Australian scientists have PROVEN that future events effect the past. (links in description)

Posted by: reece

  • This enforces a deterministic world view

  • Not so fast...

50% 3 votes
50% 3 votes
  • Compatibilists can argue that this doesn't affect the emergent property of consciousness, or that even if it did, we would have no knowledge of how and could still live like we had free will. I'm a determinist though

  • They didn't "prove" anything yet nor did they claim to in the article. Bery interesting possibility though.

    Posted by: Stefy
  • I dont think it is possible, and I know if it was, future me would have told me.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
reece says2015-06-30T23:44:26.6964065-05:00
Here is a quick segment on it
PetersSmith says2015-06-30T23:54:58.1965505-05:00
PetersSmith says2015-06-30T23:56:51.4391282-05:00
You seem to also not understand that in the article they don't make definitive statements. Lots of "mays".
reece says2015-07-01T00:01:34.6653555-05:00
reece says2015-07-01T00:04:42.9205775-05:00
Don't even try.
PetersSmith says2015-07-01T00:23:00.1740956-05:00
What does that second article have to do with the future affecting the past? Also, you're still failing to prove that they specifically say that "It has been proved that the future affects the past".
PetersSmith says2015-07-01T00:28:14.5201406-05:00
Reece: "Physicists demonstrate how time can SEEM to run backwards" and "This SUGGESTS the future was influencing the atoms past". I'm not saying I'm denying what these guys are saying, I'm just saying that you're jumping to conclusions.
reece says2015-07-01T00:32:31.2698780-05:00
It takes up more than half of the article. "I said future events affect the past." Don't miss quote me.
reece says2015-07-01T00:34:48.3517112-05:00
@PetersSmith Nothing is absolute in science that's why a lot of words like that get used.
PetersSmith says2015-07-01T00:38:55.4692729-05:00
Reece: "Australian scientists have PROVEN that future events effect the past". You even did all-caps. I'm not misquoting you.
reece says2015-07-01T00:45:32.3947443-05:00
Yes, "events"...
reece says2015-07-01T00:46:49.4994277-05:00
I was being more specific.
Donderpants says2015-07-01T05:36:23.8676133-05:00
Hmm, interesting. This could in a weird way explain the Big Bang, although doubtless none of those insisting it's creationism will get this.
reece says2015-07-01T11:33:15.7717976-05:00
@dmussi12 Compatibilists aren't naturalists. Both positions argue out of ignorance but at least one argues through a naturalistic view that there are causes to affects. Saying there isn't freewill is a more reasonable stance. There is only will.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T11:29:38.8806876-05:00
Ah ha! This is similar to that parabola reference I made in another poll! One factor from the past can seem to be acting on ones in the future and vice versa because of the dynamic that exists there. Time seems relative because things repeat, and youre looking at them from the trailing end. It's like riding a sine wave.
dmussi12 says2015-07-02T14:00:45.5732429-05:00
@reece I agree, but determinism (though naturalistic) purports to answer a philosophical question - whether we have free will or not. This opens it up to philosophical/rational criticism. Whether that is a valid form of criticism in a case like this, with some empirical evidence, is another question; I'd guess you say it isn't, I would argue that because we still don't understand how consciousness emerges, we can't rule out compatibilism on empirical grounds.
reece says2015-07-08T00:43:52.6360118-05:00
@dmussi12 All things are conscious, matter just varies in complexity.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.