Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.

The time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.

So what?
I do not think you are taking things seriously.
You comment is incoherent and irrelevant.

I also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?

[GE Morton]

Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.

Yes, indeed. So why do you say (in another post) that all events are caused. "True." ???

As you say here, it is uncertain, just something we think might be true. It's your "maybe" that makes your statement correct, in the sense that it communicates our uncertainty: we just don't know.

You nailed it there. We're compelled to assume that all events and entities have causes, because explanation consists in finding causes for effects and we wish to explain everything, but we can't claim to know they all do.

[Sculptor1]

Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.

Yes, indeed. So why do you say (in another post) that all events are caused. "True." ???

As you say here, it is uncertain, just something we think might be true. It's your "maybe" that makes your statement correct, in the sense that it communicates our uncertainty: we just don't know.

Do you have an irony blindness?
Humans once thought that there was such a thing as "spontaneous generation" - THEY WERE WRONG. Obviously
Most people accepting the bleedin' obvious now know that stuff gets caused and just because you do not know such things as flies lay eggs that CAUSE the maggots, and other such causalities. Ignorance is not evidence for an uncaused cause.
There is not uncertainly. Stuff gets caused. We may not know what that is but we probably will in the future.

[Sculptor1]

2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.

The time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.

So what?
I do not think you are taking things seriously.
You comment is incoherent and irrelevant.

I also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you?

[Sy Borg]

Excuse me for butting in, but wasn't the Big Bang a 'causeless event', as far as we know?

Well we do not know, do we.
All we know is that currently observable causalities and effects see to reverse engineer to a single point of origin, But we know nothing about that the bang may have banged into or from.
And never shall we know.

Yes, we cannot know if there was a cause or what it might be. We tend to assume that there was a cause, based on logic, but our logic may not apply to such wildly differing states of matter. There are some hypotheses out there, eg. [oversimplified] The pre-universe universe (so to speak) consisted of instantly-annihilating virtual particles (as can be found in any vacuum), and a virtual particle inflated rather than popping out of existence, as usual.

Such are the limits of scientific induction. Odd that science has been so damned effective to help us manipulate and understand the world.
But let us consider a world where things come into being spontaneously without cause. In part we used to live in such a world. Mice spontaneously generated from rotten cloth. And maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Diseases spontaneously emerged not through causes but simply because of the inbalance of the humours.
Now we know better.
Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.

In my mind, I imagine all these virtual particles being annihilated because of their neighbours, like being unable to stretch your arms in a crowded train. Then, by chance, a zone of slightly less concentration developed, just enough to allow a virtual particle to start to expand, and once the virtual particle started expanding, it absorbed its "puny" peers around them, which absorbed their neighbours, and so on in a cascade. Probably pure fiction, but that's how my ape brain apprehends the situation.

Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".

[Sculptor1]

Well we do not know, do we.
All we know is that currently observable causalities and effects see to reverse engineer to a single point of origin, But we know nothing about that the bang may have banged into or from.
And never shall we know.

Yes, we cannot know if there was a cause or what it might be. We tend to assume that there was a cause, based on logic, but our logic may not apply to such wildly differing states of matter. There are some hypotheses out there, eg. [oversimplified] The pre-universe universe (so to speak) consisted of instantly-annihilating virtual particles (as can be found in any vacuum), and a virtual particle inflated rather than popping out of existence, as usual.

Such are the limits of scientific induction. Odd that science has been so damned effective to help us manipulate and understand the world.
But let us consider a world where things come into being spontaneously without cause. In part we used to live in such a world. Mice spontaneously generated from rotten cloth. And maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Diseases spontaneously emerged not through causes but simply because of the inbalance of the humours.
Now we know better.
Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.

In my mind, I imagine all these virtual particles being annihilated because of their neighbours, like being unable to stretch your arms in a crowded train. Then, by chance, a zone of slightly less concentration developed, just enough to allow a virtual particle to start to expand, and once the virtual particle started expanding, it absorbed its "puny" peers around them, which absorbed their neighbours, and so on in a cascade. Probably pure fiction, but that's how my ape brain apprehends the situation.

Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".

"In my Mind"??
Enjoy your imagination.
I do not think you have to know the minutiae, the actual microscopic billiard balls of reality. Atoms and Quarks are only really models, by which we hope to get a better understanding.
Epicurean Swerves and the like have been part of the imagined world for a long time.
When I put the key in the car and it starts I have the deterministic world re-enforced.
When it fails the reason is discoverable. Although a car can get complicated, there is no real mystery; patrol, bad plugs, flat battery.
The whole world is basically the same.
But people are scared apes and when the computer gets "unstable" it only really means that it's doing stuff that no one predicted. That does not invalidate the basic rules of cause and effect; that's just ignorance of the cause; not spontaneous action.

Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.

[value]

2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.

The time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.

I also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you?

You stated that 'everything' is in time. That would be an empirical notion of time by looking out into the cosmos.

My argument is that there is a different time that fundamentally allows for change: in-the-moment time experience which is applicable in-the-moment on cosmic scale.

Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?

[value]

Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".

The idea of a Singularity - a mathematical potential infinity - to be applicable in physical reality is absurd.

A Singularity is a purely mathematical 'infinitely' dense point in space-time. LiveScience mentions the following about it:

These singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Infinity cannot be counted so the idea of mathematical infinity to be applicable to reality is absurd. Mathematical infinity is merely a potential infinity that is dependent on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician (an observer). Without the mathematician a Singularity cannot be conceived of.

Actual infinity would be beginning-less of nature and there mathematics would not apply. And what is beginning-less of nature cannot occupy a 'point' in space-time.

The idea of the cosmos as a physical totality that started in a Big Bang explosion is nonsensical.

[Pattern-chaser]

Most people accepting the bleedin' obvious now know that stuff gets caused and just because you do not know such things as flies lay eggs that CAUSE the maggots, and other such causalities. Ignorance is not evidence for an uncaused cause.

True, ignorance is not evidence for anything, but one good way to promote and maintain ignorance is to go around accepting "the bleedin' obvious" without questioning whether it really is as obvious as you think it is...

[Sculptor1]

2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.

The time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.

I also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you?

You stated that 'everything' is in time. That would be an empirical notion of time by looking out into the cosmos.

My argument is that there is a different time that fundamentally allows for change: in-the-moment time experience which is applicable in-the-moment on cosmic scale.

You are not presenting an argument for a "different time", whatever that is. Nor showing why you think this makes sense, or would make sense to anyone.
It looks like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist or a theory that does no work.

Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?

This simply makes no sense. I can keep saying that as long as you like, but WTH are you on about?

[Pattern-chaser]

Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.

I think we all doubt it. But the lesson here, surely, is that both the whale and the petunias are possible? Even though we believe the chance of these things occurring is very small indeed, we also believe that the probability is non-zero: it is possible.

[value]

You are not presenting an argument for a "different time", whatever that is. Nor showing why you think this makes sense, or would make sense to anyone.
It looks like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist or a theory that does no work.

Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?

This simply makes no sense. I can keep saying that as long as you like, but WTH are you on about?

There is a difference in what is perceived in time by looking out into the cosmos and what is experienced in time in-the-moment.

Do you not see the difference?

The one concerns a retro-perspective. The other an experience that as of today has no scientific explanation.

While causality could appear to be static in what is retro-perspectively perceived in time, causality cannot logically be established to be static in what is experienced in time because it involves an unknown future.

[Sculptor1]

Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.

I think we all doubt it. But the lesson here, surely, is that both the whale and the petunias are possible? Even though we believe the chance of these things occurring is very small indeed, we also believe that the probability is non-zero: it is possible.

Seriously?
You think it is possible that one day Joe hits the cue ball into the side pocket and instead of winning the game when he leaves the pub the street is covered in whale meat?
Did you really mean to say that?

[Sculptor1]

You are not presenting an argument for a "different time", whatever that is. Nor showing why you think this makes sense, or would make sense to anyone.
It looks like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist or a theory that does no work.

Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?

This simply makes no sense. I can keep saying that as long as you like, but WTH are you on about?

There is a difference in what is perceived in time by looking out into the cosmos and what is experienced in time in-the-moment.

Do you not see the difference?

The one concerns a retro-perspective. The other an experience that as of today has no scientific explanation.

While causality could appear to be static in what is retro-perspectively perceived in time, causality cannot logically be established to be static in what is experienced in time because it involves an unknown future.

As "perceived" is equivalent to "experienced", no there is no difference.

[Sy Borg]

Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".

The idea of a Singularity - a mathematical potential infinity - to be applicable in physical reality is absurd.

Why do you think I enclosed the word in inverted commas?