Thread: Causality

Same semantic nonsense, opposite conclusion.

It's semantics because...?

Not much different to causality really. Why should causality exist? Why should time exist? Maybe it is semantics.

Originally Posted by really

It's semantics because...?

For a start it's a 4 step argument trying to prove that time isn't infinite, and at step 3 is the sentence 'time has a beginning by definition; it is arbitrary'.

It's incoherent nonsense, mate.

I thought it was rather easy to see. Isn't time arbitrary? As would be causality?

You need to explain.

You were apparently trying to provide a stringent argument for time being finite. Step three randomly just asserts the conclusion. It's bizarre.

It's logical if time is defined by points, then time is arbitrary and ultimately finite, not infinite. All of that list goes together.

Maybe it's confusing if you have a different definition of time, but why shouldn't we define it as arbitrary? After all, it is all relative to the circumstance and is a projection of points across a linear scale. There's no way that can be seen to be infinite and have points. Infinite time is not a linear duration.

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, let's break it down: say you have ten shoe boxes, and a shoe is going to appear in one of the boxes in the next 24 hours; the probability of it appearing in any given box is 1/10.

How can you say that this doesn't contradict our notion of causality..?

Well I don't live in the quantum shoebox universe so I can't really assign a cause to that. Assuming someone was putting the shoe in the shoeboxes, then the cause would be the person doing so.

In the case of particles randomly appearing in quantum physics, the particles manifest out of background energy according to the probabilities defined by the quantum laws. I don't see how you don't think this is in line with causality. The cause is quantum laws saying that background energy manifests into particles at x probability, and the effect is that the particles manifest according to those laws.

The shoebox thing is completely analogous to what you are talking about. No, there is not observed to be anybody putting shoes in the box; I'm not sure why you created him. It's purely probabilistic.

The particles manifest at a random location (which you agree with...), analogous to a shoe manifesting in a random box. The background energy in this analogy is effectively determined, and is what has assigned the specific probabilities of 1/10.

Originally Posted by really

It's logical if time is defined by points, then time is arbitrary and ultimately finite, not infinite. All of that list goes together.

Maybe it's confusing if you have a different definition of time, but why shouldn't we define it as arbitrary? After all, it is all relative to the circumstance and is a projection of points across a linear scale. There's no way that can be seen to be infinite and have points. Infinite time is not a linear duration.

You're using infinity wrong. You're saying, if time is infinite, then the duration between the start of time and the end of time does not have a value.

This is fallacious because you have assumed the existence of a beginning and end to an infinite entity. Patently this is absurd because an infinite entity would not have these attributes, by definition. Your argument depends on something which does not exist.

Here is the proper conception of infinity: given any two points with a duration between them, you can always find two points with a greater duration between them.

That is the actual rigorous definition of infinity. Good luck finding something inconsistent with it.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're using infinity wrong. You're saying, if time is infinite, then the duration between the start of time and the end of time does not have a value.

This is fallacious because you have assumed the existence of a beginning and end to an infinite entity. Patently this is absurd because an infinite entity would not have these attributes, by definition. Your argument depends on something which does not exist.

Way to flip it over... my argument depends on time being a limited concept that is finite and linear. Time cannot be infinite. Infinite time means nothing besides, it is a bad metaphor.

I have not assumed a beginning and end to "infinite entity" or timelessness. I stated the opposite, go and read it. "...it is all relative to the circumstance and is a projection of points across a linear scale. There's no way that can be seen to be infinite and have points."

Here is the proper conception of infinity: given any two points with a duration between them, you can always find two points with a greater duration between them.

What makes that proper? I don't understand how infinity can have anything to do with duration; you and I both know duration is limited. You just said "This is fallacious because you have assumed the existence of a beginning and end to an infinite entity. Patently this is absurd because an infinite entity would not have these attributes, by definition." I'm sorry, you're not making sense here.

I tried my best to actually wheedle an argument out of what you said and that was the best I could manage. "After all, it is all relative to the circumstance and is a projection of points across a linear scale", if it means anything, seems to mean 'all time is is an expression of a relative relation between two points'.

Look really; the problem is that you are completely incoherent. You have tried to argue for time being finite, yet you say 'my argument depends on time being a limited concept that is finite'. It seems to me you just have no clue what a logical argument is, or indeed any kind of argument. You can't argue something by assuming the conclusion for God's sake.

Originally Posted by really

What makes that proper?

Because it's the definition of infinity.

I don't understand how infinity can have anything to do with duration; you and I both know duration is limited. You just said "This is fallacious because you have assumed the existence of a beginning and end to an infinite entity. Patently this is absurd because an infinite entity would not have these attributes, by definition." I'm sorry, you're not making sense here.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I guess you have confused the beginning and end of an infinite entity with the beginning and end of something within an infinite entity. Most people would find this quite a hard mistake to make.

Infinity isn't a real thing, it is just a concept. Time should have a starting point and and end point. However without any end in sight we can easily say time is going forward and heading towards infinity. By definition we will never reach infinity, and time will just continue to go on and on.

That's the mathematical (analytical) definition of infinity.

Originally Posted by Xei

The shoebox thing is completely analogous to what you are talking about. No, there is not observed to be anybody putting shoes in the box; I'm not sure why you created him. It's purely probabilistic.

The man who puts the shoe in the box is analogous to the quantum laws and background energy. That is to say that they are the reason and means through which the particles manifest themselves. Just because something is probabilistic doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause, I don't know where you're getting this.

The particles manifest at a random location (which you agree with...), analogous to a shoe manifesting in a random box. The background energy in this analogy is effectively determined, and is what has assigned the specific probabilities of 1/10.

Actually the thing that assigns the probability is the quantum laws; the background energy just acts as a medium for the particles to manifest from. But that's beside the point. The cause of the particles' manifestation is the laws of quantum physics acting on how background energy behaves.

This is a different story from the creation of the universe in that particles have quantum laws and background energy which say that the particles will manifest from energy at x probability, while the universe probably wouldn't have had laws or a medium from which to manifest, thus no cause for its creation.

By the way I'm not arguing creationism, if that's what you think, although I certainly can't rule it out. (We could, for example, simply be living in a computer simulation even if that doesn't satisfy the question of where the computer programmers who created the simulation came from.) One possibility that I consider is that all possible states of existence all simply exist simultaneously without regard to internal properties like time or space.

I don't see what you don't get. The quantum laws and background energy are what determine the specific probabilities (here 1/10 in each box; it could have been anything else like 1/4 in two boxes and 1/16 in the others, if the laws were different). They don't determine the outcomes of the probabilities.

The rules acting on background energy cause the particles to pop into existence, based on the probabilities. I don't know what determines the actual time and position of their appearance (as I said before I'm not a quantum physics major); I would assume it's just randomly determined, but my point is that the laws of the behavior of background energy are what prompt it to happen.

That's all correct. So you see that the shoebox analogy is correct. How do you explain how the analogy is consistent with causality?

The shoebox analogy would be correct if the shoes had some kind of medium from which they could manifest. Particles don't just appear out of nothing from what I understand. Assuming the shoes abided by the laws of quantum physics, the reason why they're appearing in the boxes is because the background sea of leather acts in such a way that a shoe manifests from the leather into a random box at random points in time. If the sea of leather didn't have this property (the cause), then no shoes would be appearing (the effect). The factor that determines the individual time and box of shoe manifestations is irrelevant, for all I care it's just randomly determined; I'm referring to the property of the sea of leather itself.

It's not about manifesting out of something or nothing really. Include the sea of leather (lather?) if you will. But the fact is that there is no 'reason' that the lather turns into a shoe in one box rather than another. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's what violates determinism.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's not about manifesting out of something or nothing really.

I know, but it wouldn't have been a proper analogy without it. I also made a point about the medium from which the particles manifest to point out the difference between this example and the uncaused manifestation of universes.

Include the sea of leather (lather?) if you will.

Leather. What shoes are made out of.

But the fact is that there is no 'reason' that the lather turns into a shoe in one box rather than another. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's what violates determinism.

Who said we lived in a determinist universe? I'm not here to argue determinism, I'm just making the point that the nature of background energy is what causes particles to manifest, thus making random particle manifestation a caused event. That doesn't require determinism as far as I can tell. The time and place of particle manifestations could have no determining factor aside from pure randomness for all I care, that doesn't mean their manifestations are uncaused.

Look, we're going in circles: the phenomenon of particles acting in causeless ways as a whole has a 'cause', i.e. the laws of quantum physics. I'm not talking about the laws, I'm talking about a specific event. Quantum theory dictates that a specific event can be probabilistic. If you had to choose between a shoe appearing in one box, and a shoe appearing in another, you could not do it, even in principle. Surely this violates the notion of a cause??

Leather. What shoes are made out of.

Lather. What a bubbly medium is made out of.

Originally Posted by Xei

I tried my best to actually wheedle an argument out of what you said and that was the best I could manage. "After all, it is all relative to the circumstance and is a projection of points across a linear scale", if it means anything, seems to mean 'all time is is an expression of a relative relation between two points'.

Despite knowing what it means, you come across as acting dumb. Points across a linear scale is very easy to understand; e.g. past/present/future/start/finish. A projection of points means that they have no independent existence (as causality). Infinite time is semantics; there is no infinite time with points, it is simply the absence of time.

Look really; the problem is that you are completely incoherent. You have tried to argue for time being finite, yet you say 'my argument depends on time being a limited concept that is finite'. It seems to me you just have no clue what a logical argument is, or indeed any kind of argument. You can't argue something by assuming the conclusion for God's sake.

I have been arguing that infinite time is meaningless, because time is defined by points. Arguments have premises you know, my premise is about how time is arbitrary.

Because it's the definition of infinity.

Oh, if you say so... Instead of being pretentious, remember that there are many definitions of infinity. Don't assert something without explaining it.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I guess you have confused the beginning and end of an infinite entity with the beginning and end of something within an infinite entity. Most people would find this quite a hard mistake to make.

While you appear inconsistent ("...you have assumed the existence of a beginning and end to an infinite entity. Patently this is absurd...", "...proper conception of infinity: given any two points with a duration between them, you can always find two points with a greater duration between them."), I think the point is that "infinite entities" don't exist. What I've described alludes to this in the sense that time is a defined entity, therefore endless time (infinite time) would mean nothing. Or what?

Originally Posted by Alric

Infinity isn't a real thing, it is just a concept. Time should have a starting point and and end point. However without any end in sight we can easily say time is going forward and heading towards infinity. By definition we will never reach infinity, and time will just continue to go on and on.

Yeah that's the point really. If we're never going to reach it, then "infinity" is something that doesn't have an independent existence as an "entity" - which would require it to have an end, and therefore not infinite. It is something that is non-linear and always existing, already, and something that cannot have a beginning or end. My whole point. Time is an arbitrary convenience; "infinite time" can really only refer to "for all time" but other than that, there's nothing convenient about the term.

Originally Posted by really

Despite knowing what it means, you come across as acting dumb. Points across a linear scale is very easy to understand; e.g. past/present/future/start/finish. A projection of points means that they have no independent existence (as causality). Infinite time is semantics; there is no infinite time with points, it is simply the absence of time.

I'm not acting dumb. Your sentences literally don't make sense. 'A projection of points means that they have no independent existence'; how on Earth is this related to the word 'projection'? A projection is where you take an object and through a single transform turn it into an image. You seem to be trying to say that each point is only defined relative to another (I can still only vaguely make it out).

I have been arguing that infinite time is meaningless, because time is defined by points. Arguments have premises you know, my premise is about how time is arbitrary.

You haven't provided a coherent argument anywhere. You've provided some unintelligible assertions. What do you even mean by the word 'arbitrary'? Considering you seem to like using words to mean things that they don't, it's necessary that you explain this.

Oh, if you say so... Instead of being pretentious, remember that there are many definitions of infinity. Don't assert something without explaining it.

Explain what? I provided the stringent definition for infinity. You asked why and I had to repeat... because that's the definition. You wanted me to explain the reason that infinity has that definition? That's not how words work.

While you appear inconsistent ("...you have assumed the existence of a beginning and end to an infinite entity. Patently this is absurd...", "...proper conception of infinity: given any two points with a duration between them, you can always find two points with a greater duration between them."),

lolwat

I just explained why this is obviously not inconsistent, why are you repeating your error all over again?

I think the point is that "infinite entities" don't exist. What I've described alludes to this in the sense that time is a defined entity, therefore endless time (infinite time) would mean nothing. Or what?

You're still putting words together that make no sense to anyone.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I know, but it wouldn't have been a proper analogy without it. I also made a point about the medium from which the particles manifest to point out the difference between this example and the uncaused manifestation of universes. Leather. What shoes are made out of.
Who said we lived in a determinist universe? I'm not here to argue determinism, I'm just making the point that the nature of background energy is what causes particles to manifest, thus making random particle manifestation a caused event. That doesn't require determinism as far as I can tell. The time and place of particle manifestations could have no determining factor aside from pure randomness for all I care, that doesn't mean their manifestations are uncaused.

Hmm, I suppose the sea of leather could be considered a necessary cause, but not sufficient cause for the particles to appear. Also, I don't know too much about QM, but I don't know whether you can really make the distinction between apparent randomness (coin flips) and true/ontic randomness (perhaps what these particles appearing are).

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not acting dumb. Your sentences literally don't make sense. 'A projection of points means that they have no independent existence'; how on Earth is this related to the word 'projection'? A projection is where you take an object and through a single transform turn it into an image. You seem to be trying to say that each point is only defined relative to another (I can still only vaguely make it out).

Xei, projection is another word here that may possibly have more than one definition. Put it into the sentence again. Obviously talking about transforming objects into images is not the right definition! Nevertheless, the etymology of projection is actually comes from "to throw forth". Yes, to throw forth of points. Time is arbitrary in the sense that the past, present and future, including events are throwing forth of points on a linear scale. Throwing forth of points mean they have no independent existence, because if they did, there is no projection; no throwing forth that is required.

Having said this, yes, points will be relative to another.

You haven't provided a coherent argument anywhere. You've provided some unintelligible assertions. What do you even mean by the word 'arbitrary'? Considering you seem to like using words to mean things that they don't, it's necessary that you explain this.

If time is defined by points, by whim, by choice, by conceptualizing, by variance, by relativity, then it is quite arbitrary. They may be a consensus about a particular event or period, but the description and concept about that is arbitrary and depends on several conditions. It would not be if that time had independent existence, if the totality of the universe was "caused" by time and if there was nothing greater than it. But evidently there has to be, because a linear universe is unresolvable.

Explain what? I provided the stringent definition for infinity. You asked why and I had to repeat... because that's the definition. You wanted me to explain the reason that infinity has that definition? That's not how words work.

Explain your definition of "infinity" in more detail please, and why you are using it, because I don't understand it. I don't want you to reason by saying "because it's the definition". That's not insightful. Thank you.

I just explained why this is obviously not inconsistent, why are you repeating your error all over again?

You explained why? So you must know what I meant in asking. But typing up one line discretely after stating "I have no idea what point you are trying to make." does not make me confident at all, so I repeated myself with hopes that you will. Now I just ask again that you elaborate. If you're going to respond with single line remarks, don't both responding at all. Save your time.