Is atemporal causation possible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2015, 06:05 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 05:59 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(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.

Um. Well... I don't see it that way. You're the one saying "I can't imagine it, so it must be this way" - seems more to me that *you* are arguing from ignorance. You never heard of feedback? Output influencing input? Why can't the same be true in time?

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, 06:15 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 06:18 AM by One Above All.)
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 06:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Um. Well... I don't see it that way. You're the one saying "I can't imagine it, so it must be this way" - seems more to me that *you* are arguing from ignorance.

I'm not saying "I can't imagine it, so it must be this way". What I am saying is "everything we know, including the logic behind cause-and-effect, says it's not this way, so it's not this way". EDIT: What you're doing, on the other hand, is proposing something that goes against the logical sequence of events as we know them. You're basing your proposition on information that, for all intents and purposes, does not exist.

(30-03-2015 06:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  You never heard of feedback? Output influencing input? Why can't the same be true in time?

Output of A influencing input of B? Sure. Possible and logical. Output of A influencing input of A? Only if output and input are connected, but, even then, a first input must be given.

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, 06:26 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 06:15 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 06:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Um. Well... I don't see it that way. You're the one saying "I can't imagine it, so it must be this way" - seems more to me that *you* are arguing from ignorance.

I'm not saying "I can't imagine it, so it must be this way". What I am saying is "everything we know, including the logic behind cause-and-effect, says it's not this way, so it's not this way".
The logic behind cause and effect is only something we know from experience... And we *already* know in relativity for example that sometimes under the right conditions two different observers will see the order of two events differently (although relativity *does* have cause and effect built into the model somewhat, from what I understand of it).

Quote:
(30-03-2015 06:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  You never heard of feedback? Output influencing input? Why can't the same be true in time?

Output of A influencing input of B? Sure. Possible and logical. Output of A influencing input of A? Only if output and input are directly connected, but, even then, a first input must be given.
OK, so... I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here? You can see how feedback works normally but... the idea of feedback in time is... not gonna fly?

Ya know I'm not talking completely out my ass here. Plenty of physicists have toyed with models where the future and past are connected - though no one's taken it particularly seriously afaik.

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, 06:41 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 06:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  The logic behind cause and effect is only something we know from experience...

And logic.

(30-03-2015 06:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  And we *already* know in relativity for example that sometimes under the right conditions two different observers will see the order of two events differently (although relativity *does* have cause and effect built into the model somewhat, from what I understand of it).

Your point being? In relativity, you just don't have an absolute frame of reference. You still can't have my coming home from college in several hours influence whether or not I forget my watch now.

(30-03-2015 06:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  OK, so... I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here? You can see how feedback works normally but... the idea of feedback in time is... not gonna fly?

I was thinking of circuits. You can have a feedback loop, but you must first give something to the circuit - an initial pulse. You can't have feedback before that initial pulse occurring. Because the future has not occurred, you can't have it influencing the past.

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, 07:10 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
It could be possible for something outside of time to exist that still behaves like time - such that it produces causal effects. We don't know what if anything exists outside the universe. We can only guess at what might be there based on the universe we know. We have causality in this universe, so maybe there is causality elsewhere... or maybe not. We don't know.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
30-03-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 06:41 AM)One Above All Wrote:  And logic.
Says you Tongue

Quote:Your point being? In relativity, you just don't have an absolute frame of reference. You still can't have my coming home from college in several hours influence whether or not I forget my watch now.
Says you. You don't *know* that. Sure, causality is a fundamental physical principle. So is conservation of energy. No one knows if either *can* be violated, just that as far as we know they *aren't*.

(30-03-2015 06:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  I was thinking of circuits. You can have a feedback loop, but you must first give something to the circuit - an initial pulse. You can't have feedback before that initial pulse occurring. Because the future has not occurred, you can't have it influencing the past.
So why can't I have temporal feedback with an initial pulse?

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, 07:42 AM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
The entire problem arises because our experience of "time" is subjective and limited to a very small and very "flat" region of space-time where we live. It's not too hard to measure time, but any definition or explanation of time is meaningless if you are not a physicist, because you lack the mathematical and conceptual tools to approach the problem. And if you are a physicist then you know better than to try.

What we experience as "time" is just one dimension in a four-dimensional mathematical construct called space-time (possibly more dimensions if string theory is correct, but string theory has been around for a very long time without producing any useful results, so is possibly a dead end). In our subjective experience we separate time from space, but this is an illusion. There is no such thing as time apart from space-time.

Therefore problems such as the OP presents are meaningless. The question cannot be answered because the question itself has no meaning. This is counterintuitive because our intuition, which serves us very well when trying to avoid being eaten by a lion on the African savannah, is a survival mechanism and never had to deal with experiences outside our very small, very flat, lion-infested region of space-time.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 09:36 AM by Bucky Ball.)
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.

No it isn't possible. (What "caused the Principle of Causation" ?, and how did that "happen" ?) It's all meaningless BS, (as Physicist from CalTech Sean Carroll) pointed out to WLC in this :



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 11:03 AM by Alex K.)
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 07:42 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  The entire problem arises because our experience of "time" is subjective and limited to a very small and very "flat" region of space-time where we live. It's not too hard to measure time, but any definition or explanation of time is meaningless if you are not a physicist, because you lack the mathematical and conceptual tools to approach the problem. And if you are a physicist then you know better than to try.

What we experience as "time" is just one dimension in a four-dimensional mathematical construct called space-time (possibly more dimensions if string theory is correct, but string theory has been around for a very long time without producing any useful results, so is possibly a dead end). In our subjective experience we separate time from space, but this is an illusion. There is no such thing as time apart from space-time.

Therefore problems such as the OP presents are meaningless. The question cannot be answered because the question itself has no meaning. This is counterintuitive because our intuition, which serves us very well when trying to avoid being eaten by a lion on the African savannah, is a survival mechanism and never had to deal with experiences outside our very small, very flat, lion-infested region of space-time.

Yes, in special relativity, but -

The big bang cosmology gives us a unique local reference frame in which the CMB dipole vanishes. In this frame, the age of the universe (since the hypothetical classical singularity) can be uniquely measured, and it is in this frame that classical Friedman Lemaître Robertson Walker cosmology runs against a purely temporal singularity. So I think the OP is not as ill defined as you claim from a special relativity perspective. It is true though that locally, time and space are not separable things.

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, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 11:43 AM by OddGamer.)
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
Edit: Somehow mssed there was more. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: