Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Presentism Is False

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 6:36:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is this a good argument against Presentism?

My argument will actually be in the form of two arguments (or sub-arguments if you would like):

Sub-Argument A:

P1A: If retro-causality is a real phenomenon, the future is real

P2A: Retro-causality is a real phenomenon

CA: Therefore, the future is real

Sub-Argument B:

P1B: If the future is real, Presentism is false

P2B: The future is real

CB: Therefore, Presentism is false

The two sub-arguments arguments are logically valid Modus Ponens arguments[1]. This is evident as they both follow the "if p then q; p; therefore q" formula. The question that remains pertains to whether or not the premises are true, or at least sufficiently more plausibly true than their negation.

Defense Of P1A

P1A should be easy to establish, because if something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then this could only happen if the future is real. Why is this so? Well, something that plays no part of reality or never has; has no causal ability. So if an effect occurs "now" that is "retro-caused", then this means that the cause exists in the future and must exist, or else the retro-causal relationship couldn't even take place. At any time retro-causality occurred, and included an effect that was a "now" at a certain point, the future was real and existed for that causal process to even have potential. If an effect occurred right "now" that was "retro-caused", that implies that the future exists. How could something that is non-existent, and never played a part in reality have causal powers? That's a metaphysical impossibility; it couldn't. It would be like saying the non-existent person sneezed. So, I think that P1A is way more than reasonable than its negation because an effect that is "retro-caused" "now" clearly implies the future.

Defense Of P2A

Recent delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics show retro-causality is a real phenomenon [http://arstechnica.com...] [http://www.popsci.com...], and this result has been tested with extreme accuracy. Thus, P2A is scientifically justified.

Defense Of P1B

P1B is true by definition. Presentism is the view that only the present is real, so if the future plays a part of reality, then this self-evidently contradicts Presentism.

Defense of P2B

This premise is simply the conclusion to Sub-Argument A. Since I showed Sub-Argument A to be sound, then P2B is true by default.
Ratio_Mentat
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 11:24:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This argument does nothing. For starters, you are assuming that the future exists and that there is causality. Both of these have no apparent relation to presentism. If only the now exists, then how is the past going to affect the present or how is the future going to affect the present? There is no causality. Furthermore, we can suppose that the future does exist but there doesn't appear to need to be any causality where the present affects the future, or the past affects the present. So the argument doesn't really show anything except assuming two more things, and both of the assumptions don't imply one another.

The second part is that you are trying to use science to show that this metaphysical hypothesis is false. This is a non-starter since it is a categorical error in trying to apply one domain into another. One example is that this comes back to the point about causality, since science doesn't assert that one causal relationship exists, but acts as if there does exist at least one causal relationship. It has a methodological rule of such a thing, but a methodological rule makes no statement of fact. So bringing up anything from science on this issue wouldn't help the argument. A second point is that within Relativistic physics, all times actually exist. So the experiment you present would be in contradiction to Relativistic physics, which means that the past time slice can be changed. This in turns means that at T1 x occurred and at T1 x didn't occur.
Cogitors Fundamental Postulate: "The mind imposes an arbitrary framework called "reality", which is quite independent of what the senses report."

Ancient Mentat Conundrum: "At last, after our long journey, we have reached the beginning."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 2:32:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/27/2013 11:24:43 PM, Ratio_Mentat wrote:
This argument does nothing.

It disproves Presentism. So, I would say it does quite a bit.

For starters, you are assuming that the future exists and that there is causality.

Yes, because if retro-causlity is true, then the future exists. I cited quantum experiments which demonstrate the retro-causality. Thus, it follows that the future exists. Thus, Presentism is false by definition.

Both of these have no apparent relation to presentism.

Yes they do. If the future plays a part in reality, then Presentism is false, because Presentism is the view that only the Present plays a part of reality.

If only the now exists, then how is the past going to affect the present or how is the future going to affect the present?

Everything in the past (that was once present), is what the present is causally dependent on. If the person never made your TV in the past, then you couldn't watch it now. Also, my argument shows that the future exists, thus the basic assumption of Presentism (that the future does not exist) is violated.

There is no causality.

I disagree, my argument proves there is. Not only is it valid, you haven't even tried undermining the premises yet. Like I said, if I make a cookie at t1, and chill for a second, and it is now T2. That moment at T2, is causally dependent on what happened, not what is happening.

Furthermore, we can suppose that the future does exist but there doesn't appear to need to be any causality where the present affects the future, or the past affects the present.

Well if the future exists, then my argument still disproves presentism, because if Presentism is was true, the future wouldn't exist.

So the argument doesn't really show anything except assuming two more things, and both of the assumptions don't imply one another.

The argument shows Presentism is false. Which was the point. If something "now" is 'retro-caused", then this means the future has to exist by definition of "retro-caused". The effect would come before the cause. So if an effect happens "now", that means it has to be caused by something in the future (which would be after the effect "now"). Thus, if retro-causality is true, the future exists, and presentism is debunked. I showed this to be the case.


The second part is that you are trying to use science to show that this metaphysical hypothesis is false.

Yes.

This is a non-starter since it is a categorical error in trying to apply one domain into another.

This is a categorical error, because physics is a part of the grand scheme of metaphsysics. Thus, they are not mutually exclusive.

One example is that this comes back to the point about causality, since science doesn't assert that one causal relationship exists, but acts as if there does exist at least one causal relationship. It has a methodological rule of such a thing, but a methodological rule makes no statement of fact. So bringing up anything from science on this issue wouldn't help the argument.

Of course it would help the argument. If we observe something that goes against a metaphysical hypothesis, that is still evidence for it. You cannot just deny observation. We observe retro-causality, so that entails prima facie warrent for thinking it is true.

A second point is that within Relativistic physics, all times actually exist.

Only if you adhere to a Minkowskian interpretation.

So the experiment you present would be in contradiction to Relativistic physics, which means that the past time slice can be changed. This in turns means that at T1 x occurred and at T1 x didn't occur.

It's not a contradiction if you assume a Neo-Lorentzian view of Relativity. Also, if all times exist, then once more, Presentism is false; which is my whole point.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations. Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?


Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision? To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.


Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision?

Dude, you have a hard time reading:

"One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."

Thus, it is retro-causality.

To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:28:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision? To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.

You cannot deny a scientific experiment that shows retro-causality haha
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:29:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.

A solipist would deny that it was retro-caused. It would just seem that way from our memories, which exist in the present.



Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision?

Dude, you have a hard time reading:

"One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."

Thus, it is retro-causality.

Only if we presume that the decision was made freely. What if the measurement made by the two people causes the third to make decision consistent with their measurements?

To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:32:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:29:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.

A solipist would deny that it was retro-caused. It would just seem that way from our memories, which exist in the present.

If something is "retro-caused", "now", the future existing follows. You cannot escape logic.




Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision?

Dude, you have a hard time reading:

"One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."

Thus, it is retro-causality.

Only if we presume that the decision was made freely. What if the measurement made by the two people causes the third to make decision consistent with their measurements?

Observations cause measurements not vice versa.


To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:33:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:29:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.

A solipist would deny that it was retro-caused. It would just seem that way from our memories, which exist in the present.

Also, then you have to deny observation which is irrational. Nobody takes solipists seriously.




Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision?

Dude, you have a hard time reading:

"One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."

Thus, it is retro-causality.

Only if we presume that the decision was made freely. What if the measurement made by the two people causes the third to make decision consistent with their measurements?

To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:35:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:32:16 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:29:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.

A solipist would deny that it was retro-caused. It would just seem that way from our memories, which exist in the present.

If something is "retro-caused", "now", the future existing follows. You cannot escape logic.

Again, the solipist would deny the condition of something actually being retro-caused.

Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision?

Dude, you have a hard time reading:

"One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."

Thus, it is retro-causality.

Only if we presume that the decision was made freely. What if the measurement made by the two people causes the third to make decision consistent with their measurements?

Observations cause measurements not vice versa.

As far as we know. Listen, I think these results are fascinating. I'm simply seeing what possible objections could be brought up against it. As it is, it requires attacking the underlying assumptions (e.g. that this is an actual example of retro-causality)


To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:37:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:33:56 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:29:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.

A solipist would deny that it was retro-caused. It would just seem that way from our memories, which exist in the present.

Also, then you have to deny observation which is irrational. Nobody takes solipists seriously.

Then I guess you have nothing to worry about. Realize I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:37:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:35:37 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:32:16 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:29:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:27:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:23:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2013 10:10:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 9:39:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
I've been mulling over this. On the surface it looks good. Not sure I can assail the argument from a scientific standpoint (by refuting the validity of the results).

The only thing I could think to counter with is basically some variation of solipsism such as a Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. That is, there is no future, but also neither is there a past (merely the illusion of the past created by our memories). All we have is the present, which we are immediately sensing.

Doesn't my argument show the future exists though, and thus debunking the above?

From a solipsist standpoint, not really. After all, our conclusion of retrocausality only happens after we've conducted the entire experiment and, therefore, relies on our memories of the observations which can simply be spontaneous perturbations in chaos.

You don't understand. If something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then the future existing ontologically follows. It cannot just be epistemic.

A solipist would deny that it was retro-caused. It would just seem that way from our memories, which exist in the present.

If something is "retro-caused", "now", the future existing follows. You cannot escape logic.

Again, the solipist would deny the condition of something actually being retro-caused.

I would deny solipism, because it entails denying observation and craps on the idea of a prima facie case, which is irrational.


Not sure this is an actual refutation, though.

The only thing that I have from a scientific standpoint is that there is something else - unknown - happening in the present which predetermines both observations.

This would require hidden variables. local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [http://www.quantumphil.org...].

All way over my head.

Or, maybe our observation of the independent photons causes/determines the choice to entangle/not entangle them?

The experiments that show retro-causality have been tested extremely accurately.

"Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not. One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."[http://www.popsci.com...]

So, it's really hard to deny the retro-causality in quantum mechanics.

Maybe the measurement determines the decision?

Dude, you have a hard time reading:

"One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they're entangled or not. The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate."

Thus, it is retro-causality.

Only if we presume that the decision was made freely. What if the measurement made by the two people causes the third to make decision consistent with their measurements?

Observations cause measurements not vice versa.

As far as we know. Listen, I think these results are fascinating. I'm simply seeing what possible objections could be brought up against it. As it is, it requires attacking the underlying assumptions (e.g. that this is an actual example of retro-causality)

We at least have prima facie warrant for retro-causality.



To say this is a statement of retrocausality is to say that it was free in making the decision in the first place.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 10:58:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I argue that your future self is just as real as you are and may have a different opinion. Make up your mind, will you?!

Wait, I must confer with my future self on my argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 11:00:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 10:58:35 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I argue that your future self is just as real as you are and may have a different opinion. Make up your mind, will you?!

Opinions change, so that wouldn't be a contradiction.


Wait, I must confer with my future self on my argument.

If you can, then be my guest!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 11:11:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well I just had a chat with future RT; it appears he believes Presentism is in fact True.

Q.E.D.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 1:03:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Look up the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

Oh sh*t!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:15:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seriously though, you're only worth ridicule. I mean I did tell you to "keep doing what you do" and you did then respond with a whole load of inane topics/conversation. What am I, your dad?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 1:15:25 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Seriously though, you're only worth ridicule. I mean I did tell you to "keep doing what you do" and you did then respond with a whole load of inane topics/conversation. What am I, your dad?

You are worth me calling you out on your logical fallacies.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:31:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Um, are those two articles basically stating that quantum mechanics can be used to predict the future?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:41:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well this is absolutely fascinating, but, and this is given my limited understanding, I don't see how it necessarily deals such a terrible blow to causality, or how future events necessarily influence past events at all. Could it not be that the quantum mechanics are the cause, that there's a deeper game than our own going on, that defines our own, prior rather than after?

Reminds me of those bubble things that were coming out of everyone's chests at the party in Donnie Darko.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 1:31:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Um, are those two articles basically stating that quantum mechanics can be used to predict the future?

Why don't you read them and find out? Do you want me to hold your hand while you do it too hunny?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:42:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 1:41:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 1:31:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Um, are those two articles basically stating that quantum mechanics can be used to predict the future?

Why don't you read them and find out? Do you want me to hold your hand while you do it too hunny?

It took you 30 seconds to type that?!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 1:44:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 1:42:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/28/2013 1:41:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 1:31:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Um, are those two articles basically stating that quantum mechanics can be used to predict the future?

Why don't you read them and find out? Do you want me to hold your hand while you do it too hunny?

It took you 30 seconds to type that?!

......Why are you timing my posts now? You are creepy.