Is atemporal causation possible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2015, 03:23 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 12:08 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  Schopenhauer said it best: "A first cause is just as inconceivable as is the point where space has an end or as a moment when time had a beginning."

Although I gotta say I have much less trouble envisioning a boundary of space itself
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:24 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
Nothing can occur without time. Time, by definition, is a series of changes in relation to another series of changes (specifically, the second is defined as several million oscillations of a Cesium atom). If there is no time, these changes do not occur. For cause to precede effect, time must exist.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:25 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:24 AM)One Above All Wrote:  Time, by definition

There's the rub

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:26 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 03:24 AM)One Above All Wrote:  Time, by definition

There's the rub

Why is the definition an issue? Things have definitions. How else are we supposed to communicate efficiently (or at all)?

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:52 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:26 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 03:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  There's the rub

Why is the definition an issue? Things have definitions. How else are we supposed to communicate efficiently (or at all)?

... Well, I dunno. Time for me is a property of the physical universe, not something you can *define* to be how you like it. Sure, you can define it *in your model* for how the universe works, but the universe has no obligation to follow your definition.

So you defined it by vibrations of a Caesium atom - the standard definition - but... Caesium atoms haven't always existed, according to Big Bang theory? Is it then meaningless to talk of time before the Caesium atom? Or what of Caesium atoms turn out to have a wobble every now and then...

And then you mentioned cause and effect... but it's possible to think of the future influencing the past...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:55 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
In mathematics there are undefined terms - things that... just don't have a definition. It's a kinda weird thing about the axiomatic method. I'm reaching in my memory here... so might get stuff wrong... but for me time is sort of like that. We just assume that everyone knows what we're talking about when we talk of time but I don't see that one can *define* it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:58 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  In mathematics there are undefined terms - things that... just don't have a definition. It's a kinda weird thing about the axiomatic method.

Can you give an example what you mean? Like 1/0?

Quantum Physics: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 03:59 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... Well, I dunno. Time for me is a property of the physical universe, not something you can *define* to be how you like it.

It's how we perceive and measure it. We didn't define gravity; we observed it. We didn't define evolution; we observed it. We didn't define space; we observed it (it's literally right under our noses 24/7).

(30-03-2015 03:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Sure, you can define it *in your model* for how the universe works, but the universe has no obligation to follow your definition.

That's true.

(30-03-2015 03:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  So you defined it by vibrations of a Caesium atom - the standard definition - but... Caesium atoms haven't always existed, according to Big Bang theory? Is it then meaningless to talk of time before the Caesium atom?

Not at all. Because we know other things in relation to the Cesium atom.

(30-03-2015 03:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Or what of Caesium atoms turn out to have a wobble every now and then...

Cesium atoms are incredibly stable, which is why they were picked as the definition.

(30-03-2015 03:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  And then you mentioned cause and effect... but it's possible to think of the future influencing the past...

How? The future hasn't happened yet.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:35 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:23 AM)Alex K Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 12:08 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  Schopenhauer said it best: "A first cause is just as inconceivable as is the point where space has an end or as a moment when time had a beginning."

Although I gotta say I have much less trouble envisioning a boundary of space itself
How is that? Like at a point where you just end up traversing the same region in which you began?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 05:03 AM by Alex K.)
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 04:35 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 03:23 AM)Alex K Wrote:  Although I gotta say I have much less trouble envisioning a boundary of space itself
How is that? Like at a point where you just end up traversing the same region in which you began?

That's also a very plausible scenario (space being a manifold that is cyclical in all directions), but that wouldn't be a boundary as it is usually understood. It would be a finite space without boundary, which is also fascinating, because the question "if space is finite, what is behind it" never arises in principle!

What I envision though as a space with a boundary from a physics/mathematics point of view is a boundary of space where all waves, matter or radiation, are forced to vanish for example. This would then oddly look like a perfectly reflective mirror which works for radiation and matter alike. The surface would have some dynamics of its own, possibly being pulled in by dark energy (since reducing the volume of space lowers the energy), or some sort of surface tension. Maybe it has negative surface tension counteracting the dark energy. All interesting things to consider. There would, however, simply be no outside of it. On the AF.org we had a similar discussion where IATIA was presenting his ideas about particles being holes in space where space simply ends at some surface. This here would be the opposite.

The trouble is imagining a wall with no space on the other side. What helps me here is a notion roughly inspired from a quantum gravity model a friend works on, in which you start with a state where there's no space at all. All the points in space have to first be added to your state. This can be most easily imagined if space is assumed to be a discrete collection of points for now. Imagine it like this: you keep a list of points, where you enumerate them and each has as some nearest neighbors which are also specified on the list. Some of these entries may not have neighbors in all directions, you simply run out of points in your list, and that's that. The question what is behind does not occur, because the notion of "behind" rests on the assumption that the point at which you sit has some neighbors in that direction to which you can go.

Quantum Physics: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex K's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: