John,
I thought I had already answered in detail the difference between your personal experience of time, and how the actual physics works. Sure enough, it was in this very thread:
You miss the moral of the Emperor's Clothes fable. It isn't about the little boy -- it's about the emperor and his willing acceptance of the delusion that what he thinks he knows, that isn't true.
I really do wish you would get hold of Susskind's and Hrabovsky's book. I think it would open your eyes. It is well and simply written, and designed for a popular audience.
I'm not going to go into great detail about thermodynamic reversibility, because until you understand the principle of least action, it won't make sense. Briefly, though, you write:
"If you read that one short paragraph I keep posting, it states those physical processes can't be reversed, but is helpful for modeling to treat them as if they could."
This is the reason I asked you to attempt explaining thermodynamic state changes without reversibility. Until you actually try and do the work, you won't get it. If you never try and do the work, you will walk around like a naked emperor, secure in your personal ability to imagine things that aren't there. Science, though, is about objective knowledge -- the clothing that we can all agree on.
"This goes to the situation with time."
Which is reversible, in all classical models.
"We can model it like a Dali painting, if necessary, but the map is not the territory. Spacetime is a map."
Not true. You've got this idea that time is a vector independent of space that depends on your personal choice of where it goes. None of this stuff about continuous spacetime actually has anything to do directly with thermodynamic reversibility. State functions, though, do have to consider time independent of space. Consider:
"- The fact that temperature is a state function is extremely useful because with it we can measure the temperature change in the system by knowing the initial temperature and the final temperature."
I hoped, perhaps unreasonably, that you would realize that without reversibility one could not have an interval of change in which final conditions could be predicted from knowledge of initial conditions. Like I said, though, you have to do the work in order to truly understand it.
