How can you have cause and effect without pre-destiny?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If we take Einstein’s all-time, we could envision that as ‘the book of all histories’ ~ the complete works. If you were outside of existence like God or what have you, then you could read from the book. If however you told someone who’s part of that book/history, what is going to happen say the next day, then you would have changed the book. Yet you cannot do that because it is the book of all history and has already been written. The god cannot tell you objective facts, but because information and graphics in our minds are not literally the same as physical information in the world, you could use metaphor which isn’t specifically saying something that objectively changes history and the book. …especially if those visions themselves are in the book.

There is a more specific philosophical problem here, namely; how can there be cause and effect without that including objective info from the book of all histories? …breaking the ‘law’?

My thoughts are that you can’t have cause and effect specifically. That that is something rather than us just not seeing a more fluid quantum interchange. Or is that in all cases the history book is being cross referenced with the book of all histories as it is being written, and the world is continually taking extracts and pooping them in place. So two positions in time are not the same as two positions in space-time, indeed don’t we have to see the info in the book as always ‘being there’, and information of that kind [in the book of all-time] is not itself in linear time, and then that is being ‘pursued’ by information in [space]time?

All time and space is thus a dialogue, and there is no linear time without that being in reference to other kinds of time e.g. here all-time.

_

2

Pre-destiny is the problem of anti; pre-destiny can be known as anti-destiny, therefore destiny requires no division (no cause and effect).

3

I like, used this in my signature here for the longest time. Your just now starting to question it?

If you could travel back in time, would it be the case every force in nature would reverse, or just some? Would gravity, for example, be the same gravity as in say, 1996, as it was when you returned to it, or would it be 2016 gravity in the deposition of 1996?

Odd question, isn’t it. Not really though, if you are thinking of time as a higher dimension. Is everything unified in space and time, or merely relative due to a larger medium that holds it together? Can kinds of causality exist independently of others, share some effects on some forces, but not in others?

4

That assumes that everything is knowable, at least theoretically by some entity or another.
I think that not everything is knowable, not even theoretically, by no entity.

In other words, the book does not exist, not even theoretically.
Or if you want to use the word information, the information does not exist, not absolutely anyway. Kind of like a fuzzy logic and not a binary one.
Probabilities instead of certainties.

5

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set#

Is “Time” all encompassing of everything in physics? If so, why? Is our science geared towards time because we naturally presume it to be the reasonable explanation for phenomena in space, due to how our brains are set up? How would we know different?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=RxabLA7UQ9k

6

We wouldn’t. And we don’t. Predestination plays into this, by disallowing this contemporaneous field of possibilities.

What happens has already happened, is happening, predestination is only the network of the playing field in the midst of choices. It is possible that all available choices are weighed, tried, discarded, and the most
self serving choice becomes existentially tenable.

Then the mind places this choice in a temporal field, and interprets it as causitive. This merely appears as a placing, it really is a displacement. It is a subjective process, not objective where somehow pre determination is played upon the psychie, like from an outside source.

The choice is not made in time, it is displaced , and appears as a pre-determination,

It is not one choice, but several choices working in tendom, and interrelated by various functional concerns. Most of it is not effected by conscious consideration, but automatic responses reacting to
preset cues. Very little of what we call ‘conscious effects’ is predicated by singular placing of imminent choices.

It is thought as such, to capture and save the impressions of sequential effects, we call ‘time’.

In fact, living in a timeless eternity, nihilizes cause and effect. Life as it is realized, is but a colossal monument of displaced effects, built up to offer impressions of cause and effect, to manifests patio-temporal continuity. By displacing the effect as somehow prioritized as a product of a casually pre-determined process.

7

Predestination isn’t different from say, the concept of boyancy in a river.

We know something boyant will stay above water, and that something in a water current will move. Most rivers move towards the sea, and we can presume eventually a boyant thing will enter into the sea.

If this boyant thing was a universe, like the necklace from Men in Black… their physics within that universe might detect a similar disparity of forces… a unaccountable boyancy, but would have no reason not to presume it constant.

For something floating in the ocean, imagining one can go back to the beginning… the beginning would always presumed to be oceanic, not a river rapid. If they could reverse every particle in that boyant thing back to its casual original state at the beginning of the journey, they would have no reason to presume the ocean wasn’t a constant the entire time.

The forces of nature may not be unified as we think, if space is finite yet boundless. Time may just be… bouyant. Always acting within cause and effect, but not unified in the reversal. You reverse matter, the bouyant thing, you might not get the origins of the universe, because it is something much larger, and in constant independent movement. It is only relative, due to proximity. Any attempt to reverse and push forward within a finite fate, and your merely moving in parallel to time’s contemporary now… a time not as bound to the terms of physics as we expect it to be. Some expectations will match up… such as our material interactions, but not much else. What would something within a finite space know about what is alien and external, felt only through the constantly of a wave no one has ever noticed.

This is a bizarre concept, until you consider Zeno’s paradox of movement, or it’s inversal… the origination paradox of the universe… be it God, Big Bang, The Unmoved Mover…

Only explanation is the synthesis is larger than cause and effect, that time isn’t the sum of all, but larger… much, much larger… is a state of interactive flow against our universe. We only understand it up to our genesis and extinction, then it seems bizarre. It wouldn’t be if we presumed Time’s Arrow was a mistaken concept… that subjectivity of time like in Schodingers Cat is built into observation, we evolved to sense this. Universe only makes sense in this way.

A is to B how in Zeno’s paradox? How do the points meet to effect?

How does it inverse?

A ----> B

A ----> B ----> C

But, we know A---->…B

—> being physical causality, … being unpredictability.

What if Time was a constant perpendicular line running through… and not —>, but our material science was only able to see —> as a fossil of it’s interaction?

Line XY intersecting at a perpendicular (I drawl it usually diagnolly, Incase you ever want to work geometric problems using this method of temporal geometry):

Each one of the periods being a point of intersection.

So A—> …XY. B —> …XY. C —> …XY. D

If D wasn’t to travel back to state C, it might not find YZ, but YZ. Why? Because that original force already moved on…

So it be A—>…XY.B—>…YZ.C—D

In actuality, two lines

A—>…XY.B—>…XY—>…XY.C—>…D
A—>…YZ.B—>…YZ—>…ZY.C+D<—D (Same D of line XY, thinking YZ was XY)

This explains to a extent gravity and time dialation.

If —> is times arrow, fossilized matter, real things, and… is time + schrodingers cat, then time can have fluc through material stasis… time can change it’s characteristics.

A—>…XY.B—>…XY.C—>…XY…D—>.XY…E

Is a thing getting heavier, larger in a universe that hasn’t changed it’s mass, it’s relative dimensions. Only time would behave differently.
…XY.
…XY.
…XY…
.XY…
XY…

Are equally measurably in physical —>, we wouldn’t know it, save at the so called quantum level. In Zeno’s paradox of movement, it can’t even be seen, but we know the observation paradox suggests otherwise. Just does weird shit if viewed the different way.

In order to eat and consume in time and space, we have to map specially, and time and predict temporally. Both come naturally to us, but observation directly seems to effect time. It makes sense for such a intelligence to evolve if time was a constant enough of a feature in physics, but it wouldn’t be inherently obvious to a observer he was manipulating the XY axis of time in observation, as the “real” is spatial —>, size being constant.

That is a Paradox of Size. Not indifferent from the Banach-Tardsky Paradox. If place can shift, so can size… not just energy. It is something scientist convienantly forget with quantum entanglement, the E=MC2 hypothesis. We can thank my time on the beaches in Hawaii for path finding this formula, like Archimedes I was reduced to drawling in the sands. My tablet broke,and I was a half naked, in rags Cynic at the time. That is a important principle to my philosophy of size.

When you start stacking lines up… that’s when odd equations start happening to probability… you start noticing some issues with size and the universal constant… the regress and progress between different types of time no longer in parallel with matter come off in a wave pattern… becomes predictable in geometric waves.

…A…B…C
…A…B…C
.A…B.C
A…BC
…BCD

Is that time, or a molecule bonding, or individualization of matter?

If the universe < time, universe being finite, time being larger, very hard to say fate is predestined. Predestination may not be the same as Omnipresence. Look at how Turtellian dealt with Eternal Return… system was a finite whole + entropy.

8

I totally agree with the paradoxical nature of the contrast between the affects and the effects of sensing, interpreting and experiencing the understanding and succession of the world in time.
It seems as if they were different entities, and this appearance is brought about by the paradoxical nature of size. However, even in the given(by you) example of the non congruence of the world and time, such non congruence falls into the very trap it has created for it’s sel , via interpretation. Therefore, it becomes appearent, that there is no prior state to go back to, since the change has changed even that conceivable ‘begibpnning’ it was supposed to evolve from. At no time can this be demonstrated, because the evolution has changed the state to one where there is no resemblance of the causal to the effective state.

For all practical purposes, time as an arrow has simply vanished, as connectable points of reference.
It is almost like the boy in the fairy tale leaving a trail of seeds , along his way, only to find that the birds have consumed them. Effectively, there is no going back, not even a demonstration, that there ever was a beginning to return to.

This is why I do not agree with the principle of eternal return, nor of reincarnation.

9

No… our sciences are still every bit as reliable… the size aspect… concrete matter —> remains.

We have, for example, fossiles and background radiation. Radioactive constants. This is relative to one another IN TIME, but is it always THROUGH TIME.

Your Mongolian, so your likely not exposed to the Theraveda traditions of Size & Time.

In their tradition, in the far future, they expect all people and planets to be giants… we would be very small in comparison. A past Buddha, our size, visits them. They are intelligent but mock him none the less for being so small.

If the Banach-Tardski paradox holds, and shape can be reassembled on a point by point basis from the size of a pea to the size of the sun… all parts being equal in size.

How could you pull off eternal return… carrying this information in cycles, if at different time flows the size of the parts wouldn’t match up at different points at time.

—> is size.

------> bigger

→ smaller

Some idea as…, but —> rests wholly in the object/subject divide that the physical sciences can so easily trace.

A–>…WX.B—>…XY…C---->.YZ…D----->Z…E

How does ------> E revert back to -->B—> ?

The Banach- Tardshi Paradox just says do thus shit:

Doesn’t worry about that time arror, universal constant bullshit. Some magic fairy scrambles that shit back together… and it fits.

Have you ever observed waves hitting rocks?

Imagine our line of causality it just one atom drifting in the ocean, up and down in waves, slowing moving at a pleasure pace at any diagonal not parallel with the waves and shore.

Line XY (or whatever segment of time/metric) can’t determine if the atom it up (large, on the crest) or down (in the ebb between waves)… because observationally the particles observing this neighboring particle see it as One Dimension or Two Dimensionally.

A clever algea builds a time machine, that calculates the collisions of each atom…reverses their order, goes back in time… what it is utterly unaware of it… waves exist in 3-D, so the atoms have different points in elevation.

As a result… it can Emperically determine it has time traveled, but not all the results are coming out right. Why? We know it is the wave, it is utterly clueless.

Can it “rewrite” the causal order, do a Nietzscheans forcing it’s will on the universe? Sort of. Not really. You still have the butterfly effect going on, but that us taking place in 3 dimensions, not 2 or 1. So the genius algae’s victories in science would quickly turn to bullshit.

It we could just in a localized sense turn back time, not over the whole universe but just the solar system… would we see the stars? Would the Voyager Satellite be bigger than the Sun? Our Sun bigger than the universe?

That… is the Cartesian Demon, and that… is what makes the entropy solution to Tertullian’s Eternal Return formulation so damn questionable. It doesn’t have time as a Omega Point as Z…E crunching time backwards, slicing timeliness into utopian silliness, whatever we want it to be. (Gonna take some flak from a monk someday for saying that), nor does it make sense Z…E just turns into Z…EA–>…WX.B—>

I really don’t think Eternal Return makes any sense in that way, especially if time is much, much larger that the full size of the universe.

Hopefully that jackass Only Human doesn’t try to move these posts, he has a fondness of destroying good philosophy.

You ultimately don’t know if something is warping nature, as long as the seeming whole is warped at the same size. It matters both for physics, and sneaky creepy moderators moving shit around and banning people after the fact… all looks as it should after the fact.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

10

Tf

the I-ching is binary, the universe has three polar positions and not two.

don’t think so. I would imagine that everything without exception would be in its place, just like the book metaphor. However, I also think that if you did move backwards in time, you would still be on your own forwards trajectory, and that would unstich everything. A scientist referred to the idea as the past-time-feedback-loop, a bit like a guitar gets feedback.

The issue arises because the paradox is dealing with a cardinal[ity] basis. ‘A’ would have to contain ‘B’ for ‘B’ to come from it, when a is not b. that paradox arises when starting the inquiry with a duality and not a oneness [everything after blending]. What we get instead of a ~ b, would be something like X ~ X, and we only define that once X is arrived at. However, the storyteller at the restaurant at the end of the universe, would be able to tell the story in real terms, no? Ergo all-time would contain all arrived-at 'X’s. That’s not prediction nor is it predictable, it is history after the fact.

Is_Yde_opN
the op is saying there cannot be cause and effect, at root… [but some mystical kind of information contained in the book].

I agree, but I also think everything IS information in itself. Rather than being known in the third party [God/s or people and AI], all information concerning events exists relativistically in its event spatial location. The observer cannot ‘know’ that, because that would involve making observations, but the physical reality exists itself and is info surely?

Einstein’s ‘all-time’ has to contain the set of all things, at least those which have once existed. Tbh I don’t know what the info would mean or if it even is info in all-time, but it’s strange if at root there is metaphor and the book of histories does not exist?

_

11

In quantum-physics the state of a particle is not only not knowable because of the required observation which would interfere with the state of the particle but the state is itself probabilistically distributed. It’s not like the particle has a state but we can’t know it because observing it would interfere and possibly alter the state but the state itself even without interaction is not discrete information.
In schools it is often taught that observing the particle would change the particle and that’s why Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and so on…

Wikipedia sums it up like this -

So the information itself is actually not there. The particle is fundamentally, not only practically for the observer, in flux.

12

Well put, I do know that as can be seen on any number of my threads on the topic. The storyteller does know the story [after the fact] and a vast enough computer would know the whole story [at least what can be told]. Yet as you say, the physical reality is probabilistic ~ but that’s info in ‘now-time’ and not ‘all-time’.

So now we need to ask what information is, when it converts up to the kind of info at root in all things [the universal communicative medium], and as converted in all-time. Then ask; is that info ‘there’ in e.g. the universe when it stretched into infinity just after the big bang, and if it is there prior to that?

I don’t think we can be talking about preemptive information [it cannot know itself before first becoming what it is!], there has to be something at root which becomes that. similar perhaps to how we could think of thought and info separately [even if it is not]. so an ability rather than info and cause and effect.

13

The further we look into the past, the less accurate we can establish it. Just like when we extrapolate into the future, it becomes increasingly uncertain and blurry. Our predictions become less probable (chaos theory). And similar to the quantum-physics analogy I think that this is not only a matter of accuracy, of technology but that there is a fundamental uncertainty which increases and which can’t be made to disappear completely.

In that sense I think of the big bang event as something abstract. Something which may not have actually happened, because the assumption that it did is based on extrapolating from a very small timeframe into a very large one.

The past is not knowable (perfectly) but it happened, it has been determined.
The future is not knowable (perfectly) and it has not yet been determined (not completely anyway).
There is a range of possibility for the future but at the same time I am not saying that anything is possible. The range of possibility is limited, more narrow in the immediate future and wider in the far future. Certain possibilities more probable than others.
All this range of possibilities is not due to inaccuracies in measurement but intrinsic to the conception of reality I am proposing here.

On another note, to clarify, I don’t think that what I just mentioned has anything to do with free-will vs. determinism. The range of possibilities I described for the future is about the quality of flux of reality.

The past is physicality, it’s not just a memory in the mind, a scar is real and not just a fantasy or something which can be forgotten away. The future is something which is not yet manifested and here, although the mind is not free, life and life-forms are in rebellion against flux. But it’s not something they can win, there is no state of having won against flux. That would be a state of fixed-ness, of being dead.

14

Given the size of the flux, it is not improbable to conceive of the contemporousness of all time: past, present & future. The structure of conscious apprehension may be built on such a schematization, built on the notion of increasing dimensionality of it.

15

Theoretically there could be someone or something writing history down throughout. In fact couldn’t we write an entire history book, without even mentioning the relative positions of particles?

If there is something else ~ a universal communicator [the blended reality [‘1’]], at root, the ‘flux’ is in the blending. The cosmic blender surely has an inverse [creation] function too.

being the blender is not so bad, its just the being blended which sucks. I don’t think we should loose sight of the creation aspect in all of this, at root and in our minds [because its in the quantum soup generally [its just particles etc]], where it can make utility it will.

Something is the core ‘real’. And as for will there is ‘creation + entropy’ [both will/no will] rather than just one or the other. Will, volition et al, is or something in our minds is creation, no? That because creation is everywhere and as universal as is its opposite entropy, so there only needs be a sentient being for creation to happen. Maybe more likely that all life possess it in some rudimentary fashion.

or do you think that cause and effect only has entropy? …at root.
Something is making the universe begin, even if the universe is that thing. It still has to have the function of creation?

_

16

Einstein’s all time is like data collection.

But in order to read and be conscious of the data collection, you have to move forward in time. If you read all the data at the same time, its just total whiteness, non-data.

Therefore all time cannot be read omnipotently, for in order to read its data you have to actually move forward through time and not be omnipotent.
In essence, all time might be happening right now and we not know it, this could be the very process of reading all time’s data. Information has to be disposed of, in order for information to be experienced and the movement of time to be experienced.

17

An infinite deity/spirit would know the whole story, and would be able to see unlimited observational perspectives. Hence would be able to read everything ~ it has no limits, where relativity is all about variance in limits. Einstein’s vision cannot include an infinite observer [so fails] and is thus representative, and not the final vision.

18

Old texts can be quite insightful but norms and standards for truth and so on change through time.
Can there even be such a thing as only stating facts? And which facts, which facts are more important than others and so on.

Modern times show what happens when the source of information is increasingly not reality but proxies of reality and proxies of proxies of…
Interpretations of interpretation of reality puts fog walls between the mind and reality.

And in that sense I think that the older the texts, especially from alien cultures with alien values the less certain we are about their interpretation which is already a secondary interpretation of their interpretation of reality.

19

Sure history is written that way, but the notion concerned an imagined history writer ~ its asking if you could in theory write the entire book of all history. In real terms it is asking if an occurrence actually happens, and if those facts change, then if the unpredictable nature of particles actually make any difference [to actual occurrences].