∆Causality, Reply to N,Hunt

This is a reply to a forum question, but my post was too long for the site, so I posted the whole reply in full below,.

The original question was...

 


Hi NH,

Sorry, just couldn’t keep this one short.

I really am suggesting that I can completely redefine/eliminate Time, so, I guess it’s not reasonable to expect that to be explained in just a few lines, otherwise everyone would have realised it.

 (scus any CAPS , just emphasis).

In reply to your post,,,


(Your posting...)

I see no science here - only a philosophical position that nothing exists except the now.

By your logic, the past could literally be anything (or nothing). Maybe so –

but that would prevent the scientific concept of prediction.

If there is no order to past events, then there is no causality.

If there is no causality, there is no prediction.

If we cannot infer that events happened in the past, then we cannot have any prediction that events will happen in the future.

If your writing had anything to do with science, you would explain how your theories grant better predictive powers. It would have a consistency that could be shown through some form of mathematics or formal logic.

Instead, it seems to throw away the concept of ordered events, and therefore throw away causality. I defy you to come up with a predictive mathematical formulation for physics that does away with causality.

 

(scuse any CAPS, just emphasis).

I appreciate your concise and compact chain of reasoning, however, I think I can show my position is scientific (and not empty philosophy), and has integrity. And I can show that the points you make about ‘prediction’ and ‘causality’ can be fully and logically explained within the observation that there is no such thing as time.

Please be aware however, if the following is read with a closed mind, i.e. with the mind set like ‘what I already think is flawless and correct’ , and ‘I know that what I am about to read ‘must be wrong, without having read any of it’ -  then of course this is not an open and scientific approach.

--------------

So, please don’t take any of this as anything other than a *very* logical and scientifically critical analysis of observable facts, and an analysis of some common, unsubstantiated, ‘mushy’ assumptions ‘about’ time. (not a comment on your points, but most of what I have read about ’time’  actually turns out to be mushy, unsubstantiated assumptions, that only seem credible because they are widely held, and rarely reanalysed).

 Levelling the foundation.

First, To make my point, and to be sure we are not playing with a fixed deck from the outset, let’s quickly re analyse the ‘foundation’ of the discussion as to whether Time exists, or not, using one of your comments.


Re your point **I see no science here - only a philosophical position that nothing exists except the now.

According to Wikipedia, **To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.**

Thus, to be scientific, any claim that ‘Time’, / ‘the’ past, or ‘the’ future exist should be based on “empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning”.  

Yet, when I look for any such empirical proof (“acquired by means of observation or experimentation” wiki) - I find none at all.

 

That is to say, we are ‘told’ that ‘time is that which clocks measure’

– but in breaking down a ‘clock’ I find it only proves the existence of batteries, springs, cogs and hands, and that that in running it I only ‘observe’ that ‘a motor can make hands can go round in circles’ – and It can only ‘measure’ the amount of energy released from a spring or battery etc.

Furthermore, when I ask for, scientific ‘empirical’ proof or information about ‘the past’ or that ‘the’ past exists, I find none. Just comments such as “the past could literally be anything (or nothing). Maybe so”,

And, no offence, but that can’t be classed as a scientifically useable fact based on “information acquired by means of observation or experimentation”. 

Likewise, when I look for actual, scientific, empirical proof that ‘the’ future ‘exists’, and I relax my standards, and say ‘exists in any way at all’ – I still find nothing other than suggestions like  

“paradoxically the future arrives to us” (hope u don’t mind whomper)

Or

“The future is the indefinite time period after the present. Its arrival is considered inevitable due to the existence of time” (wiki)

 

But, as stated the ‘existence of time has not been shown’, and defining  ‘the future’ as an invisible intangible thing that is always arriving but never arrives, but must exist – because invisible intangible time must exist – is again NOT scientifically empirical, i.e “information acquired by means of observation or experimentation”.

– i.e scientifically - we do NOT observe ‘the arrival of the future -due to the existence of time”.

-We DO observe things constantly existing and moving if they have energy within or around them.

 

So, to hijack your phrase, I suggest, that in all the above comments on ‘time’ the past and the future – I actually ‘see no science here’, only a philosophical position that ‘ an invisible intangible thing called time exists, and it ‘apparently’ connects certain invisible intangible ‘places’.

And the empirical observations these conclusions are based on (that motors can change the position of hands on a dial, that the contents of our minds can change, that the shape of our bodies can change, that things in the universe are moving and changing, etc) – only – actually – prove that things can move and change.

Furthermore, the ‘reasoning’ that

‘A: things are seen to move and change if they have energy – therefore –

B: As things move and change they affect an intangible ‘thing’, ‘ahead of them’ called the ‘future’ that is always ‘just arriving’ and so ‘never seen’ -

Is Not,  in my opinion,(unless proven elsewhere) logical or scientific, or observed. I.e. there is no demonstrable link to A from B, and there is no experiment that can prove B.

*************** (end of clearing the foundation)

Back to your points N.H... 'Predictions'

 

** By your logic, the past could literally be anything (or nothing). Maybe so –

**but that would prevent the scientific concept of PREDICTION (my caps).

 

 Wiki - A prediction or forecast is a statement about the way things WILL happen IN the FUTURE. often but not always based on experience or knowledge (my caps).

 

The problem here is that we have no scientific, empirical, observations that things ‘are’ or ‘will’ happen ‘in’  ‘the’ ‘future’.

If I ask for scientific, empirical evidence about this ‘future’ thing, I get nothing back but empty philosophy or speculation or suggestions as to what it ‘might be’. But nothing scientific, i.e. NO measurements of it, or experiments that prove its existence.

All that I directly, scientifically, empirically, observe is that ‘things around me exist, and move, and change, in orderly or chaotic ways, where they have energy’.

I also observe that I can make a smaller or larger, faster or slower, refined or unrefined, ‘copy’, or ‘model’ of anything or system that I see.

Running whatever ‘machine’ I make, whatever I call it,  may help me understand how other things around me are changing.

E.g. I might make a physical, mechanical model of lots of small things going round a big thing at different speeds. And, I might make this model so it can run on its own, if I put some energy into a coiled spring connected to its mechanism.

Then, I can ‘call’ this collection of matter ‘a model of the solar system’. And I can run it at a certain speed, and ‘say’ it is ‘predicting’ ‘the’ ‘future’. But, all I have scientifically and empirically discovered and demonstrated is that ‘things can exist and move and change where they have energy, in orderly or chaotic ways’ – and that ‘some collections of matter can like be smaller/larger, faster/slower copies of other collections of matter’.

I may have scientifically, experimentally and ‘empirically’ demonstrated that X amount of energy can flow from a coiled spring to produce Y amount of rotation, and that X and Y are clearly proportional.

But I have NOT discovered and empirically demonstrated that there is a ‘thing’ called ‘time’ that exists or flows from a place called the future into, or through ‘the present’, and onto ‘the past’.

Therefore, unless the existence of time, and ‘the future’ are scientifically proven the concept of ‘prediction’ is moot.

(This may not sit well at present with you NH, but consider that may mean it is wrong, or it may mean it is right.

Any radical paradigm shift in a subject such as time - which is endlessly fraught with vagueness, speculation, and paradoxes – is likely to feel seem odd at first, and surely endlessly, vagueness, speculation, and paradoxes are the symptoms of a subject that is probably misunderstood and needs ‘significant’ i.e not trivial,  reworking.)

******

RE IF there is no order to past events, THEN there is no causality.

My reasoning here is VERY subtle, and as I tried to point out to tom, whether the essence of what i am saying is correct or not, one certainly won’t see it if ones starting position is ‘I know this ‘is’ wrong although I haven’t even read or understood it yet’.

 “If there is no order to past events, then there is no causality” - is an assumption that seems correct IF time exists. However, it is worth considering different possible solutions to what we observe.

IF time exists, THEN we might say, there IS a ‘temporal’ order, and  events “in the past affect the future”.

But if one ‘actually’ looks at the facts with a a very cold calm,  scientifically ruthless and logical mind , all of this is very odd, and unscientific, because,

  • there is no scientific experiment that shows that ‘the past’ exists. And
  • there is no scientific experiment that shows that ‘the future exists. And
  • there is no scientific experiment that shows how ‘the past’ pushes some kind of influence ‘through’ the present, into,  ‘the future’

 

It is only in fact if we use empty, (false) fragile, circular ‘philosophy’ and ‘semantics, and ‘assume’ if ‘a thing called time’ exists, then ‘the past exists’, and thus, ‘the future’ must exist. So ‘the past’ must affect ‘the future’ – so time must exist.

But we do not scientifically observe any of this. We only observe that things exist ‘now’ and they interact. And, this can be seen to be enough to explain things without ‘past and future’ etc, scientifically, using experiment, direct observation, and reason, thus...

 

1 - Place an object, eg a cup, on a table.

2 - Then push the cup with a finger, in a direction.

 

Let’s call the area the object heads towards, ‘in front of’ or, ‘ahead of’ the cup.

And call the area the cup is moving away from, ‘behind’ the cup.

 

Now we can see that a force ‘behind the cup’, makes the cup move into the ‘area ahead of it’.

Or, an action ‘behind’ the cup affects the physically existing area in ‘front of it’.

In other words, it CAN be scientifically observed and claimed that “we affect what we push against, and we affect it in the physical direction in which we push it”.

But it is NOT scientifically observed that there is an intangible thing or place called ‘the past’ – (which in your own paraphrased words ‘may be nothing’ ) which ‘in some way affects the cup, ‘through’ the present, to create effects ‘in the future’.

At this point, many people start crying ‘semantics’ – and in doing so they see, and completely miss the point. SEMANTICS are very, very, very much at play here, but, imo, to be scientific one MUST consider the possibility that SEMANTICS are playing the role of making seem as if a load of un seen things are real – this is the illusion or misunderstanding that must be considered if it si a mistake that must be seen through – e.g. DO the words ‘THE TEMPORAL PAST’ actually relate to SOME THING – or NOT. If they DO, then we must show an experiment to prove this ‘past’ thing EXISTS – if they do NOT then it is a SEMANTIC error to use those words ‘as if they really do relate to an existing thing’.

And it is NOT a semantic error to say ‘the past doesn’t really exist, and thus can’t be used as evidence to support the existence of time’. (likewise ‘the future’).

If we place the cup on sandy ground and push it, we simply find that in the physically existing area, we call ‘behind’ the cup a trail forms, and that the physically existing area ‘ahead’ of the cup is changed as the cup is pushed into it.

If we express this as the cup creates a trail in its ‘past’, and the cup affects some sand in its future, then this may sound sensible, and be understood by many people.

BUT – the simple action of pushing an object in a direction, explained using these semantics, (no matter how widely accepted, useful, and familiar they are ),

--does NOT scientifically prove that there is ‘ a temporal past’ or

--does Not scientifically prove that there is ‘a temporal future’ or

--does not prove that there is a thing called ‘time’, or

--does not prove that extra to ‘a finger pushing a cup – changing the sand it touches ‘infront’ of it - this ‘temporal past’ reaches forwards ‘through’ ‘time’ to ‘cause’ an effect ‘in’ the ‘temporal future’.

(note, my uses of ‘quotes’ may seem excessive, but if you start to see my point you may realise these are all words whose meanings are vague and unscientifically defined or proven – whose apparent ‘credibility’ only actually comes from their widespread use)

 

To wrap this up, (*** = your points)

RE - If there is no causality, there is no prediction.

Nope ‘causality’ can be seen as just what is happening where one thing is pushing another thing – it happens exactly as directly observed – and the moving thing may change or move things physically ahead of it.

NOTE – don’t get me wrong , the ‘idea’ or ‘system’ of imagining all things lined up in the same direction, and comparing all change to one example of steady change – is very, very useful – but imo, this absolutely is NOT the same as a scientific, empirical, experimental proof that a mysterious and intangible thing called ‘time’ exists – as believed, described and written about in numerous very widely recognised books e.g

‘A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME’ – by Stephen Hawking.

***If we cannot infer that events happened in the past, then we cannot have any prediction that events will happen in the future.

Again, unless one can be actually scientifically clear as to what is meant by ‘in’ ‘the’ ‘past’, AND be actually scientifically clear as to what is meant by ‘the’ ‘’future’, then there is in fact no point here for me to scientifically answer.

And imo, for the conversation to move on, it really relies on anyone who has suggest my thoughts are ‘smoke and mirrors’ (hi Tom =) to really show that their views on the ‘time’ thing, are actually scientific, and prove that there is more to the universe than just the ‘movement and change’ that IS observed.

, And that this ‘time’ and it’s suggested components, attributes, and functions, can be proven to exist, and are not in fact just the smoke and mirrors, of endless complex, circular, self supporting semantics.


RE ** If your writing had anything to do with science, you would explain how your theories grant better PREDICTIVE powers.

The entirety of my theories has not been expressed in these forums, just a few descriptions of some of the points. And even then some people don’t like more than a couple of paragraphs (which is fine)

There are 7-8 youtube powerpoint talks, a pretty comprehensive searchable website, and the rather substantial eBook, that of course i am plugging =)

As i say , the idea of predicting the future, may be invalid.

Though I know of course what you mean, and take an umbrella out if the sky looks grey etc-

 but in ‘A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIMELESSNESS


I am talking about ACTUALLY being COMPLETELY clear as to what is and is not meant by the notion ‘TIME’

– which is not what happens (with respect) in books such as ‘A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME’ – which is why I think my work may be significant, especially re the work they are doing at Large Hadron Collider, or with Quantum ‘Time’ vs ‘classical time – if the core of it is correct.

RE ** If your writing had anything to do with science... PREDICTIVE powers.

I knew people were going to suggest that if my work had anything to do with science it would discuss 'prediction' etc =)  I wrote these pages...

 

>> https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/basic-timelessness/the-future

>> https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/basic-timelessness/bridging-the-past-and-future

>> https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/basic-timelessness/the-past-and-future-exposed

 

Re **  It would have a consistency that could be shown through some form of mathematics or formal logic.

Please take a look through any of my posts on this or the ‘Einstein’ forum, or the youtube videos, or the 500 page ebook , or this web site etc, and let me know if you see anything logically inconsistent. Mathematically there is no issue, the equations of motion, Relativity etc are all fine, but imo, they  only describe how things move - and do not in anyway prove there is a past, or a future or thing called time, that exists as anything other than as a 'semantic' construct.

 (>> See  https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies)


RE** Instead, it seems to throw away the concept of ordered events, and therefore throw away causality.

Nope, 'temporal' causality is imo, as i described it – A pushes B in a simple physical direction, and that's all that actually needs to be said.

The ‘no temporal order of events; is a very delicate point to see, and in fact i only realised it as a conclusion of completing the book.

But in essence – logically, odd as it may seem, and you will not see it if you try not to,

if there is NOT a ‘past’ (and you think this ‘maybe so’) then there IS NOT a past,

And if there is not a future, then there is not a future.


If as things happen, some kind of a record of them happening IS 'created' or 'stored' or 'exists' in some way, THEN this 'record' does exist.
but if this record does NOT exist, then it does not exist.

And as i said in the page you quoted, if there is no record created and stored, then the universe is like a camera that can only hold one constantly changing image, but no 'temporal# order ever actually exists anywhere, in any way.

even the 'idea; that there is a temporal order is just a thing that physically exists in its entirety 'here', physically in the ions and atoms of our minds, 'now'.

It’s very odd but, things may be just as they seem. Everything just happening now and objects affecting the things they push against, in the direction they push.



Sorry for the length of this post, I`m going to make this the last long one, I can already hear people not getting it, but it’s good practice.

 =^)

mm

 

 

Comments