Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Any event causes any subsequent event

 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PMPosted: 2 years agoI've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:One: Time has stopped.Two: Time skips over events sometimes.One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:One: Time has stopped.Two: Time skips over events sometimes.Neither of these are implied. If an event didn't occur, there would be a) nothing to "skip over" and b) nothing for time to stop on.One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 5:09:59 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:One: Time has stopped.Two: Time skips over events sometimes.Neither of these are implied. If an event didn't occur, there would be a) nothing to "skip over" and b) nothing for time to stop on.There is a difference between events not existing and not occurring. Events in the future have not occurred, but still exist as part of the sequence of events that make up time. Hence, if an event on the timeline existed but didn't occur, then either none of the future events occur (time stops) or some of the future events occur, but not all (some events are skipped).One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 5:16:07 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 5:09:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:One: Time has stopped.Two: Time skips over events sometimes.Neither of these are implied. If an event didn't occur, there would be a) nothing to "skip over" and b) nothing for time to stop on.There is a difference between events not existing and not occurring. Events in the future have not occurred, but still exist as part of the sequence of events that make up time. Hence, if an event on the timeline existed but didn't occur, then either none of the future events occur (time stops) or some of the future events occur, but not all (some events are skipped).Actually, the occurrence of an event makes up its entire existence. I.e., An event is defined on a specific moment in time. Unless you subscribe to determinism, you can't talk about future events as anything but potentials.One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/2/2015 5:23:03 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 5:16:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 5:09:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:There is a difference between events not existing and not occurring. Events in the future have not occurred, but still exist as part of the sequence of events that make up time. Hence, if an event on the timeline existed but didn't occur, then either none of the future events occur (time stops) or some of the future events occur, but not all (some events are skipped).Actually, the occurrence of an event makes up its entire existence. I.e., An event is defined on a specific moment in time. Unless you subscribe to determinism, you can't talk about future events as anything but potentials.That only matters if I care about the nature of the events, i.e. what the makeup of the universe as the event occurs. I can say that some event will occur, i.e. the 11 quintillionth event in the sequence of events that is time. I don't care what that event is, just that there is some 11 quintillionth event. The 11 quintillionth event does exist within the sequence of events that is time.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 433 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about ithttp://plato.stanford.edu...Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about ithttp://www.aip.org...Free will is impossible.
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 6:19:27 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one.Why imagine that? There is no reason to attribute to the concept of time the ability to "mandate" occurrences". It's like saying imagine that when we measure the leangth of something, the measurement mandates that things length.This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Time is a concept without a physical referent, and it refers to the temporal dimension rather than the spatial dimensions. To speak of time as linear is to attribute a spatial property to it, and even if you do, motion is a spatial term that is only meaningful if it is motion relative to something else. What exactly does time "move forward" in reference to?Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise one is just the "imaginary" way you defined time, there is no reason to attribute "causation" to time, by what process is time causal?Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.You "imagined" time a certain way, then constructed an "argument" that merely restates the imagination, seems rather pointless. In the same way you could construct this argument.Imagine that invisible pink elephants exist and they mandate the existence of rainbows.Premise One: Invisible pink elephants existPremise Two: Invisible pink elephants are the reason rainbows existConclusion: Rainbows are caused by invisible pink elephants.It"s the same logical process, but it"s a pointless exercise, and it"s certainly not a valid argument."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 19 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 6:28:26 AMPosted: 2 years agoCan you please kindly explain why the uncertainty principle is contradictory? Thanks.
 Posts: 19 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 1:44:20 PMPosted: 2 years agoThank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to comment on a few things.Firstly, on the subject of the uncertainty principle, I feel like there might be a slight misconception with the observer effect. The uncertainty principle says that the position and momentum (hence velocity) of an electron (and other particles) cannot both be determined precisely. The more precise its location is is, the less precise its momentum is. This however, should be distinguished from the observer effect, which occurs in systems in which the measurement itself changes the results (like an non-ideal ammeter).Secondly, I think it would be stretching it too far to say that the uncertainty principle promotes subjectivism. It just states what it states. 1+1=2 is an tautological truth, and it does not contradict the uncertainty principle.Thirdly, regarding the wave particle duality, i am not sure if i should even call it a theory. It is an observed phenomenon. Photons are normally thought to exhibit particle like properties, but in a double slit experiment it is shown to also exhibit wave like properties. If one is to reject the wave particle duality, one is not rejecting the proposal of some scientist, one is rejecting the existence of this well documented phenomenon. It would be like saying, how can aluminium oxide exhibit both base and acid character? This is a contradiction, I reject aluminium's amphoteric character. Weird as it is, mysterious as it is, it's simply a physical phenomenon like gravity that cannot be rejected.Lastly, regarding the copenhagen interpretation, I'm afraid that it's beyond the scope of my knowledge. I do not feel I'm knowledgeable enough to give my two cents on the subject. But when one is unable or unwilling to spend time to study the subject, it is best to believe what the scientific paradigm says.Thanks.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about ithttp://plato.stanford.edu...Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about ithttp://www.aip.org...Free will is impossible.Yes, I am also a determinist. Determinism would entail that what I am arguing for is true, so you agree with me, correct?Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/4/2015 2:29:46 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/4/2015 6:19:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one.Why imagine that? There is no reason to attribute to the concept of time the ability to "mandate" occurrences". It's like saying imagine that when we measure the length of something, the measurement mandates that things length.For our purposes, let's define an "event" as the change between two Planck frames. As the universe is not static (I hope we can at least agree on that) then an "event", as we have defined it, must occur, and further must occur before and after other "events". Since we cannot perceive multiple possible realities at once, time is, pragmatically, linear.This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.Time is a concept without a physical referent, and it refers to the temporal dimension rather than the spatial dimensions. To speak of time as linear is to attribute a spatial property to it, and even if you do, motion is a spatial term that is only meaningful if it is motion relative to something else. What exactly does time "move forward" in reference to?The physical referent is the change in Planck frames. What I call "time" is essentially an ordered list of changes between Planck frames. "movement" and "linear" are general terms I use to give the general idea of my thought process.Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.Premise one is just the "imaginary" way you defined time, there is no reason to attribute "causation" to time, by what process is time causal?As I said before, the definition of "cause" I am using is to mandate the occurrence or existence of something. As the universe is not static, one change in Planck frames mandates the next.Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.You "imagined" time a certain way, then constructed an "argument" that merely restates the imagination, seems rather pointless. In the same way you could construct this argument.Imagine that invisible pink elephants exist and they mandate the existence of rainbows.Premise One: Invisible pink elephants existPremise Two: Invisible pink elephants are the reason rainbows existConclusion: Rainbows are caused by invisible pink elephants.It"s the same logical process, but it"s a pointless exercise, and it"s certainly not a valid argument.Actually it is a valid argument. An argument is valid if the truth of its premises mandates the truth of its conclusion. Your pink elephant argument certainly meets those criteria. In fact, since this hypothetical states that the premises are true, it's not only a valid argument, it's also a sound one.Ceci n'est pas une signature.
 Posts: 19 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/5/2015 12:26:34 AMPosted: 2 years agoThank you for your reply.The wave particle duality is recognized by both the pilot wave and copenhagen interpretation. Their differences lies in the formulation of the phenomenon. In the copenhagen interpretation, a single entity exhibits both characters, and in the pilot wave interpretation, the particle and wave are considered to be distinct entities. This does not give one a reason to deny the wave particle duality. To put forth an analogy, Albert finds a puddle in the ground. Ben comes along and says that this is probably a result of rainfall, and then Clara walks by and says that she made the puddle by pouring water over it. Albert can disagree with one of them, or both, but he has no reason to deny the existence of the puddle. This is the same case here. You can disagree with the copenhagen interpretation and accept the pilot wave interpretation, both of which seeks to explain the phenomenon of wave particle duality, but there is no denying the existence of the phenomenon itself.The following link (the top answer) provides a very good outline of the distinction between an interpretation, and a theory. I assure you it is a very quick read, at most 2 minutes will suffice for the top answer.http://www.quora.com...Newtonian mechanics and einsteinian relativity are not perfect. In a very strict sense, they are both wrong. The world does not work like that. The world approximately behaves like the newtonian universe at low speed conditions, and is better approximated by relativity when large scales and high speed conditions are considered. At small scales, we observe quantum events that contradict both newtonian and einsteinian predictions. Do we reject such phenomenons, or do we reject newtonian mechanics and einsteinian relativity? Surely we would reject the latter.Unless I consider myself well versed in a technical field, I would rather reserve my judgement then consider non-mainstream views. If I lack the ability to thoroughly understand the logic (and mathematics) behind them, I would not make my own judgement. However, for more philosophical concepts like the trinity, suffering, ethics, etc, I am willing to give my judgement on them as little technicality is involved. If some claims that Andrew Wiles' proof of fermat's last theorem is false, I would not believe that. I cannot understand Wiles' proof myself, so analytically I cannot evaluate its validity. But seeing that the proof is widely accepted by professional mathematicians, I would believe it to be true.
 Posts: 266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/5/2015 1:13:10 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 6/5/2015 12:32:11 AM, anonymouswho wrote:At 6/4/2015 11:51:33 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM, anonymouswho wrote:At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:And I have many, many more. If I show you that the God of Scriptures has Caused all things into existence, and that He works all things after the council of His own Will, is that something you'd be willing to entertain? See, I ask you if you're "willing", and you can say yes or no (choose), but something is going to Cause you to make this decision (God, before He ever made the Universe). Same principle in Scripture, but I'd be more than glad to address each verse individually. Thank you my new friend and God bless you.Well you'll have to convince me of a couple things first.One: God exists.Two: This God is the God as outlined in the Bible.Three: The Bible is self-consistent.Whenever you're ready.Ceci n'est pas une signature.