Is atemporal causation possible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 06:41 AM)One Above All Wrote:  And logic.

There are all sorts of logical systems which do not obtain, in reality. Logic is not reliable. What appears to be intuitively correct to the human brain is unreliable. Is Relativity (no absolute reference point for space-time) ? Are Uncertainty and the results of the double slit experiment "logical". Nope. One thing remains. Evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-03-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 12:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 06:41 AM)One Above All Wrote:  And logic.

There are all sorts of logical systems which do not obtain, in reality. Logic is not reliable. What appears to be intuitively correct to the human brain is unreliable. Is Relativity (no absolute reference point for space-time) ? Are Uncertainty and the results of the double slit experiment "logical". Nope. One thing remains. Evidence.

...Of which there is none. I've already mentioned that problem with morondog's proposition, but it was ignored. I decided to try something a bit more simple.

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, 12:27 PM
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". 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.

Unfortunatly for you, there IS evidence for exactly that.
http://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-...ement.html

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, 12:31 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
Whatever the entanglement does that they describe as reaching into the past, it doesn't allow to send any information to the past, so one could ask in what sense anything is truly reaching there or if it's an artifact of our description of events.

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, 12:42 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 12:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Unfortunatly for you, there IS evidence for exactly that.

Why "unfortunately"? Confused

(30-03-2015 12:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-...ement.html

...If the photons are destroyed, then how was the effect measured? How do you even entangle something that doesn't exist? This article sounds like click-bait written by someone who didn't know what they were writing about, though I may be wrong.

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, 01:25 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 12:13 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 12:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There are all sorts of logical systems which do not obtain, in reality. Logic is not reliable. What appears to be intuitively correct to the human brain is unreliable. Is Relativity (no absolute reference point for space-time) ? Are Uncertainty and the results of the double slit experiment "logical". Nope. One thing remains. Evidence.

...Of which there is none. I've already mentioned that problem with morondog's proposition, but it was ignored. I decided to try something a bit more simple.

... Could you run that past me one more time then? 'Cos I thought I'd answered your criticisms adequately - up to you to point out where I didn't. Also could you elaborate on what the something a bit more simple was too? 'Cos I didn't spot that either.

I enjoy exploring these ideas. I don't enjoy if you're gonna accuse me of playing debate games.

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, 01:30 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 01:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  ... Could you run that past me one more time then? 'Cos I thought I'd answered your criticisms adequately - up to you to point out where I didn't.

You've yet to address the complete lack of evidence for your proposition.

(30-03-2015 01:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  Also could you elaborate on what the something a bit more simple was too? 'Cos I didn't spot that either.

It's when I moved from "evidence and logic" simply t "logic".
However, to be fair, "simple" is a relative term.

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, 01:36 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 01:30 PM)One Above All Wrote:  You've yet to address the complete lack of evidence for your proposition.

The proposition that perhaps the future could influence the past? That one?

I have none.

You seem to refuse to accept that it could happen even in principle. Especially in an edge case scenario like beginning of the universe where so much is unknown, considering the idea is an interesting exercise IMO.

This is *not* equivalent to asserting little green goblins that are the power source for atoms. It's saying that we have limited knowledge. That's *all*.

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, 01:38 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 01:30 PM)One Above All Wrote:  It's when I moved from "evidence and logic" simply t "logic".
However, to be fair, "simple" is a relative term.

Ah yes, that human logic invention thing that works so well and *definitely* applies to the universe... Tongue

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, 01:51 PM
RE: Is atemporal causation possible?
(30-03-2015 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  The proposition that perhaps the future could influence the past? That one?

I have none.

Then it's an irrelevant proposition for the purposes of this thread.

(30-03-2015 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  You seem to refuse to accept that it could happen even in principle.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I do.

(30-03-2015 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  Especially in an edge case scenario like beginning of the universe where so much is unknown, considering the idea is an interesting exercise IMO.

For a story, maybe. For science? Worthless.

(30-03-2015 01:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  This is *not* equivalent to asserting little green goblins that are the power source for atoms. It's saying that we have limited knowledge. That's *all*.

This is another problem I have with your attitude toward your proposition. Just because we don't know what is doesn't mean we don't know what isn't. To paraphrase someone from another forum, one may answer that the capital of Brazil is Rio de Janeiro or Lisbon or any other big city (for the record, neither of the two cities I mentioned are the capital of Brazil), but you're not going to find anyone (at least anyone who's in their right state of mind) who says the capital of Brazil is pi or jelly bean. The answer makes no sense. Likewise, we may not know what happened at the beginning of our universe past 10^-34 s, give or take, but we do know it wasn't purple space aliens or me playing the flute in fifth grade.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: