Miracles

[Paprika]

It really doesn't matter whether you define increasing entropy as "forward" or "backward." The point is that entropy gives us a referential by which we can define a direction in time. Again, I'll make an analogy to the surface of the Earth: the magnetic field of our planet allows us to define a particular direction based on magnetic poles. The words "North" and "South" are entirely arbitrary descriptors which we use to label objectively different directions. So long as we are consistent in their usage, we could quite easily swap the words-- or substitute entirely new ones-- while still accurately describing the objective reality behind them.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether one defines increasing entropy as "forward" or "backward," so long as one is consistent in their application of the words. The underlying objective difference in the direction is still there.

I have a question: can't the direction of time be defined by the orientation of the cause and effect? Or is casuality not meaningful under B-theory because the present isn't 'heading' towards any direction, ie. the future?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I have a question: can't the direction of time be defined by the orientation of the cause and effect? Or is casuality not meaningful under B-theory because the present isn't 'heading' towards any direction, ie. the future?

There doesn't seem to be any way to define "cause and effect," in physics, without already having an arrow-of-time defined. As I mentioned, the vast majority of physical theories and formulae are directionally independent. They are the same whether you're going forwards in time or backwards in time. They tell us about the evolution of a system given different points in time, but they do not tell us which direction of time should be preferred.

To take a simple example, let's discuss a projectile moving between two points, A and B, at a constant velocity through empty space in one spatial dimension. Let's say the projectile is moving at 10 m/s. It is impossible, from this data alone, to tell if the projectile began at A and moved to B, or if it instead began at B and moved to A. The evolution of the system in both directions is exactly equivalent, and there is no way to define any preferred direction in time from this. Without a preferred direction in time, the whole idea of causation becomes meaningless.

[Paprika]

There doesn't seem to be any way to define "cause and effect," in physics, without already having an arrow-of-time defined.

Then I have two related questions:

As under B-theory there is no flow of time, so can positive time be defined by the decrease of entropy, or is there are special significance to defining time along the increase in entropy? If so my second question would be about how 'cause' and 'effect' have any meaning when there is no flow of time.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Then I have two related questions:

As under B-theory there is no flow of time, so can positive time be defined by the decrease of entropy, or is there are special significance to defining time along the increase in entropy?

So long as you are consistent, you could absolutely define decreasing entropy to be the positive direction of time.

If so my second question would be about how 'cause' and 'effect' have any meaning when there is no flow of time.

Different philosophers of science will likely have different answers to this question. Some will say that the notions of "cause" and "effect" don't really have any meaning. Some will define them relationally, labeling an interaction at the earliest moment of some given event (as defined by the arrow of time) as that event's "cause." Personally, I like this latter sentiment and extend it into the other direction, as well, so that we can not only discuss the concept of causality, but also of retrocausality-- that is, an interaction at the latest moment of some given event (as defined by the arrow of time).

[Paprika]

So long as you are consistent, you could absolutely define decreasing entropy to be the positive direction of time.

Different philosophers of science will likely have different answers to this question. Some will say that the notions of "cause" and "effect" don't really have any meaning. Some will define them relationally, labeling an interaction at the earliest moment of some given event (as defined by the arrow of time) as that event's "cause." Personally, I like this latter sentiment and extend it into the other direction, as well, so that we can not only discuss the concept of causality, but also of retrocausality-- that is, an interaction at the latest moment of some given event (as defined by the arrow of time).

Then there appears to be a large inconsistency. Not, I hasten to clarify, with B-theory, but with the noetic structure that acceptance of B-theory is founded upon.

Why do many people hold to B-theory? Because of the implications of SR and GR. But SR and GR are based on the premise that nothing can exceed the speed of light. And why? Because in certain reference frames effects will precede their causes.

But if there is no significance to the arrow of time, well then there is no special reason why a 'cause' cannot be after the 'effect', or that one observer would consider one to precede the other and another the opposite. Hence there is no reason why there should be the speed limit of c.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Why do many people hold to B-theory? Because of the implications of SR and GR. But SR and GR are based on the premise that nothing can exceed the speed of light. And why? Because in certain reference frames effects will precede their causes.

This is very wrong. Firstly, the idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light is a prediction of Relativity, not a premise for it. The premise upon which Relativity was framed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of the reference frame of any arbitrary observer of that light. This premise has nothing to do with effects preceding their causes, but is rather a consequence of Maxwell's Equations-- which make absolutely no reference to cause or effect.

[Paprika]

This is very wrong. Firstly, the idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light is a prediction of Relativity, not a premise for it. The premise upon which Relativity was framed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of the reference frame of any arbitrary observer of that light.

Certainly, that was the original premise of Einstein for SR. But it is my understanding that the modern conception uses casuality to claim c as the speed limit, for both GR and SR.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Certainly, that was the original premise of Einstein for SR. But it is my understanding that the modern conception uses casuality to claim c as the speed limit, for both GR and SR.

Your understanding is wrong, then. Causality doesn't underlie the physics of Relativity, at all, and the idea that c constitutes a cosmic speed limit is a prediction of Relativity, not a premise for it.

[Paprika]

Your understanding is wrong, then. Causality doesn't underlie the physics of Relativity, at all, and the idea that c constitutes a cosmic speed limit is a prediction of Relativity, not a premise for it.

I have greatly erred. (Interestingly I have found on further research that many scientists discard the ad hoc constancy of speed of light in any inertial reference frame in favour of homogeneity of spacetime and isotropicity of space, from which the former can be derived, but I digress).

But I think two points can be salvaged:
a) The common objection against superluminal propagation of information - violation of causality - is invalid under B-theory since B-theory ascribes little meaning to causality - it doesn't matter whether cause precedes effect of the opposite

b) More generally, causality under B-theory loses a great deal of meaning it has under A-theory: as there is no becoming, there is no causing.

[JimL]

You're really not getting my argument, at all, because you are still thinking in an A-Theory sort of way--as if consciousness does not exist in moments not perceived by a particular brain state.

Is there a you who is experiencing your past as well as your future in the same sense that you are at this moment experiencing the present? So what happens when your time is up so to speak, do you never acually die, you never become unconscious?

[JonathanL]

Again, I disagree with this just as much as I disagree that our ability to perceive color constitutes an argument against the notion that the perception of color is illusory.

But the illusion of color is fundamentally different from the "illusion" of temporal becoming. The illusion of color is a misapprehension of external reality made by a brain state in a specific moment of time, while the illusion of temporal becoming is the perception of moving from one brain state to another.

In other words, using the illusion of color as an analogy fails. You could easily maintain that even though you see a red ball in front of you the ball is not in fact red, instead you only perceive it to be red. It's much harder to maintain that even though you a moment ago was in one state of mind and in this very moment in another state of mind that this perception is simply an illusion, and no such change has occured at all.

Once again, I don't see what you're objecting to, here.

You've granted, for the sake of argument, the B-Theory. You've granted that consciousness is a property of the brain state. You've granted that a brain state would only be able to perceive stimuli from its particular temporal location. You've granted that it would be unreasonable to expect a brain state to be aware of stimuli from other temporal locations. So why are you still confused as to how a brain state is not aware of specific moments of time besides the one which it occupies?

Uh, I think I conceded about two posts ago that a brain state is not aware of specific moments of time besides the one which it occupies. What I'm objecting against is that this description of reality does not explain why it is that you're now aware of the particular moment of time that you're currently in, as opposed to any other moment of time. I.e I'm not asking why you're only aware of one moment of time "at a time", I'm asking why it is that you're aware of the particular moment of time, instead (i.e not in addition to) of any other moment in time.

Again, you've granted that memories give each particular brain state the illusion of having arrived at that brain state from the previous-- the perception that we have moved from one moment to the next-- so I don't understand your objection here.

My objection is that it would only explain the memory/perception of having moved from one moment to the next, it would not explain why we have the experience of presently moving from one moment to the next. I.e, it's the difference between having the memory of having experienced something, as opposed to the perception that it is currently happening.

It really doesn't matter whether you define increasing entropy as "forward" or "backward." The point is that entropy gives us a referential by which we can define a direction in time. Again, I'll make an analogy to the surface of the Earth: the magnetic field of our planet allows us to define a particular direction based on magnetic poles. The words "North" and "South" are entirely arbitrary descriptors which we use to label objectively different directions. So long as we are consistent in their usage, we could quite easily swap the words-- or substitute entirely new ones-- while still accurately describing the objective reality behind them.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether one defines increasing entropy as "forward" or "backward," so long as one is consistent in their application of the words. The underlying objective difference in the direction is still there.

Right. How do you think defining the arrow of time by entropy relevant to our perception of temporal becoming? If it would be just as valid to define the arrow of time to be towards decreasing entropy, why is it that everything we know tells us that the universe is moving towards increasing entropy? Is that simply a misconception due to the illusion of temporal becoming, or is it an objective facet of reality. I.e is there something about our spacetime-block that would lead a hypothetical outside observer to think that the history of the universe is towards increasing entropy, rather than decreasing entropy?

[seer]

I.e I'm not asking why you're only aware of one moment of time "at a time", I'm asking why it is that you're aware of the particular moment of time, instead (i.e not in addition to) of any other moment in time.

Right! Why am I not also sitting in my mother's Kitchen on Oct.10 1968. Why isn't that just "present?" Where did that go?

[JimL]

Right! Why am I not also sitting in my mother's Kitchen on Oct.10 1968. Why isn't that just "present?" Where did that go?

Thats exactly the question that I've been trying to put into words? BP is suggesting that each and and every brain state is conscious of its own particular location in time, its own now, which means that consciousness for the past and future brain states experience the illusion of times passing. Consciousness only appears to be flowing, its an illusion, except for the fact that the illusion of times passing can only be experienced by one conscious brain state at a time. How could the conscious illusion of times passing be taking place for each brain state constantly, at every location in time? That would mean that there are many different you's, consciously experiencing many different parts of your history, all the time.

[seer]

Thats exactly the question that I've been trying to put into words? BP is suggesting that each and and every brain state is conscious of its own particular location in time, its own now, which means that consciousness for the past and future brain states experience the illusion of times passing. Consciousness only appears to be flowing, its an illusion, except for the fact that the illusion of times passing can only be experienced by one conscious brain state at a time. How could the conscious illusion of times passing be taking place for each brain state constantly, at every location in time? That would mean that there are many different you's, consciously experiencing many different parts of your history, all the time.

Right, it doesn't make sense - to use one of Boxing's favorite terms - it is incoherent...

[Leonhard]

Right, it doesn't make sense - to use one of Boxing's favorite terms - it is incoherent...

I think that'd be uncharitable. Its not incoherent, what he describes makes sense. I just think its completely detached from how reality is. We experience a change from state to another. This experience disproves it.

If he argues that the experience is an illusion, that's when things risks getting incoherent. I'd be curious to see how he'd do that.