Causality/Determinism/Physicalism/Free Will/Time Travel

[Infinitatis]

Causality / Determinism / Physicalism / Free Will / Time Travel

Here's something that I was thinking about...

Everything happens in one particular way, every single time, for any particular set of events.

For instance, if there are ten asteroids floating around in space (in an isolated system), and you know their exact current positions, trajectories, masses, shapes, etc. (i.e. every property of each asteroid) of each asteroid, with the help of a little math (a lot of math), you can know exactly what their positions, trajectories, masses shapes, etc. will be at any given point in time, past or future, because there is only a single possible outcome.

Imagine the hypothetical scenario: tax day is coming around; therefore, John is stressed about getting his taxes done; therefore, he is distracted; therefore, he doesn't realize the traffic light has turned red; therefore, he collides with a car passing through the intersection; therefore, he breaks his leg; therefore, he is taken to the hospital; therefore, he gets a wheelchair; therefore, he gets to park in handicap zones.

Thus, tax day coming around is the derived cause from which John gets to park in handicap zones.

Of course, this event would not necessarily play out in the same way for someone else – just for John. Not all people are as stressed as John is about tax day. Not all stressed people are as distracted as John. Not all distracted people run red lights. Not all disregarded red lights result in car accidents. Not all car accidents result in broken legs. Not all broken legs require a wheelchair.

In other words, this exact sequence of events will unravel inevitably if you are this particular John and this particular tax day is coming around.

If you construct a chain of dominoes, and knock over the first one, the last one always falls down (in theory).

John is bound to make the decisions he does based upon other factors, such as his personality, his past experiences, etc. More concisely, his circumstances.

Now look at these circumstances more closely. What causes him to have this particular personality, these particular past experiences, etc.? Perhaps his parents, his friends, or where he was born shaped his personality (i.e. the causes of his particular personality).

Delving even further into the past, you can trace any particular combination of events back to any other particular combination of events. If the universe did not exist exactly as it did one, ten, or even a million years ago, the universe would not necessarily exist exactly as it does today. Any particular combination of events (or circumstances) will always result in a particular combination of events. These particular resultant events then bring about other particular resultant events.

When the universe was created, all events from that point forward had been predetermined by the particular way in which the universe had begun.

It can even be concluded that the universe was created when it was created and how it was created because of some mysterious and unknown precedents.

Unless there is any instance in which there truly exists more than one option for something to occur in a different way, which based on this reasoning doesn't seem to be the case; there always is, always has, and always will be one possible sequence of events that will happen in the universe: the exact sequence of events that we have been living.

In essence, everything we do has already been predetermined. We can't not do what we are bound to do. It's almost as though we don't have any control over what happens, but we aren't aware of the fact that we aren't in control because we think we're calling the shots. Free-will is simply an illusion.

On a similar note, here a few of my thoughts on time travel.

If time travel is even possible, it wouldn't occur in the traditional sense. Rather than appearing as your present self in a past time, you would appear as your past self in a past time. You would appear and behave in exactly the way you did at that point in time. You would be completely unaware of having travelled back in time, and the whole notion of time travel is rendered meaningless. In fact, if this is the case, there's no way to know if we have been living in the present. It's possible that we are constantly time traveling, therefore we are unaware of the fact that we are time traveling because at any given point in time, we believe that we are living in that point in time and no other. Here's another way of thinking about this (it's a little difficult to wrap your head around): for any given instance in time, we can be certain of the fact that we are currently occupying that instance in time. However, for the very next instance in time, we have no way of knowing whether or not we were actually occupying the instant of time we think we were occupying an instant ago, but we do know that at the new and most current instant we are occupying the very instant in time we believe ourselves to be occupying. *wipes sweat from forehead*

Now let's assume that my reasoning is incorrect. If time travel were possible in the traditional sense (i.e. transporting oneself to the past and reappearing as your future self in the same location that you had exited the future from), you wouldn't reappear in the same location relative to Earth. If you reappear in the same location that you had left the future from, you would be somewhere out in the middle of nowhere in the universe, because everything in the universe is spinning and moving, including Earth, our solar system, our galaxy, etc.

This is something that's been on my mind for quite some time, so I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

 

[headspace]

For instance, if there are ten asteroids floating around in space (in an isolated system), and you know their exact current positions, trajectories, masses, shapes, etc. (i.e. every property of each asteroid) of each asteroid, with the help of a little math (a lot of math), you can know exactly what their positions, trajectories, masses shapes, etc. will be at any given point in time, past or future, because there is only a single possible outcome.

Well I basically look at this as time moving forward.

So you know the endpoints of space and time:
Big Bang
Black Hole / Death of Universe (¿)
only a single possible outcome.

And you know the past, in excruciating detail, because it is objective. So by studying the past you can approximately identify the cause of events. This is how we study the universe and acquire knowledge. We rely on time.

However, the future is more chaotic
will be at any given point in time, past or future

So it kind of seems to me like knowing their current/past trajectories doesn't really allow you to necessarily know the future unless you completely integrate all knowledge of past events everywhere in the universe into a processor. Then maybe. I don't know.

Now let's assume that my reasoning is incorrect. If time travel were possible in the traditional sense (i.e. transporting oneself to the past and reappearing as your future self in the same location that you had exited the future from), you wouldn't reappear in the same location relative to Earth. If you reappear in the same location that you had left the future from, you would be somewhere out in the middle of nowhere in the universe, because everything in the universe is spinning and moving, including Earth, our solar system, our galaxy, etc.

No kidding. I've never looked at it that way.

♦♣♠

Well the whole piece is altogether coherent. Definitely a cool idea. I wonder if there's a formal school of thought which addresses these ideas.

It's given me a good way to think about free will.

 

[Frankie]

Causality / Determinism / Physicalism / Free Will / Time Travel

In other words, this exact sequence of events will unravel inevitably if you are this particular John and this particular tax day is coming around.

If you construct a chain of dominoes, and knock over the first one, the last one always falls down (in theory).

Cue in the Butterfly Effect. If any one variable in this sequence were to change (say the weather), John might decide to sit at home and drown his stress in alcohol, which will lead to him being alive.
There is also the possibility that a small change in one of the pieces of the domino might prevent the last one from falling (in real life)

If the universe did not exist exactly as it did one, ten, or even a million years ago, the universe would not necessarily exist exactly as it does today. Any particular combination of events (or circumstances) will always result in a particular combination of events. These particular resultant events then bring about other particular resultant events.

When the universe was created, all events from that point forward had been predetermined by the particular way in which the universe had begun.

It can even be concluded that the universe was created when it was created and how it was created because of some mysterious and unknown precedents.

On the universal scale, the variables are too many to fall into place so nicely given entropy. If the asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, we'll probably not be having this conversation or we'd be having it a million years to come or a million other possibilities. That supports your point, because we are here now owing to the series of events that have happened. But still, it's a big game of chance. We can say that's how it is supposed to be because we are on the 'favourable' side of the dice. I don't think it's a linear chain where one thing leads to another, it's more like the lottery number that wins the jackpot.

I do agree with you though that we have little control over most things. However, we are not at the mercy of 'the chain reaction'. We can make small decisions here and there, even though most of them are already determined by culture, belief, personality and so on. But in the end, those small decisions are just enough to create a unique sequence of events that might not be predictable if one were following the original sequence of events.

for any given instance in time, we can be certain of the fact that we are currently occupying that instance in time. However, for the very next instance in time, we have no way of knowing whether or not we were actually occupying the instant of time we think we were occupying an instant ago, but we do know that at the new and most current instant we are occupying the very instant in time we believe ourselves to be occupying. *wipes sweat from forehead*

This actually makes sense.

 

[Infinitatis]

And you know the past, in excruciating detail, because it is objective. So by studying the past you can approximately identify the cause of events. This is how we study the universe and acquire knowledge. We rely on time.

However, the future is more chaotic
will be at any given point in time, past or future

So it kind of seems to me like knowing their current/past trajectories doesn't really allow you to necessarily know the future unless you completely integrate all knowledge of past events everywhere in the universe into a processor. Then maybe. I don't know.

I just noticed that technically an asteroid's trajectory is only known based upon past information because derivatives of position are observed over time. So to revise that, it would be more accurate to say one can calculate where the asteroids will be at any given point in time if the observer has all of the information about the asteroids from more than one consecutive instant in time (any interval of time). This could even mean just two consecutive instants.

Of course all of this is theoretical, and it would require immense knowledge (literally knowledge about everything in the universe) about these two particular instants, and virtually impossible calculations (both in duration and difficulty) to correctly predict the future.

Well the whole piece is altogether coherent. Definitely a cool idea. I wonder if there's a formal school of thought which addresses these ideas.

It's given me a good way to think about free will.

I actually wrote this a few months ago and found out about two different branches in philosophy that deal with these questions: determinism amd physicalism.

Determinism, in layman's terms, posits that everything happens for a reason.
Physicalism, in layman's terms, posits that everything (including conscience) is able to be described by physics.

I really have enjoyed researching these topics and would strongly suggest them to anyone who is interested in philosophy and free will.

 

[Rualani]

I think you would end up floating in space when traveling back into the past. Maybe the time-travel would have to consider the frame of reference for all moving objects when making the jump so you don't go kersplat.

Agree with deterministic reasoning. On the notion of free-will, that conversation sinks deeper into psychology, but for now, I think it's still important that we view our choices as important. We are one of the most complex machines known currently, and our predictions are still vastly limited. Make the most out of what we have.

IF, a machine was made that could make absolute predictions based on past events... that would be wild. Would such a thing be possible, considering the machine would have to control for it's own influence, the people reading the predictions, and I don't see how...*brain explodes*.

 

[Infinitatis]

Cue in the Butterfly Effect. If any one variable in this sequence were to change (say the weather), John might decide to sit at home and drown his stress in alcohol, which will lead to him being alive.
There is also the possibility that a small change in one of the pieces of the domino might prevent the last one from falling (in real life)

While I agree with these statements in themselves, it would not be possible for said "changes" to occur in the first place. If the weather were to "change," what causes the weather to change? A number of factors of course, all of which can be traced back to prior events. There wouldn't be some mysterious force randomly causing the weather to change. Thus these factors would already be accounted for when describing John's situation/circumstances. All factors and variables must be accounted for with a deterministic approach, for even the slightest error in measurement and observation would throw the entire course of events off track (i.e. the butterfly effect would occur, as you have stated).

On the universal scale, the variables are too many to fall into place so nicely given entropy. If the asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, we'll probably not be having this conversation or we'd be having it a million years to come or a million other possibilities. That supports your point, because we are here now owing to the series of events that have happened. But still, it's a big game of chance. We can say that's how it is supposed to be because we are on the 'favourable' side of the dice. I don't think it's a linear chain where one thing leads to another, it's more like the lottery number that wins the jackpot.

It is, of course, possible that the universe that has unraveled for us is the winning "lottery ticket." However, I see it in one of two ways. (I lean more toward the former of the two.)

1. The universe has been created (the strongest theory being the big bang). Whatever existed ("existed" may not even be the right word) before the universe must have caused the big bang. Thus everything was destined to be how it has been, how it is, and how it will be. There is a lot of fuzziness with regard to this idea. Mainly because it's hard to logically comprehend that something could be the first event to ever occur, with nothing happening prior to it (this is one of the reasons why I am agnostic and not atheist). Another thing that makes this fuzzy is that since the big bang supposedly created time (given that Einstein's theories showed that mass slows our perception of time; our universe was an infinitely dense singularity; time would be stopped), and causality is so closely intertwined with the flow of time, how could a cause possibly exist so as to kickstart the big bang (or anything that supposedly caused it).

2. The universe was born and from that point forward (not predating the birth of the universe) all events were determined. This reasoning would leave the way in which the universe was created to be the only variable in the equation. Like I said earlier, it is possible that our universe is the winning lottery ticket. But that isn't necessarily the case. We look at our universe and see no life anywhere but in the tiny little Earth we live in. Nevertheless, we have hardly begun to explore the universe, let alone our observable universe (which is but a mere fraction of the entire universe). In addition to that, similarly to what you had stated, if we didn't have this "lottery ticket" of a universe, we would not be having this conversation. Furthermore, I also wonder what other possible universes are even like. I think many of them would go beyond our comprehension. Would it parallel our universe and we would have life, or would there be no life, or would there be some completely different and abstract thing that gives purpose to other things? Would physics behave the same way? Would logic even be relevant? Maybe our universe isn't such a winning lottery ticket after all. Perhaps it is just ordinary, or even worse in comparison to others. Our universe may be another man/alien/thing's hell.

I do agree with you though that we have little control over most things. However, we are not at the mercy of 'the chain reaction'. We can make small decisions here and there, even though most of them are already determined by culture, belief, personality and so on. But in the end, those small decisions are just enough to create a unique sequence of events that might not be predictable if one were following the original sequence of events.

From what I hear, it sounds to me like you believe in free will – the type of free will that allows us to change the course of events. There is a branch of philosophy called physicalism that theorizes that the human conscience is a physical system. One of the main objections to the idea of determinism is that human conscience is not a physical system, thus allowing free will. Personally, I find that the mind is a physical system; that we react to situations not based on free will, but based on the precedents. Of course we will think that we are making the choice, and we will have the illusion of free will.

 

[Infinitatis]

I think you would end up floating in space when traveling back into the past. Maybe the time-travel would have to consider the frame of reference for all moving objects when making the jump so you don't go kersplat.

Now let's assume that my reasoning is incorrect. If time travel were possible in the traditional sense (i.e. transporting oneself to the past and reappearing as your future self in the same location that you had exited the future from), you wouldn't reappear in the same location relative to Earth. If you reappear in the same location that you had left the future from, you would be somewhere out in the middle of nowhere in the universe, because everything in the universe is spinning and moving, including Earth, our solar system, our galaxy, etc.

Exactly.

Agree with deterministic reasoning. On the notion of free-will, that conversation sinks deeper into psychology, but for now, I think it's still important that we view our choices as important. We are one of the most complex machines known currently, and our predictions are still vastly limited. Make the most out of what we have.

This goes along with my reply to Frankie regarding physicalism:

Spoiler

I do agree with you though that we have little control over most things. However, we are not at the mercy of 'the chain reaction'. We can make small decisions here and there, even though most of them are already determined by culture, belief, personality and so on. But in the end, those small decisions are just enough to create a unique sequence of events that might not be predictable if one were following the original sequence of events.

From what I hear, it sounds to me like you believe in free will – the type of free will that allows us to change the course of events. There is a branch of philosophy called physicalism that theorizes that the human conscience is a physical system. One of the main objections to the idea of determinism is that human conscience is not a physical system, thus allowing free will. Personally, I find that the mind is a physical system; that we react to situations not based on free will, but based on the precedents. Of course we will think that we are making the choice, and we will have the illusion of free will.

IF, a machine was made that could make absolute predictions based on past events... that would be wild. Would such a thing be possible, considering the machine would have to control for it's own influence, the people reading the predictions, and I don't see how...*brain explodes*.

Wow, I'll have to ponder that one for a little while.

 

[QuickTwist]

I just noticed that technically an asteroid's trajectory is only known based upon past information because derivatives of position are observed over time. So to revise that, it would be more accurate to say one can calculate where the asteroids will be at any given point in time if the observer has all of the information about the asteroids from more than one consecutive instant in time (any interval of time). This could even mean just two consecutive instants.

Of course all of this is theoretical, and it would require immense knowledge (literally knowledge about everything in the universe) about these two particular instants, and virtually impossible calculations (both in duration and difficulty) to correctly predict the future.

You would also have to have knowledge of everything that can have an influence on the asteroids, like black holes, planets, stars, other things we don't actually know about right now. Is that what you are saying in the second paragraph?

I actually wrote this a few months ago and found out about two different branches in philosophy that deal with these questions: determinism amd physicalism.

Determinism, in layman's terms, posits that everything happens for a reason.
Physicalism, in layman's terms, posits that everything (including conscience) is able to be described by physics.

I really have enjoyed researching these topics and would strongly suggest them to anyone who is interested in philosophy and free will.

I started a thread on determinism and I would like to hear you thoughts about the questions raised in that thread as well.

I also have started to explore the idea of determinism along with how perception affects how we see reality. Have any recommended sites to learn this stuff? (There was a thread started by absurdity on blogs, but I didn't really see much in the way of strict philosophy even given the very scientific nature of the blogs listed except one site not listed by abs himself.)

 

[Urakro]

I'm considering that there is a major, overlooked factor in all this, which is that this is all relative to something that is conscious and has a single-point perspective in space and time to measure from. Without being able to sense or experience reality in this manner, the rules might be all-together different.

For instance, it could be that time is not linear, and does not 'flow' at all. It could be just another dimension holding the suspended events statically. Or perhaps, the dimension itself does not interpolate smoothly from point x to point y, but is just a continually-changing stack of arbitrary experiences.

Perhaps a lot of what we know is just the mind. A mind that seeks patterns and strings together a story. A mushy organ that likes to define expressions of the melodies it perceives around it.

 

[Infinitatis]

You would also have to have knowledge of everything that can have an influence on the asteroids, like black holes, planets, stars, other things we don't actually know about right now. Is that what you are saying in the second paragraph?

What I had meant is that the asteroids constituted everything in the universe, thus, yes, you would have to know everything about the universe. Original post:

For instance, if there are ten asteroids floating around in space (in an isolated system), and you know their exact current positions, trajectories, masses, shapes, etc. (i.e. every property) of each asteroid...

I started a thread on determinism and I would like to hear you thoughts about the questions raised in that thread as well.

Will do – glad to hear that others have an interest in this matter.

I also have started to explore the idea of determinism along with how perception affects how we see reality. Have any recommended sites to learn this stuff? (There was a thread started by absurdity on blogs, but I didn't really see much in the way of strict philosophy even given the very scientific nature of the blogs listed except one site not listed by abs himself.)

I haven't done extensive research on determinism, as I have been trying to formulate my own theories, such as this one, based on logic. I actually was not aware of determinism until after I had written this. I do recommend researching physicalism, if you have not already done so. I have found that it goes nicely with determinism.

 

[QuickTwist]

That makes sense that when you clarified your theory on the moving asteroid you didn't include what I had talked about.

TBH, you are leagues ahead of me when it comes to this stuff. I saw some of your other threads and I can tell you right now that I have nowhere near the amount of knowledge on physics to begin to understand mathematically what you are saying in some of them. Perhaps it is time I try and teach myself something about physics. Hell I don't even know jack about the theory of relativity. I'm not sure where I should start; its going to be daunting any way.

 

[Infinitatis]

TBH, you are leagues ahead of me when it comes to this stuff.

I have given these ideas a lot of thought for a lot of time. It's quite possible that I make things sound considerably more complicated because I tend to speak, as you said, mathematically.

I saw some of your other threads and I can tell you right now that I have nowhere near the amount of knowledge on physics to begin to understand mathematically what you are saying in some of them.

As I have previously stated, I tend to a mathematical form of analysis and explanation. I like to think of mathematics as the language of logic, and logic as a system of reasoning. Sometimes it will take me an hour to formulate a single sentence in a way that I believe accurately and succinctly conveys exactly what I intend it to convey, so it is not as though I have this insight off the top of my head.

Perhaps it is time I try and teach myself something about physics. Hell I don't even know jack about the theory of relativity. I'm not sure where I should start; its going to be daunting any way.

Although I strongly recommend advancing one's knowledge in mathematics and/or physics, it may comfort you to know that I am a high school junior who has only taken one physics class, AP Physics AB and am currently in Calculus AB. (I get most of my knowledge from independent studying though.) Most of my knowledge is derived from basic principles through logical reasoning. If there's anything that I have said that you would ever like for me to try to explain in other words, I would be pleased to. I believe that being able to explain things in multiple ways to multiple audiences is furtherance of my own understanding. I am also always open-minded to the idea that I have made an erroneous conclusion, so I insist upon discussion and encourage criticism. A word of advice to aid you in your deterministic studies and reasoning:

Assume nothing to be true. If you assume, know that you have assumed.

 

[QuickTwist]

I have given these ideas a lot of thought for a lot of time. It's quite possible that I make things sound considerably more complicated because I tend to speak, as you said, mathematically.



As I have previously stated, I tend to a mathematical form of analysis and explanation. I like to think of mathematics as the language of logic, and logic as a system of reasoning. Sometimes it will take me an hour to formulate a single sentence in a way that I believe accurately and succinctly conveys exactly what I intend it to convey, so it is not as though I have this insight off the top of my head.



Although I strongly recommend advancing one's knowledge in mathematics and/or physics, it may comfort you to know that I am a high school junior who has only taken one physics class, AP Physics AB and am currently in Calculus AB. (I get most of my knowledge from independent studying though.) Most of my knowledge is derived from basic principles through logical reasoning. If there's anything that I have said that you would ever like for me to try to explain in other words, I would be pleased to. I believe that being able to explain things in multiple ways to multiple audiences is furtherance of my own understanding. I am also always open-minded to the idea that I have made an erroneous conclusion, so I insist upon discussion and encourage criticism. A word of advice to aid you in your deterministic studies and reasoning:

Assume nothing to be true. If you assume, know that you have assumed.

When I think of talk in mathematical terms, What I mean is the difference between knowing what you are saying mathematically and just saying what seems reasonable, much akin to when there is talk about CF without ever reading Psychological Types if you get my meaning.

I remember one time I tried reading a math article that was on game theory and I was completely lost on the math end. I mean, dichotomy wise I could understand it somewhat, but on a mathematical level I just could not wrap my head around it. There were plenty of symbols I had never even seen before so you can imagine what a nightmare it would be to pick up all those lost pieces and try to go through the math one digit/symbol at a time. I have only completed pre-calc and that was years ago.

I have understood something about myself though: I am not a logical thinker. By that I mean I do not think strategically in the way of A leads to X which causes B which leads to Z. I am just not wired that way naturally. I have to go about a different way of doing things.

All that said, it will be interesting to see what you have to contribute to that thread I linked to you on your profile.