Is atemporal causation possible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2015, 05:02 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(29-03-2015 10:12 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  It's a question I've had. Can something be said to 'cause' time to exist? Wouldn't that mean that at the point of creation time both exists and doesn't simultaneously?

I wonder about this because it seems to me that time is a paradox no matter what you do. If you go with infinite time then you run into the infinite regress paradox, but if you go for truly finite time then you run into this paradox of atemporal causation.

We need to unpack the hidden assumption that there is only one time - ours.

Our time line began at the Big Bang. Maybe there were/are/will be other time lines. If string theory is at all descriptive, maybe some of the curled up dimensions are other time dimensions. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-03-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:58 AM)Alex K Wrote:  
(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?

Here's an explanation of the concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

I've encountered it before as "undefined term" but seems like people nowadays call it "primitive notion"...

Quote:In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.

^^ I see our discussion of "time" concept in a similar way.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
30-03-2015, 05:11 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 03:59 AM)One Above All Wrote:  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).
Right, and we don't define time Smile

Quote:Cesium atoms are incredibly stable, which is why they were picked as the definition.
Stable... in relation to what? I'm not being an ass here, I'm saying why I think this is a bit circular...

Quote:
(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.

Well yeah, *but* there's nothing to say that the future can't influence the past, just our brains find it difficult to conceive.

If we think of time travel - that's one easy way to visualise the future influencing the past. There's the old chestnut about killing your grandfather - but *can we really say given our current knowledge that it's impossible*?

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, 05:14 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 03:58 AM)Alex K Wrote:  Can you give an example what you mean? Like 1/0?

Here's an explanation of the concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

I've encountered it before as "undefined term" but seems like people nowadays call it "primitive notion"...

Quote:In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.

^^ I see our discussion of "time" concept in a similar way.

Very interesting. Of course our discussion is additionally complicated by the fact that not only are we doing mathematics, but also physics. It seems you are attempting to carry the concept over to physics in order to have something like a primitive empirical notion.

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, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 05:23 AM by One Above All.)
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Right, and we don't define time Smile

Not the physical property, no. But the unit of measurement is ours to define as we please. And we defined it as a certain number of events. The physical property works in such a manner. How do you tell time has passed? Because there was a change in your system. If your system remains perfectly still, time is meaningless.

(30-03-2015 05:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Stable... in relation to what? I'm not being an ass here, I'm saying why I think this is a bit circular...

Stable in relation to other atoms. Its vibration suffers little (if any) deviation.

(30-03-2015 05:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well yeah, *but* there's nothing to say that the future can't influence the past, just our brains find it difficult to conceive.

Is this an argument from ignorance? It feels like an argument from ignorance.

(30-03-2015 05:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  If we think of time travel - that's one easy way to visualise the future influencing the past. There's the old chestnut about killing your grandfather - but *can we really say given our current knowledge that it's impossible*?

And if we think of gods, we can think of a way to prove their existence. What's your point?

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
[+] 1 user Likes One Above All's post
30-03-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 04:48 AM)Alex K Wrote:  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.
Okay, so, say you add a "point" of space, and then another, and another; "where" are they being placed into? Does it matter if you place one "here" and another over "there"? Oh dear. I think I've given myself away. Too confusing for my little brain. What is a spaceless state? (side question: is the "inversion" of space, like space getting sucked up into such a state as you describe, if we imagine the points being subtracted, if you will, what is meant by "void" or "vacuum?")
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 05:56 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:16 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 05:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well yeah, *but* there's nothing to say that the future can't influence the past, just our brains find it difficult to conceive.

Is this an argument from ignorance? It feels like an argument from ignorance.
An argument from ignorance is where you say "Things must be this way because I can't conceive of them being different"... I think the above does not fit that definition.

Quote:And if we think of gods, we can think of a way to prove their existence. What's your point?
My point is that we don't know how time operates especially at the limits, like beginning of the universe, that are under discussion.

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, 05:59 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:56 AM)morondog Wrote:  An argument from ignorance is where you say "Things must be this way because I can't conceive of them being different"... I think the above does not fit that definition.

It's close enough, IMO. You're saying "We don't know how things are for certain, so this is a possibility", even though your statement is absurd.
Cause precedes effect. This is basic logic. You can't have a cause happen after the effect (future influencing the past), and imagining it doesn't make it likely or even possible.

(30-03-2015 05:56 AM)morondog Wrote:  My point is that we don't know how time operates especially at the limits, like beginning of the universe, that are under discussion.

See above.

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, 06:01 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:14 AM)Alex K Wrote:  Very interesting. Of course our discussion is additionally complicated by the fact that not only are we doing mathematics, but also physics. It seems you are attempting to carry the concept over to physics in order to have something like a primitive empirical notion.

Somewhat. Basically we have this thing we call "time" that we sorta know how it works and we can even do maths with it, but... get down to nitty gritty, can only *theorise* what it is, and compare to what we see.

So like with the vibration of Caesium being a way do define time units. What is a vibration? An oscialltion in time? We have an intuitive idea but I submit we can't really communicate it. Like, it's easy to conceive that for example moving through a magnetic field might affect the Caesium vibrations (I have no idea if it does, but for example). We intuitively know (or think, or believe, anyway) that *actual* time doesn't get affected, but if we defined time in terms of Caesium atom vibrations we'd have to say that it *was* affected...

My rambling in ce thread la is more on the lines of where the limitations of our knowledge are as observers and constrained by language etc...

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, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 06:13 AM by Alex K.)
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:45 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 04:48 AM)Alex K Wrote:  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.
Okay, so, say you add a "point" of space, and then another, and another; "where" are they being placed into? Does it matter if you place one "here" and another over "there"? Oh dear. I think I've given myself away.
You're still thinking of a preexisting space in which you place the points here or there. Forget that. All there is are entries in a list with relations to one another which you can call neighborhood. For example here's a simplified picture of a plane of two dimensions consisting of four points

Point #| Neighbor right| N. down | N. left | N. up
_________________________________
1: 2 3 x x
2: x 4 1 x
3: 4 x x 1
4: x x 3 2

where x denotes no neighbor in that direction. It has two dimensions because I only specify four types of neighbors. If you draw these
relationships on a paper you get

1 - 2
| -- |
3 - 4

Quote: Too confusing for my little brain. What is a spaceless state? (side question: is the "inversion" of space, like space getting sucked up into such a state as you describe, if we imagine the points being subtracted, if you will, what is meant by "void" or "vacuum?")
No, not usually. Vacuum usually means that you have space, but no additional energy in it in form of radiation or particles.

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
[+] 3 users Like Alex K's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: