Register to reply

Nothing before time

by Gale
Tags: time
Share this thread:
Jagger2003
#19
Jul29-03, 05:58 PM
P: n/a
So?

Because some people fancy mystical things, this doesn't turn the real world into a mystical form.
An acausal event does not need to be mystical. It can be perfectly logical and consistence within the laws of existence but beyond our current comprehension-sort of like gravitons and the consciousness.
heusdens
#20
Jul29-03, 06:46 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Jagger2003
An acausal event does not need to be mystical. It can be perfectly logical and consistence within the laws of existence but beyond our current comprehension-sort of like gravitons and the consciousness.
No it can not and I will explain why.

First let us state that an a-causal event must be defined as having by definition no cause (which is not the same as stating that - for whatever reason - we can not observe a cause).

If those events in fact would exist, then what would determine those events to exist a-causal, while other events exist causal?

The answer: nothing would or could determine that, since that would contradict the definition of an a-causal event.

So, assumeting that a-causal events do exist, removes all possibility for causal events to exist. It then turns into a mere coincidence that so many events look or seem causal.

So much coincidence which has been established again and again for so any causal events is simply imposible!

Besides that, the whole universe and existence would become boundlessly senseless.

Another thing: why is it that certain events "look" a-causal.

The answer: because we are observing at such a scale that any observation causes so much interaction, that it destroys part of the observation we are inbestigating. Therefore we miss some of the events, that would have made it a causal event.

We have to deal with the fact that for practical purposes such indeterminism does exist, which we can only "calculate" by the use of probability.

An example to clarify this:

Assume we look from above with a camera to a pool billiard.
As long as we have enough light we can see all the evensts, and they all fit perfectly well in causality. If we reduce the light of the camera, we will at some point miss some events, while still see some events, this make the observed reality a-causal.
But in reality, the event is as causal as it always was, only the observation can not establish that.

Note:
The quantum events are of course different in nature as this, it was just an example that an observation that looks acausal, does not mean that the underlying reality has to be acausal.
A better approach would perhaps be, to try to find the courses, and position of the billiard balls, while being blinded, and having to throw billiard balls at the ones which one wants to explore, thereby causing interactions, that make the observation of what the course of the ball was before we hit it, indeterminable.
Jagger2003
#21
Jul29-03, 07:19 PM
P: n/a
First let us state that an a-causal event must be defined as having by definition no cause (which is not the same as stating that - for whatever reason - we can not observe a cause).
Considering that cause and effect is considered physical, I would define acausal as any cause that isn't physical. A possible example might be desire and intent.

If those events in fact would exist, then what would determine those events to exist a-causal, while other events exist causal?
If they exist, I would assume that they would affect physical causes and vice versa. Although it could be one way only. Acausal events would be initiating events. Physical cause and effects would be determined through physical forces and chains of events.

So, assumeting that a-causal events do exist, removes all possibility for causal events to exist. It then turns into a mere coincidence that so many events look or seem causal.

So much coincidence which has been established again and again for so any causal events is simply imposible!

Besides that, the whole universe and existence would become boundlessly senseless.
Perhaps it is best to go into an example here as well. I will try to sure how cause and acausal can exist simultaneously within a logical format.

The origin of the consciousness is unknown. Many theories are out there including one assuming the consciousness is a separate entity and linked with the brain. If it is a separate entity, the causes of the consciousness would be acausal or non-physical.

The consciousness decides acausally to take a walk. The physical body goes into physical cause and effect and walks. The consciousness had an acausal desire (or cause) to take a walk. The consciousness had an acausal effect in directing the muscles through the brain. The movement of the brain and muscles would produce a series of further physical causes and events.

Note here is an example of acausal events with a consistent logic and with an expected chain of events regardless of whether we comprehend the origin or workings of the consciousness.

This is a possible example of an acausal events. There could be others. Although I would not expect anything to be magical. The inherent logic of the universe suggests all is logical.

Fortunately this is the philosophy forum. We can explore alternative explanations beyond the mainstream theories and assumptions. I think acausal events are worthy of consideration because they eliminate the logic contradictions within the first cause problem.
wimms
#22
Jul29-03, 08:14 PM
P: 473
Originally posted by heusdens
If those events in fact would exist, then what would determine those events to exist a-causal, while other events exist causal?

The answer: nothing would or could determine that, since that would contradict the definition of an a-causal event.

So, assumeting that a-causal events do exist, removes all possibility for causal events to exist.
oh, again, how do you reach this illogic conclusion???
Zantra
#23
Jul29-03, 09:09 PM
Zantra's Avatar
P: 869
Originally posted by Jagger2003
Huesdens, there are many that would disagree as we both know...

Gale here is a thread with a ongoing discussion from a different philosophy forum concerning the infinite existence of the universe. The discussion is not concluded quite yet but the forces for a finite universe are winning and will win the day.

It begins about two thirds of the way down on this thread here:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/s...6&page=3&pp=25
I only wish everyone was as accepting of alternate ideas as you are
radagast
#24
Jul30-03, 10:06 AM
radagast's Avatar
P: 460
Originally posted by Jagger2003
An acausal event does not need to be mystical. It can be perfectly logical and consistence within the laws of existence but beyond our current comprehension-sort of like gravitons and the consciousness.
Debate heusdens on causality at your own risk. He is as immovable on the subject as a stone wall, and almost as logical.
Zantra
#25
Jul30-03, 10:59 AM
Zantra's Avatar
P: 869
Originally posted by radagast
Zantra,
If time has no beginning, then the phrase 'before time' lacks meaning.
Sorry haven't checked this post in a while..

Not debating that Radagast-I'm in agreement. But my premise is that time is infinite, and so predates bb,obviously as a single timeline.
My idea however encompasses more than the timeline-see post about time before bb
Here
radagast
#26
Jul30-03, 11:24 AM
radagast's Avatar
P: 460
I remember the thread and understood your intent. I guess I was just pointing out that your idea of infinite time contradicts one of the assumptions of her initial question.
Zantra
#27
Jul30-03, 12:17 PM
Zantra's Avatar
P: 869
Right- which is confusing because at one point Gale, you said that you were in agreement with me- though I believe it was on the point that something had to predate BB because otherwise what could have initiated the BB through causality.


Of course OPINIONS may vary /grumble grumble
Royce
#28
Jul30-03, 01:30 PM
P: 1,476
Gale, to answer the intent of your question and not the logical semantic content, the answer is yes, it is quite possible and speculated by many theorist with different models of the Big Bang.

Big Bang - Big Crunch - Big Bang model.
At the previous big Crunch when all matter had ceased to exist and the universe consisted of infinite energy at infinite density there was no time or space. Only a singularity within timeless dimentionless space. As the universe expanded and or inflated then as matter dimentions space and time condenced out of the singularity a new time dimention began, presumably this timespace we are in now.

This is very simplistic I know but the point is still valid. If this is our time then in the previous cycle time existed prior to the beginning of this time cycle. When this cycle ends in the big crunch then this cycle will end along with it's time and a new cycle will begin. So if this model is the actual model then yes time existed before this time began and time will exist after this time ends. This is just one model that is now some what out of favor.

There are other models in which spacetime did not exist prior to the expantion, inflation and condensation of the BB. There was only dimentionless, timeless void, The absolute nothing of nothing prior to the BB event.

It is impossible to talk about such a void of non-time because in such a void there is no place, location nor any time, no before, prior, after, or during. So in that sence there could be no time before the begining time; but there could be a no-time before the begining of time in which a microsecond is just as long and meaningless as eternity.

There would be no dimention or duration, nothing to measure and no reference to measure it against. Our language and reasoning process simply will not let us talk about such a non-place. It is beyond logic, reason and language. It can only be thought of in a pure abstract nonlinear mode of thought and it make my brain hurt to try to do it for very long.
wuliheron
#29
Aug1-03, 11:16 AM
P: 1,967
If time is infinite it is either acausal or illogical and, thus, ultimately beyond rational discussion. If time is finite then the question of what came before time is meaningless or, again, acausal and beyond rational discussion.

Eternity is the west's answer to the asian assertion of the paradox of existence. If either side had the definitive rational answer the argument would have ended long ago. Instead, asians are waiting for the west to grow up and get in touch with its feelings on the subject.

Don't hold yer breath...
Tail
#30
Aug4-03, 05:14 AM
P: 197
I guess there could be no time if nothing was happening. A bad definition, I know...

The physical, or relative time, can definitely have a beginning, because it's so firmly connected with space.

The ABSOLUTE time, which doesn't really exist, although we can pretend it does, cannot have a beginning or end. It is nothing more than an idea.
heusdens
#31
Aug4-03, 07:01 AM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Jagger2003
Considering that cause and effect is considered physical, I would define acausal as any cause that isn't physical. A possible example might be desire and intent.


Aren't those also physical causes? What makes us desire or intend something? Does this idea in our mind exists withiout physcial causes?


If they exist, I would assume that they would affect physical causes and vice versa. Although it could be one way only. Acausal events would be initiating events. Physical cause and effects would be determined through physical forces and chains of events.


You have not understood the problem. Your understanding is that certain events are acausal and cause other physcial events, which are then causal. What makes 'some' events a-causal, and other events causal, if there can be no determination between those two type of events, since any determintation would refute the very idea of a-causality.


Perhaps it is best to go into an example here as well. I will try to sure how cause and acausal can exist simultaneously within a logical format.

The origin of the consciousness is unknown. Many theories are out there including one assuming the consciousness is a separate entity and linked with the brain. If it is a separate entity, the causes of the consciousness would be acausal or non-physical.

The consciousness decides acausally to take a walk. The physical body goes into physical cause and effect and walks. The consciousness had an acausal desire (or cause) to take a walk. The consciousness had an acausal effect in directing the muscles through the brain. The movement of the brain and muscles would produce a series of further physical causes and events.

Note here is an example of acausal events with a consistent logic and with an expected chain of events regardless of whether we comprehend the origin or workings of the consciousness.

This is a possible example of an acausal events. There could be others. Although I would not expect anything to be magical. The inherent logic of the universe suggests all is logical.

Fortunately this is the philosophy forum. We can explore alternative explanations beyond the mainstream theories and assumptions. I think acausal events are worthy of consideration because they eliminate the logic contradictions within the first cause problem.
You are assume here something very basic, namely you assume that consciousness itself is not material. We don't have to go saying that the very existence of consciousness, is not in form of atoms, since these terms do not apply to consciousness.
But assuming that consciousness stands outside of the material world, and can affect it, would contradict the fact that it is material.

The origin of consciousness is not entirely unknown, we know it developed together with material life forms, and its function is to reflect the material world, so that this life form can interact with it in a sensible way, in order to sustain itself.
No thought you can have exists outside of a material form in your brain, it exist as a pattern in your brain, which consists of material neurons connected in networks, and which accepts and sends signals in an electrical/chemical way.

The position of consciousness towards the material brain is in a way comparable with how software is positioned towards the hardware of a computer.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Is time, inside an event horizon, time-like or space-like? Special & General Relativity 34
Is light travel time for event time calculation usually implicit? Special & General Relativity 5
Coherent time vs duration time of the wave packet (photon) General Physics 1
Calculate time constant from the slope of dimensionless temperature vs time graph. Introductory Physics Homework 2
Since time slows down in a strong gravitational field, does time stop in a black hole Special & General Relativity 12