The physical existence that we identify as music exists regardless of whether or not our ears convert it to the sound we understand. I was hoping to carry this point into the time argument.

Incorrect. It is an interesting premise as a logic puzzle, nothing more. Also, here are the absics of how to conduct a proper argument:
Person A makes point.
Person B presents counterpoints
Continue as long as is logically appropriate, and until both people agree on all issues that are completely objective. Attacking Person A *personally* has no place in a proper argument, which is why I will not respond to any such attack. It's like negotiating with terrorists/kidnappers, it sets a precedant. The fact remains that time travel is not possible under any non-theoretical science.

Oh I didn't know adhering to your debate club's official rules was one of the prerequisites for posting here. Your idea of a proper argument is what I call a potential recipe for a typical stupid internet arguemnt that goes on forever and ends up nowhere. I don't care about participating in a "proper" argument with you. I don't have the time of day to point out each thing you say that is illogical, and I'm not intested in reading your irrelevant ,inconclusive and rambling counterpoints, and then repeating the cycle endlessly with a guy who asserts everything as if it were undeniably true.
I really have nothing to gain by proving you're not as logical as you think you are, If you want to delude yourself into thinking you are it's more likely to cause problems for you down the line, not me.
I just wanted to point out that I think you're full of shit / occasionally make yourself look foolish, that's all. I'm not just basing it on your discussions in this thread alone.
PS-we know you think time travel is not possible, you have mentioned it at least 3 times already. You don't have to needlessly throw it in at the very end of each post,
wow I sound really rude and this reply also looks pretty unnecessary. Like I said there's just somethings about anjohl that I really find annoying, but I am done discussing it

You're quoting is a little messed up, so I'm assuming you meant to say:
...in response to my post.
I wonder what exactly you mean by "cannot." Does this mean that only a living being cannot personally perceive a stimuli? Help from instruments reveals a wide range of stimuli, some of which have devastating effects. Anyways, music definitely exists regardless of whether or not there is an ear to hear it. If I crank up my sound system and blast music into an area with no sensory organs present to hear/perceive it, it's still going to move things around, and I might even be able to see firsthand some obvious effects of the experiment. I guess I'm probably mistaking your point or arguing against one you mis-posted, because it seems like the philosophical point of a tree falling. Our organs "convert" things that exist regardless of our presence.

ok, a few things I would like anjohl to clear up: (all following quotes are his)
...a measurement of heat? Are you very sure? What level of physics education have you followed? Because last time I checked, time was far from a measurement of heat (actually, I'd like to see you explain basic relativity with this viewpoint). As far as I know it's one of the fundamental quantities in physics. And whether or not this makes time a true dimension is very much a topic of debate. No current answer on that is going to be a 'FACT'.
a 'force'? really now?
hm.. no expert, yet you have all the facts eh? Also, explain to me the travel of light through a vacuum. Without time, of course.
another hotspot in philosophical debate. It's great that you figured out the plain logical truth, you should publish it.
I don't mean to offend, but you sound like someone who has read a few philosophical articles from a few select philosophers and has taken those to proclaim some kind of truth. Try to get a view of the bigger picture before you march in, proclaiming to hold the 'FACTS'. Also, be wary of overstepping the bounds of philosophy and blundering into empirical science.
I know personal attacks aren't very useful, but they happened for a reason. Try to figure it out. See it as a learning experience (even though you are not yet, truly enlightened).
Time travel is problematic though. It would seriously screw with causal relations. And since those are pretty much essential to our understanding of the universe, it is intuitive to say it's impossible. On the other hand, physics is uncovering realms of phenomena that are very much counterintuitive (because the human mind did not develop to interact with them). So who knows..

Of course we are an animal! That fact has been accepted for well over a hundred years. The only people denying it are certain kinds of religious folk, such as Christians and Scientologists. Scientifically, it's been proven time and time again that man is just another animal.
About causation, it's fiction. It's fine to say that a particular act leads to another, but there is no changing that. Again, time is a force, not a destination. There is no "predestination paradox" because the entire idea is founded on science fiction. I only deal in facts. Anything else is the territory of subjective/opinionated emotion-filled argument. The fact remains that time travel is fictional under every proven scientific model. I rest my case, and will not see or reply to any further counterpoints, since there are none. If you wish to continue this discussion, or fail to understand some of the facts I attempted to explain, please feel free to contact me personally.

Aww man....