Does causality only work forwards in time?

[Knotted]

There are various theories of causality which work in different ways. Some have time going forwards by definition, others derive this and still others need not have time going forward (I'm not sure on this last though - if necessary I'll invent one).

The only (as far as I am aware) physical theory that is time assymetric is the second law of thermodynamics. However, its striking that this is a non-mechanistic law stating a probabilistic tendency for thermodynamic entropy to increase. It doesn't deal in cause and effect as such, and I think that giving it a causal spin is problematic. (Basically its problematic converting thermodynamic entropy into informatic entropy).

The way I see it is that there are various 'causal' ways of describing the world which usually converge with each other, but in extreme circumstances will diverge.

The only answer to the question is 'what do you mean by causality?' and that's just disappointing. Sorry.

 

[Aldebaran]

It would solve all geriatric problems but I'm not sure if I want to get younger while I grow older.

salaam.

 

[rogue_lettuce]

it would turn the intellectual universe upside-down

Or back-to-front, to be more precise

 

[max_freakout]

......................

1.block universe determinism is not a theory


2.block universe determinism is not 'mine'



therefore i repeat:


my block universe theory?

 

[Knotted]

The transactional interpretation of quanutm mechanics is atemporal. I don't think its popular, but there is nothing obviously wrong with atemporal causation or reverse time causation.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

Did anyone else read this is 'Does Casualty only work forwards in time?' and think "Of course it does, you can't go down to the hospital for a tetanus booster before you stand on a nail can you?'

 

[rogue_lettuce]

Did anyone else read this is 'Does Casualty only work forwards in time?' and think "Of course it does, you can't go down to the hospital for a tetanus booster before you stand on a nail can you?'

Or can you?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I understand that some believers in God think that God sees all events in time simultaneously. It makes no sense to me though, but is an intriguing idea.

I think it could be argued that the hot cup of tea that occurs at the end of a sequence of events commencing with switching on a kettle of water causes the kettle to be switched on in the following way.

This hot cup of tea that becomes tangible at the end of the sequence exists as the idea of a hot cup of tea. The idea of a hot cup of tea comes out of the reality of a hot cup of tea. This idea then creates in the brain of a tea drinker of the desire for such a drink. This idea leads to the filling of a kettle and switching on.

This is Time travelling in a circle where the circle remains in the same place. The rotation of the circle is in both directions simultaneously.

probably

 

[Aldebaran]

I understand that some believers in God think that God sees all events in time simultaneously. It makes no sense to me though, but is an intriguing idea.

God is beyond human concepts.

This hot cup of tea that becomes tangible at the end of the sequence exists as the idea of a hot cup of tea. The idea of a hot cup of tea comes out of the reality of a hot cup of tea. This idea then creates in the brain of a tea drinker of the desire for such a drink. This idea leads to the filling of a kettle and switching on.

It is a good suggestion but the problem with this reasoning is that thinking about the end-result does not equal its occurence. That can only be caused by bringing your reasoning in to practice, step by step.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Or can you?

You can, and then never step on a nail.

salaam.

 

[mauvais]

Actually Casualty might well work backwards in time. Whatever happens you've got to wind up with a lightly injured, unloved kid in A+E and therefore this causes the placement of a tin of biscuits on a high shelf and a flawed application of a faulty kitchen chair and a little interlude in between each fateful and slowly constructive scene perhaps where that nice Josh man from the ambulance has a mental breakdown and takes five paracetomol.

 

[kropotkin]

God is beyond human concepts.



It is a good suggestion but the problem with this reasoning is that thinking about the end-result does not equal its occurence. That can only be caused by bringing your reasoning in to practice, step by step.

salaam.

God is a human concept- that is literally all 'it' is.
It has literally no existence beyond this.

 

[ymu]

If we observe causality acting in the other direction, we'll have to readjust our ideas a lot.

Like this?

 

[CJohn]

Well interestingly an event that happening in the past can become retroactively traumatic in the present, even though it did not initally have that effect on the psyche. That is an original act only becomes traumatic by subsequent events.

 

[cesare]

If you watch the last two part episode of Doctor Who, you'll find that Steven Moffat has pretty much explained this for you max.

it depends what you mean by 'pretty much'

So, semantic distraction aside, what have you got against possible time/causality illustrated by 'Silence In The Library'?

 

[i-am-your-idea]

God is beyond human concepts.

but to agree with that is a concept in itself?

or is that another paradox?

 

[Woollyredhat]

Actually Casualty might well work backwards in time. Whatever happens you've got to wind up with a lightly injured, unloved kid in A+E and therefore this causes the placement of a tin of biscuits on a high shelf and a flawed application of a faulty kitchen chair and a little interlude in between each fateful and slowly constructive scene perhaps where that nice Josh man from the ambulance has a mental breakdown and takes five paracetomol.

I understand what you're saying, but isn't that just observing it after it has all unravellled?
Rather, the a and e scenario happened in a forwards fashion-
Biscuits- stool breaks- hospital?

Maybe I am interpreting it wrong

Or maybe, it is all down to the way one perceives it?

 

[mauvais]

Ah, but the Casualty could simply not exist if it were not for the inescapable doom and unfortunate demises befalling its inhabitants, and since it does exist, can one not infer that the only significant event is the logical conclusion of another poorly developed character admitted to the ward? Therefore it becomes irrelevant how they actually came to be there, be it falling asleep on a level crossing, or taking too much speed and falling into a vat of jam.

 

[jcsd]

In relativistic theories causality is simply that cause and effect must have time-like seperations in spacetime. Relativity is time symmetric so you can revrese time (at least locally) and effect will become cause and vice versa and still have a theoretically valid situation.

 

[max_freakout]

The transactional interpretation of quanutm mechanics is atemporal. I don't think its popular, but there is nothing obviously wrong with atemporal causation or reverse time causation.

yes i saw that suggestion in the movie 'what the bleep....', that according to this model, it makes no difference which way time/causality moves

 

[max_freakout]

So, semantic distraction aside, what have you got against possible time/causality illustrated by 'Silence In The Library'?

if i had a tv i might be able to answer this question

but there are many sci fi films/series which deal with this issue

 

[cesare]

if i had a tv i might be able to answer this question

but there are many sci fi films/series which deal with this issue

Fair enough

So where do you think they're right or wrong?

 

[max_freakout]

In relativistic theories causality is simply that cause and effect must have time-like seperations in spacetime. Relativity is time symmetric so you can revrese time (at least locally) and effect will become cause and vice versa and still have a theoretically valid situation.

that sounds like Hume's account of causation

you do not perceive causal power/causation itself, just the 'constant conjunction' of causes with their effects, in time

 

[max_freakout]

Fair enough

So where do you think they're right or wrong?

i dont know about 'right or wrong' but i have quite a strong conviction personally that causation actually works backwards, perhaps not entirely, or straightforwardly though

fatedness

 

[ymu]

So is this yet another thread about free will and the lack thereof?

Determinism is so last century.

 

[max_freakout]

Well interestingly an event that happening in the past can become retroactively traumatic in the present, even though it did not initally have that effect on the psyche. That is an original act only becomes traumatic by subsequent events.

are you talking about PTSD?

i thought that was only caused by events which were initially traumatic


can you give an an example of what you mean?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Max that idea of fatedness is just another word for determinism. If the future is already determined then causality has no role. There is no cause in any sequence of time, whether it be forward or backward.

Aldebaran I respect your intelligence enough to point out the pink troll symbol at the beginning of my post. In other words I was trying to wind up Max Freakout. That does not mean that I subscribe to your Islamic religious point of view, but you do put up a good argument within the constraints of a mystical belief system. I look forward to the day when you are persuaded to the atheist point of view, you will be a good advocate.

 

[max_freakout]

So is this yet another thread about free will and the lack thereof?

no it is about the direction of time and causality

but you could easily relate this to determinism/freewill if you wanted to, but that is not specifically what i am asking about

 

[Hocus Eye.]

no it is about the direction of time and causality

but you could easily relate this to determinism/freewill if you wanted to, but that is not specifically what i am asking about

I just did.

 

[max_freakout]

Max that idea of fatedness is just another word for determinism. If the future is already determined then causality has no role. There is no cause in any sequence of time, whether it be forward or backward.

im not sure you can say 'causality has no role' in such a blanket way, there might be another type of causality which works from outside of time (ie from a transcendental dimension, into the spacetime dimension)


either way, as Hume pointed out, causality itself is not something you perceive anyway, so the direction in which it operates (or indeed whether it operates at all) remains an open question