the stipulations. Therefore things would fall up, for instance.

So your stipulation that the thing can't be annihilated would be reversed in reverse time, and it becomes "can be annihilated", which is the reverse of can't be annihilated.

Therefore there is no problematic state.

---------------------

Aside from that, time can't be reversed. If you succeed in reversing time, you'll become a very rich person.

[bahman]

me: Let annihilation = A, Created = C, Problematic = P
bahman: Let's assume that there is something which cannot be annihilated but can be created.
me: Assume -A and C
bahman: Now let's assume that this thing is created and exist for a period of time.
me: Assume C exists for a period of time
bahman: Now let's reverse the action/time.
me: If action and time are reversed after -A and C,
bahman: What we observe is that this thing get annihilated
me: then A.
bahman: which is problematic.
me: A = P
bahman: Therefore something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated.
me:-C implies -A
Do you see where Not Annihilation is said to result in Annihilation?

We don't say that. We say that we observe that the thing annihilated when we reverse the movie/time which this is against our assumption, the thing cannot be annihilated.

Y’all made the following logical statements:

1. Assume -A and C [i.e. given]
2. Assume C [redundant]
3. If action and time are reversed [premise]
4. then A [conclusion]
5. and -C implies -A [conclusion]
6. If -A then A [by conjoining #1 w/ #4 resulting in contradiction]
7. the thing annihilated is against our assumption, the thing cannot be annihilated [i.e. #6 restated as statement you said you don't say]

The OP is defeated [by ILLI Postulate].

No, I am saying that

1. Assume -A and C [i.e. given]
2. Assume C [i.e given]
3. If action and time are reversed [premise]
4. then A [first conclusion]
5. #1 and #4 contradict each other (I don't know what to call this, I am not a logicaian)
6. Therefore #1 is wrong [intermediate conclusion]
7. Therefore A and C [final conclusion]

[bahman]

Let's say that you take a movie and then reverse the movie instead of reversing time. What do you observe? The thing annihilated which is problematic.

You made the stipulation that the thing can't be annihilated. But that's a stipulation in forward time. When you reverse time, everething in time gets reversed, including all the stipulations. Therefore things would fall up, for instance.

I don't agree with the bold part.

So your stipulation that the thing can't be annihilated would be reversed in reverse time, and it becomes "can be annihilated", which is the reverse of can't be annihilated.

Therefore there is no problematic state.

Then this doesn't follow.

Aside from that, time can't be reversed. If you succeed in reversing time, you'll become a very rich person.

You cannot reverse time. Time reversal symmetry explains that a process and its inverse are both possible in real world if time reversal was possible.

[bahman]

If time is like a pendulum, it goes back and forth. Reversing the pendulum makes it go forth and back. But gravity, momentum, direction won't change. However time goes, it is the laws of physic that determine the direction the universe takes. Ten units of time is the same whether the units are all forward or all backwards.

Put another way, you can't go backwards in time. You can only go forward into the past. But that would defy the laws of physics.

Time is not like a pendulum. Time reversal symmetry explains that a process and its inverse are both possible in real world if time reversal was possible.

[commonsense]

Using bahman's version of my argument and revising it once more...

1. Assume -A and C [i.e. given]
2. Assume C [i.e given]
3. If action and time are reversed [premise]
4. then A [first conclusion]
5. #1 and #4 contradict each other (I don't know what to call this – contradiction is good enough)
6. Therefore #1 is wrong; or #4 is wrong [intermediate conclusion]
7. Therefore A and C; or A and -C [final conclusion]

Everything that follows the contradiction is not valid (i.e. #'s 6 & 7 as they appeared before this revision). Since one condition of the contradiction could be right or the other could be, this is what we call karaaazy.