Does (abstract) time exist?

[Michael A]

Earthbound data are based on observation of quantized systems, but Space (and Time) are basically etheric in origin. (It would be worthwhile looking into my Thread on "Origins")

[Felix]

One must keep in mind that the cause/effect conception is descriptive, not explanatary. It describes the sequence in which actions occur in isolated phenomena. Knowing how something behaves does not tell us why it behaves that way. We can speak of a specific catalyst for a particular event, but a catalyst is not a cause. Life is a complex web of interrelated and interdependent events, some of which seem to be directly linked.

What does it mean to say the Universe is "self-causal"? Do you mean it's a self-contained intelligent process? Wouldn't that make it a diety?

[Obvious Leo]

One must keep in mind that the cause/effect conception is descriptive, not explanatary.

I would dispute this. In the absence of causation there could be no physical law and all the available evidence indicates that matter and energy in the cosmos behaves according to precise physical laws, many of which are known to us. In cases where these laws are well known we are also able to make very accurate predictions about the future behaviour of matter and energy in experimental situations which we have ourselves contrived. In the absence of causation such predictions would be impossible. I regard the doctrine of causation as a simple expression of the second law of thermodynamics, which itself is just a simple expression of that tireless workhorse of the universe, entropy. In fact I'd go so far as to say that causation is the only fundamental physical law from which all other physical laws are emergent. Conway's Game of Life illustrates how complex systems can emerge in embedded hierarchical layers from a single basic law. In complex emergent systems causation operates both top-down and bottom-up which means the tail can sometimes wag the dog. This is easily understood at the molecular level where molecules behave entirely deterministically according to the behaviour of their constituent atoms. However these constituent atoms will then have their future behaviour influenced by the altered state of the emergent molecule, whose properties are more complex than the sum of its parts. We can easily envisage a two-way causal loop within a single molecule where all such behaviours could be precisely predicted but in a complex system of trillions of molecules the various interactions are so complex that the behaviour of an individual molecule can never be predicted. This is the butterfly effect, driven by the entirely causal laws of chaos, and has nothing to do with randomness or chance. The unpredictability of complex systems lies in the interactions of its various causal domains, both top-down and bottom-up, but the systems themselves rely on only a single law, namely that effects are always preceded by causes. In principle, although not in fact, it is possible to trace the entire causal chain between the flap of the butterfly's wing in the Amazon and the cyclone building in the Pacific Ocean. This is the basis of complexity theory and it can be very well modelled using the laws of chaos mathematics, which are essentially Boolean laws.

What does it mean to say the Universe is "self-causal"? Do you mean it's a self-contained intelligent process? Wouldn't that make it a diety?

A pendulum is self-causal but a pendulum clock is not a deity. As long as energy is supplied to the system in the form of the suspended weights the clock will literally tick forever (in principle). Whichever way we look at it eternity is inescapable, despite the conceptual discomfort it may cause us. Either the universe is eternal or the bloke that made the universe is eternal. Or the bloke that made the bloke that made the universe is eternal. Or the bloke that made the bloke that made the bloke that made the bloke.....etc.... If the universe is eternal then all these hypothetical uber-creators are unnecessary and therefore cannot exist, and this was essentially Einstein's stance. However Albert had something of the mystic about him and if you were to ask him "Do you believe in god?" his answer would be "Not Yet". I'm not attracted to such forms of language but that the universe is evolving towards informational complexity is self-evident and beyond dispute.

Clearly the universe is itself becoming but the future of chaotic systems is unknowable by definition. However, although the journey is unknowable the destination is not because the cyclical cosmology requires that it ends in a bang and starts all over again. I call this the Humpty-Dumpty explanation, where the big bang essentially reshuffles all the informational cards. Entropy then drives the arrow of time, which is synonymous with causation, while chaos is busily putting Humpty back together again, because that chaotic systems tend towards complexity is mandated by physical law. Entropy and chaos can thus be regarded as synonymous with the yin and yang of the eastern philosophies, but don't ask me which is which.

It's a cosmic model of such exquisite simplicity that it's difficult not to be persuaded by it but I'll readily grant that at this stage it remains unproven. However the tide is definitely turning and many of the new generation of geeks are starting to think along precisely these lines. Now all they need to do is abandon the spacetime paradigm, read a bit of philosophy, and watch how the ducks all line up in a neat little row. The universe causes itself.

Regards Leo

[Felix]

"In cases where these laws are well known we are also able to make very accurate predictions about the future behaviour of matter and energy in experimental situations which we have ourselves contrived. In the absence of causation such predictions would be impossible."

Leo, maybe I'm just looking at a wider viewscreen than you are.... All you've really said is that the behavioural patterns are predictable and therefore we can recognize and recreate them. Under such and such physical conditions, a particular process is likely to occur. But that makes the terms of the process derivative, not causal, for they are dependent upon the conditions. What created or caused the conditions?

What caused the event we call our Universe? Your answer to that question is that it is "self-causal," which scientifically speaking is no answer at all - but then again, I don't think it's the sort of question that science can answer.

[Obvious Leo]

, I don't think it's the sort of question that science can answer.

Exactly right. Asking what caused the universe is as silly a question as asking who made god. We accept the fact that the universe exists and then we're confronted with two simple choices. Either it has always existed or it hasn't. If it hasn't always existed then it was caused to exist by an external causal agent. The external causal agent is an unprovable proposition and therefore entirely a matter of conceptual taste. However the self-causal universe is a provable hypothesis if it can be shown that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch and I remain hopeful that this may yet be proven within my lifetime. However the burden of years is beginning to sit heavily on me and unfortunately we're still waiting for physics to chuck out some of its old ideas before being in a position to contemplate some new ones. Despite this I'm nevertheless optimistic because the new top guns in the field are finally showing signs of frustration at a century of zero progress. More than a few of them are beginning to realise that the spacetime paradigm will never provide their answers and are looking for a better option, a position which would have been certain career suicide even a decade ago.

However even when the self-causal cosmos is proven this will not be the end of the story because such a self -causal cosmos must also be self-validating. Physicists are only equipped to deal with "how" questions and will no doubt one day be able to explain to us how the universe causes itself. However they don't have the right tools to explain to us WHY the universe causes itself so the philosophers can look forward to a few more millennia of argument and navel-gazing. Sadly I won't be around to chuck in my two bob's worth, although my opinion on this matter would not advance the argument very far. I reckon the universe simply causes itself because it cannot not. Causation always gets the last word.

Regards Leo

[Atreyu]

If it hasn't always existed then it was caused to exist by an external causal agent. The external causal agent is an unprovable proposition and therefore entirely a matter of conceptual taste. However the self-causal universe is a provable hypothesis if it can be shown that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch and I remain hopeful that this may yet be proven within my lifetime.

It could not be caused by any external agent because the Universe is 'All'. By definition there are no external agents.

To me, 'self-causal' implies Consciousness. That the Universe is actually a Conscious entity. Otherwise 'self-causal' is merely a fancy way of saying it always existed. But even if it did, we have to begin somewhere, at some point. In ordinary science, we begin with a very hot dense state. In this model, we begin only with a Conscious entity which alone exists and therefore is completely independent, because there is no other force in existence to oppose it. And this is why this primordial source of everything was often called 'the Absolute' or 'the Independent' in many ancient systems.

The advantage of this model is that it precludes one from having to explain how the new phenomenon of consciousness and awareness somehow 'arose' from mere 'stuff', something no one has ever come close to doing to my satisfaction. Much easier and logical to explain how 'stuff' came about from an unknown but all-powerful Consciousness.

I reckon the universe simply causes itself because it cannot not. Causation always gets the last word.

That seems a rather weak explanation to me. Almost like an explanation which explains nothing. The 'because' to me implies conscious intent. If only mechanical forces are involved, there is no intention, no aim, no goal, and so there is really no meaning to 'because'. It all just happened 'because'...... Just 'because' period, if no consciousness is involved. But if we assume conscious intent, we can give a reason why. And I would say the Universe 'causes itself', or rather is 'growing' or 'expanding itself', because It wants to 'evolve'. It wants to grow outside of Itself, to expand beyond its own boundaries, in all aspects.

[Ruskin]

It exists if it exists as part of your experience of life and you know it does so it does so this is fairly straight forward to answer, you could ask whether emotions exist or not but you know they do because you experience them. So time exists in much the same way.

[Obvious Leo]

It could not be caused by any external agent because the Universe is 'All'. By definition there are no external agents.

Agreed. However this is entirely a matter of conceptual taste and contingent on the acceptance of your definition of the universe as being "everything that exists". I accept such a definition without reservation but the existence of a meta-reality beyond the universe is still the favoured position of many. I agree completely with you that an explanation which explains everything is an explanation which explains nothing and thus I find the god hypothesis antithetical to the advance of knowledge and am therefore unpersuaded by it.

To me, 'self-causal' implies Consciousness.

Not to me. The motion of a pendulum is self-causal but pendulums do not make for lively conversational partners. That the universe is a blind automaton in which consciousness evolves according to the laws of informational complexity is a far better fit for the evidence. Consciousness then becomes the causal agent because conscious minds make choices, which makes them both observers and players in the evolving universe. I agree that the universe cannot be self-causal without consciousness but disagree that the implication of this is that the universe itself must be conscious. Einstein would take a slightly different view because he was of a rather more mystical bent than I am. He defined his universe as god in the process of becoming so he would rather say that the universe is not yet conscious. He would concur on the matter of the blind automaton but would regard the evolution of the cosmos as the mechanism by which the cosmos could know itself. Although this is not my own preferred form of language my own position is not dissimilar.

The advantage of this model is that it precludes one from having to explain how the new phenomenon of consciousness and awareness somehow 'arose' from mere 'stuff', something no one has ever come close to doing to my satisfaction. Much easier and logical to explain how 'stuff' came about from an unknown but all-powerful Consciousness.

This is a very thinly disguised intelligent design argument which I won't bother responding to. That life emerged from non-life is something which I regard as a self-evident fact and that consciousness emerged from the evolution of life towards informational complexity is something that I also regard as a self-evident fact. These self-evident facts are easily accounted for in complexity theory, non-linear dynamics, the science of dissipative structures, chaos mathematics and autopoesis but the supportive arguments would drag this conversation beyond its current scope and keep me here for the next month.

But if we assume conscious intent, we can give a reason why. And I would say the Universe 'causes itself', or rather is 'growing' or 'expanding itself', because It wants to 'evolve'. It wants to grow outside of Itself, to expand beyond its own boundaries, in all aspects.

If you took the anthropomorphic assumptions out of this it would make reasonable sense. The universe doesn't need to "want to" evolve in order to do so. Does anything evolve because it "wants to", or do complex systems evolve simply because the laws of cause and effect preclude them from doing otherwise? I would highly recommend the works of Ilya Prigogine and Fritjof Capra for a deeper analysis of these ideas because I regard them as crucial to our understanding of the universe.

Regards Leo

[Felix]

Obvious Leo said: "The motion of a pendulum is self-causal but pendulums do not make for lively conversational partners."

A poor analogy since pendulums are manufactured. I'm still confused by your use of the term "self-causal" as "self" implies an entity that's separate from what it is causing. It's like describing evolution as "self-improvement."

[Obvious Leo]

I suggested the pendulum for the sake of its simplicity. What about a bacterium, or indeed any organism which reproduces asexually? Human psychology is perhaps the biggest stumbling block to fully understanding self-causation on the cosmic scale. Since Descartes we have become accustomed to the reductionist view of science which is solely analytic in its method. However in process philosophy and complexity theory we look at the overall gestalt which combines analysis with synthesis because complex systems cannot be understood solely by the reductionist method. Were we to regard the universe in its correct light as a process rather than a place this holistic approach would be easier to appreciate because causal loops in process systems are commonplace.

The problem really is that the notion of existence without a first cause is truly beyond our conceptual grasp and I don't exempt myself from this conceptual angst. Many will resolve this problem with an appeal to a meta-reality such as god but all this does is shift the problem from the real to the hypothetical and unknowable. Whichever way we choose to cut it since existence exists then something must be eternal since existence cannot spring from non-existence. For this reason I regard any arguments about first causes as unworthy of an examined mind because a first cause is a logical non-sequitur, god or no god.

Regards Leo

[Felix]

"What about a bacterium, or indeed any organism which reproduces asexually?"

Still doesn't work... if living organisms were self-causal they'd be immortal and have no impetus to reproduce. Or are you saying that the Universe is like an immortal organism? I like that analogy, however, as Atreyu said, this would imply some sort of consciousness. Why would lifeless, unintelligent, unconscious matter ever become anything else? There'd be absolutely no reason (literally) for it to do so.

[Obvious Leo]

I like the analogy of the universe as an immortal organism also. However I fail to see how you could then leap to the conclusion that it must therefore be conscious. Surely you're not suggesting that living organisms exist because they choose to exist. They exist because they were caused to exist which simply brings us full circle back to where we started. Either the universe had an external causal agent or it didn't. If it didn't then the bang/crunch cosmology is the only alternative and must therefore be mandated by physical law. Physics is a lot closer to being able to prove this proposition than you seem to think and if they manage to prove the opposite and that this is impossible then they've effectively proved the existence of god.

In which case I hope he's got a sense of humour because my entire philosophy is based on the assumption that the god hypothesis is a fairy-tale. Unless I can have Spinoza's god who is not really a god at all and is most certainly not conscious.

Regards Leo

[Felix]

"Surely you're not suggesting that living organisms exist because they choose to exist."

No I'm not, we're not talking about mortal living organisms, we're talking about an immortal living organism (the Universe) which caused itself to exist, and therefore it must possess some sort of conscious intelligence.

[Atreyu]

"Surely you're not suggesting that living organisms exist because they choose to exist."

No I'm not, we're not talking about mortal living organisms, we're talking about an immortal living organism (the Universe) which caused itself to exist, and therefore it must possess some sort of conscious intelligence.

Exactly....

The problem, Felix, is that many people who are very anti-religious IMO oppose this idea merely because it conjures up the idea of some kind of 'God', but in reality this primordial Consciousness need not have any relation whatsoever with any modern or ancient religious idea connotated with it. You can't have a 'personal relationship' with it, nor could you even perceive its existence, nor It you.

At any rate, I'm convinced that this subjective distaste of any idea which could be remotely connotated with religion is one of the prime reasons many oppose it. Going from Consciousness to life to mechanics is infinitely more psychologically and philosophically sound than going from mechanics to life to Consciousness. And one of the main proofs of this is that if the latter were so modern science would have been able to demonstrate the process in the laboratory long ago. If they can describe the process of life coming from non-life (abiogenesis) then we should be able to see it somewhere in nature, but in fact we see it nowhere, and they should also be able to recreate the process in laboratory. And they clearly cannot. And IMO they never will, because it's an inherently false idea.

I remember in biology class they clearly taught us that 'life only comes from other life', and they even taught the Pasteur experiment of the 'flies in the soup' which proved it. Unfortunately, since modern science has no clue to how the first cells on Earth originated, they make the gross mistake of trying to violate this fundamentally sound principle simply because they lack the imagination to propose another alternative which sticks with this principle.

That alternative is migration. Yes, life only comes from other life, and the best way to explain the first cells on Earth is to say that they came from some other unknown life form which existed outside of the Earth (hence the inherent 'unknowness') and later migrated to the Earth.

[Obvious Leo]

As a biologist I can assure you that this Cartesian view of life is completely wrong-headed and centuries out of date. Life is not animated by some ethereal vital force but is an emergent outcome of a complex web of inter-relationships. The basic building blocks of life are no different from the basic building blocks of any other form of matter and life is therefore defined solely in terms of the way in which these blocks are assembled. To suggest that this process requires a conscious intent is completely contrary to the evidence and nothing more than intelligent design by another name.

Living systems are NOT designed.

Regards Leo