Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

time and causality

critical_mind
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
without time there will be no such thing as causality : definition is down
so without causality what is the problem with infinite universe
or what is the problem with universe coming out of nothing since there nothing to say it cant happen

Time: is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future

Causality: is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:59:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:09:24 PM, critical_mind wrote:
without time there will be no such thing as causality : definition is down
so without causality what is the problem with infinite universe
or what is the problem with universe coming out of nothing since there nothing to say it cant happen

Time: is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future

Causality: is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.

I'm not sure it's true that without time there can't be causality. I can at least imagine a timeless state of affairs in which one thing is maintaining another thing. To cause is not necessarily to change. It cause can also prevent change.

But even if causation does require time, I don't thing it would follow that the universe (or anything) could come into existence uncaused out of nothing. After all, the fact that nothing could be caused doesn't mean anything could happen. It could be that if nothing could be caused, then nothing could happen. In that case, if there were no causation, then the universe couldn't come into existence at all.

I don't think that we need to characterize a universe coming into existence out of nothing as a case of timeless causation. After all, the moment of causation is a temporal moment. it's the first temporal moment. As soon as anything is done, including the initiation of causation, time will exist. The beginning of time must be simultaneous with the beginning of causation. So if the universe is caused to begin, then the causation would not be a timeless event.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 7:49:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:09:24 PM, critical_mind wrote:
without time there will be no such thing as causality : definition is down
so without causality what is the problem with infinite universe

Without time and causality what is a problem?

or what is the problem with universe coming out of nothing since there nothing to say it cant happen

Sure there is, without time nothing can happen. Things happen in time, it is meaningless to say something happens if there is no time.

Time: is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future

An event can't "happen" if there is no time for it to happen in.

Causality: is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.

There can't be an event or a second event without time, there can't be consequences, and nothing an be understood.

This is like sking if there was no such thing as mathematics, numbers, or mathematical operations, would 2+2 still equal 4, the question is meaningless.
"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
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:02:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:59:54 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:09:24 PM, critical_mind wrote:
without time there will be no such thing as causality : definition is down
so without causality what is the problem with infinite universe
or what is the problem with universe coming out of nothing since there nothing to say it cant happen

Time: is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future

Causality: is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.

I'm not sure it's true that without time there can't be causality. I can at least imagine a timeless state of affairs in which one thing is maintaining another thing. To cause is not necessarily to change. It cause can also prevent change.

How would something be maintaining something else if no time is passing? Everything would remain the same because there isn't time to change. Also maintaining implies that it's a continuous action, requiring time.

Or do I not understand time correctly?

But even if causation does require time, I don't thing it would follow that the universe (or anything) could come into existence uncaused out of nothing. After all, the fact that nothing could be caused doesn't mean anything could happen. It could be that if nothing could be caused, then nothing could happen. In that case, if there were no causation, then the universe couldn't come into existence at all.

I don't think that we need to characterize a universe coming into existence out of nothing as a case of timeless causation. After all, the moment of causation is a temporal moment. it's the first temporal moment. As soon as anything is done, including the initiation of causation, time will exist. The beginning of time must be simultaneous with the beginning of causation. So if the universe is caused to begin, then the causation would not be a timeless event.

How could anything actually exist before "time" though. If the first cause is the start of time, then noting before that could "cause" it to happen.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:26:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:02:46 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How would something be maintaining something else if no time is passing? Everything would remain the same because there isn't time to change. Also maintaining implies that it's a continuous action, requiring time.

I don't see why time would need to pass in order for something to maintain something else. If A is maintaining B, the effect would be that nothing changes, which is consistent with A and B being in a state of timelessness. If anything did change, like if A ceased to maintain B, then that change would initiate time.

Or do I not understand time correctly?

Well, there are different theories about time. What I mean by time is just duration.

How could anything actually exist before "time" though. If the first cause is the start of time, then noting before that could "cause" it to happen.

I don't think anything exists temporally before time, but things can exist logically or causally before time. If something causes time to exist, then it's timeless state would be the past boundary of time.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 5:05:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:26:29 AM, philochristos wrote:

I don't see why time would need to pass in order for something to maintain something else. If A is maintaining B, the effect would be that nothing changes, which is consistent with A and B being in a state of timelessness. If anything did change, like if A ceased to maintain B, then that change would initiate time.


Maybe. The question is, is the action of "maintaining" only given meaning if it's performed in a given time?


Well, there are different theories about time. What I mean by time is just duration.


Lol, well I don't know much about the different theories on time so I'd mean duration as well.


I don't think anything exists temporally before time, but things can exist logically or causally before time. If something causes time to exist, then it's timeless state would be the past boundary of time.

The question is can something cause something else to happen without the action being temporal.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 5:30:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:26:29 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:02:46 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How would something be maintaining something else if no time is passing? Everything would remain the same because there isn't time to change. Also maintaining implies that it's a continuous action, requiring time.

I don't see why time would need to pass in order for something to maintain something else. If A is maintaining B, the effect would be that nothing changes, which is consistent with A and B being in a state of timelessness. If anything did change, like if A ceased to maintain B, then that change would initiate time.

Or do I not understand time correctly?

Well, there are different theories about time. What I mean by time is just duration.

How could anything actually exist before "time" though. If the first cause is the start of time, then noting before that could "cause" it to happen.

I don't think anything exists temporally before time, but things can exist logically or causally before time.

I've yet to see any justification for the notion that something can be causally prior to something, without it being dependent upon a temporal foundation.

If something causes time to exist, then it's timeless state would be the past boundary of time.

False. The timeless state would be what's beyond the boundary.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 6:04:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 5:30:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:26:29 AM, philochristos wrote:

If something causes time to exist, then it's timeless state would be the past boundary of time.

False. The timeless state would be what's beyond the boundary.

Incorrect. The timeless state would be what's outside the boundary.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 6:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:26:29 AM, philochristos wrote:

I don't see why time would need to pass in order for something to maintain something else.

It seems to me that the word maintain would be meaningless, without time there is no change. In a static world can it really be said that something is maintaining something? To maintain means that something "causes or enables a state of affairs to continue", I don't think the word "continue" has meaning without time.

If A is maintaining B, the effect would be that nothing changes, which is consistent with A and B being in a state of timelessness. If anything did change, like if A ceased to maintain B, then that change would initiate time.

If there is no time the effect would be that nothing changes, if A were not in the analysis, B still does not change, so A is not maintaining B.
"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
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 7:31:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see why the elimination of time eliminates causality.

The existence of something could be contingent on something else without having any time difference.

However, I negate causality for other reasons.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 8:21:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:09:24 PM, critical_mind wrote:
or what is the problem with universe coming out of nothing since there nothing to say it cant happen

Uh, why do some people keep repeating/suggesting this buffoonery?

Not anything can com from nothing because there are no potentials to be actualized. Because nothing has no properties. Because nothing is not anything. Because nothing has no potentials to actualize, nor has it the actuality to actualize a potential. Need I keep going, or has the idea of nothing causing something to come into existence been flailed around like a dead horse enough?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:45:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 5:05:25 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Maybe. The question is, is the action of "maintaining" only given meaning if it's performed in a given time?

The word, action, seem to imply motion, and that's not what I mean by "maintaining." After all, a table can maintain a book in the sense of preventing the book from falling to the ground due to gravity, but that maintaining doesn't require action in the sense of movement.

The question is can something cause something else to happen without the action being temporal.

No, I think the very initiation of the action would initiate time. Any change at all would initiate time.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:47:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 5:30:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I've yet to see any justification for the notion that something can be causally prior to something, without it being dependent upon a temporal foundation.

I have yet to see any justification for why something can't be causally prior to something without being dependent upon a temporal foundation.

False. The timeless state would be what's beyond the boundary.

False. The timeless state would be at the boundary.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 6:42:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
It seems to me that the word maintain would be meaningless, without time there is no change. In a static world can it really be said that something is maintaining something? To maintain means that something "causes or enables a state of affairs to continue", I don't think the word "continue" has meaning without time.

That's not all maintaining can mean. It can also mean "preventing change," and that does not require time.

If A is maintaining B, the effect would be that nothing changes, which is consistent with A and B being in a state of timelessness. If anything did change, like if A ceased to maintain B, then that change would initiate time.

If there is no time the effect would be that nothing changes, if A were not in the analysis, B still does not change, so A is not maintaining B.

This strikes me as being a question-begging argument because when you say that if A were no in the analysis, B still does not change, you're assuming that A is not preventing B from changing. But then that assumption becomes your conclusion.

You also say that it is timelessness that keeps B from changing. Well, first of all, that seems to contradict your claim that there can be no causes in a state of timelessness. By saying the "effect" is that nothing changes, you're assuming that timelessness is a cause.

Second, timelessness is not a "thing." It isn't a substance at all, so it has no causal powers.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 7:31:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
However, I negate causality for other reasons.

What's causing you to negate causality?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:56:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:54:34 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 7:31:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
However, I negate causality for other reasons.

What's causing you to negate causality?

Language. Causality exists practically but not literally.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:56:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/11/2013 9:54:34 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/11/2013 7:31:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
However, I negate causality for other reasons.

What's causing you to negate causality?

Language. Causality exists practically but not literally.

What's the difference?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:10:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:57:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
What's the difference?

"Practical" is based on the assumption that sensation and logic are accurate and free will exists.

"Literal" cannot be confined by arbitrary human concepts. And thus, paradoxically, can only be defined in practical terms.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord