What is the Relationship Between Causality, Time and Consciousness?

[JackDaydream]

This question was one which I began thinking about after reading an article, 'Time and Causality', by Robert Solomon (in, 'Nexus: The Alternative News Magazine (June- July 2022). I began discussing it with 3017Metaphysician in another thread but to avoid going off-topic in that thread it seemed better to create a specific one based on the ideas in the article.

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'. He states that 'conscious beings in our physical, three-dimensional world can only be aware of single states of physical reality in each "now" - or current instant, which consequently have to emerge separately. He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.' He draws upon the ideas of Liebniz, who suggested that, 'there is no real influence of one created substance upon another.'

Solomon's understanding of causality is based partly on Donald Hoffmann's theory of the interface of perception, in which, 'consciousness itself, not space , time and physical objects is the the fundamental reality from which all else is derived.' Solomon argues that,
'For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space; time and physical objects_ and with great success. They thought that they were studying reality, but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of the images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself.'

I could go further in quoting from the article but I am trying to keep my outpost fairly concise. Solomon's viewpoint on time is accepted by many but his overall argument is unorthodox, in its interpretation of causation. However, there is recognition of the influence of the observer effect in scientific experiments, suggesting that consciousness does have an active role in causation. The question is to what extent is consciousnes the centre of the process of causality? Where does the concept of time fit into the nature of consciousness itself and, is causality a linear sequence of events, or is it more complex, beyond space and time as categories of experience?

[The Beast]

In this imagined scenario of timeless state there is the eternal manifold creating the dimensions of experience. This way, this which had no temperature is now changing. What changes is the manifold. As for the manifold’s nature we can speculate with the known dimensions and the unknown possibilities. I cannot imagine spaceless. Perhaps there are intermediate states of which our manifold is but a dimension of another fundamental manifold. Hence, the dimension of space. In the fundamental state it may be that the manifold is made of essence. It is congruent with our intuitive nature and with the paraphrasing attached to the fundamental ideas.

[JackDaydream]

In this imagined scenario of timeless state there is the eternal manifold creating the dimensions of experience. This way, this which had no temperature is now changing. What changes is the manifold. As for the manifold’s nature we can speculate with the known dimensions and the unknown possibilities. I cannot imagine spaceless. Perhaps there are intermediate states of which our manifold is but a dimension of another fundamental manifold. Hence, the dimension of space. In the fundamental state it may be that the manifold is made of essence. It is congruent with our intuitive nature and with the paraphrasing attached to the fundamental ideas.

Your reply is interesting as it involves being outside of time. However, I would imagine that to some extent being outside of time would involve being outside of space too. In many ways, this could be the idealist perspective, but it may not be because mind and matter may be interrelated. However, it could be that causation is somehow beyond both, in the source of all that becomes manifest through consciousness, arising in experience.

[3017Metaphysician]

This question was one which I began thinking about after reading an article, 'Time and Causality', by Robert Solomon (in, 'Nexus: The Alternative News Magazine (June- July 2022). I began discussing it with 3017Metaphysician in another thread but to avoid going off-topic in that thread it seemed better to create a specific one based on the ideas in the article.

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'. He states that 'conscious beings in our physical, three-dimensional world can only be aware of single states of physical reality in each "now" - or current instant, which consequently have to emerge separately. He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.' He draws upon the ideas of Liebniz, who suggested that, 'there is no real influence of one created substance upon another.'

Solomon's understanding of causality is based partly on Donald Hoffmann's theory of the interface of perception, in which, 'consciousness itself, not space , time and physical objects is the the fundamental reality from which all else is derived.' Solomon argues that,
'For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space; time and physical objects_ and with great success. They thought that they were studying reality, but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of the images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself.'

I could go further in quoting from the article but I am trying to keep my outpost fairly concise. Solomon's viewpoint on time is accepted by many but his overall argument is unorthodox, in its interpretation of causation. However, there is recognition of the influence of the observer effect in scientific experiments, suggesting that consciousness does have an active role in causation. The question is to what extent is consciousnes the centre of the process of causality? Where does the concept of time fit into the nature of consciousness itself and, is causality a linear sequence of events, or is it more complex, beyond space and time as categories of experience?

Jack!

Just a quick sound bite on the basics first:

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. The physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of spacetime as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light. However, in 1905, Einstein based a work on special relativity on two postulates:

The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference)
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.


Apparently, one cannot separate space with time much like the concepts of up/down. With respect to causation basics:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Not that this is the direction you should lean towards, but perhaps to TB's point, he may be thinking something outside time caused time (and space) to exist. Otherwise, we have a sort of necessary 'thing' that is caused by itself (for reasons only itself knows), associated with the notion of a thing called father time. Metaphorically, father time (temporal time/eternal time) is a necessary being, for which his existence is necessary for the reasons he himself/itself only knows. The question would be, who outside of time caused father time to exist. So, much like you cannot separate up from down, time from space, you have temporal and eternal time.

I think more importantly, for consciousness to have emerged, the way we understand consciousness, as philosophers, it's easy to understand Schop's world as Will from the standpoint of propagation. These automatic wheels set in motion that caused consciousness/sentient beings to exist in the way of changing inert matter into animate objects, seems to infer a metaphysical will that wills some things into existence. And it seems consciousness arrived later in the game of evolution, for some reason hence: It took 13. 8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99. 998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0. 002% of the Universe.

Perhaps in Multiverse theories, we are just a baby universe to another universe that is somehow more advanced in terms of conscious existence.

Consciousness:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

[SteveKlinko]

We have a built in preconception of what Time is. We instinctively believe that there is some separate Phenomenon in Physics that we call Time. We believe that this Time Phenomenon is continuously running and always has been running in the background of everything that happens in the Universe. But this is a mistaken Belief and has been disproved by modern theories of Physics and especially by Special Relativity and by Quantum Field Theory. These theories have shown that Time is nothing more than Relative relationships between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time even in Physical Space. The Time that we use is not Absolute Time, but rather it is always relative to some Reference Physical Process. References are things like the Number of rotations of the hand on a mechanical Stop Watch, the Number of Rotations of the Earth on its axis, or the Number of Oscillations of a Cesium Atomic Clock. Each of these References will have their own accuracy specifications with the Cesium Atomic Clock being the most accurate. There are new Optical Clocks coming on line that are supposedly more Accurate than the Cesium Atomic Clock, but I will stick with the decades "Tried and True" Cesium Atomic Clock for this discussion. Logically, Science has used the Cesium Atomic Clock as the Reference for all other References. But the Cesium Clock is just a Physical Process, so we have all the other References being Relative Processes to the Cesium Atomic Clock Process.

The upshot of all this is that Science does not use or know how to measure any kind of Absolute Time Phenomenon. It is always the Relative behavior of Physical Processes. This is the key to understanding that there is actually no such thing as an Absolute Time in Science or in the Universe. Science has discovered that Time as we think of it does not Exist. The Relative Time between Physical Processes is completely Local to the Physical Processes themselves. So we can say that before the Big Bang when there was supposedly no Matter, no Energy, and no Space, that there could not be any kind of Relative Time that was even Possible. Therefore, there was no Infinite Past, no Million Year Past, and not even a One Second Past, before the Big Bang. We actually should not even call the Relationship between Physical Processes, Relative Time. It is just a Relationship of the relative Numbers that are counted by the References. We can take the next step in this analysis and say there is no such thing as Time without specifying Absolute or Relative. A disappointing thing about the Non Existence of Time is that there is no possibility of Time Travel because there is nothing to go Back in and nothing to go Forward in.

Now let's consider Time from a Special Relativity point of view. First of all, Time is Not the Fourth Dimension of Space in spite of what the Science Snake Oil book writers say. Time plus the three dimensions of space form a mathematical four dimensional Manifold. Time is always given the index 0, and the three indexes of Space are given as 1, 2, and 3. If Time was considered to be the Fourth Dimension it would have been given an Index of 4 when they first formulated the equations. Time is simply a parameter that describes a particular behavior of Physical Matter. One of the most important results of Special Relativity is that Time slows down in a moving Frame. Even Cesium Atomic Clocks slow down. So a Cesium Clock on board the Space Station will run slower than a Cesium Atomic Clock on the ground. The knee jerk reaction to this is to say Time has slowed down. But all we know is that the Cesium Atomic Clock on the Station will register a smaller Number of Oscillations than the same Atomic Clock on the ground. But this only means that the Cesium Atomic Oscillations are slowed and it says nothing about what some Time concept is actually doing. It is the Relationship between the Number of Oscillations on the Station with the Number of Oscillations on the ground that is important. It is results like this that forced Scientists to realize that there is no Absolute Time Clock driving the Universe. If there was, then it would be impossible for Time to slow down on the Station and not on the ground. They realized that Time was not an independently Real Phenomenon that exists in the Universe. Time is always the result of Relationships between different Physical Processes. Without Physical Processes, Time does not even make any sense.

[The Beast]

It our tier, an object is somewhat defined by the space it occupies. Or that two objects cannot occupy the same space. It is a dimension. If I look to the sky to the celestial bodies, there is an experiential space full of objects. I experienced a visual of celestial bodies. However, spacetime say that those celestial bodies are long gone into a probable celestial dust from which new stars are born. If our sun is 2b years that is 8 times over. In the fundamental state, this which is essence is also space. In this way essence is fundamental space and the dimension of the manifold is spacetime and perhaps time and space are dimensions of consciousness. Thus explains the numinous space assign in consciousness. In my interpretation, the manifold is the form of essence. In the case of a human, the manifold is the entirety of human interpretation. It is the timeless essence and the spacetime evolution of the manifold.

[3017Metaphysician]

We have a built in preconception of what Time is. We instinctively believe that there is some separate Phenomenon in Physics that we call Time. We believe that this Time Phenomenon is continuously running and always has been running in the background of everything that happens in the Universe. But this is a mistaken Belief and has been disproved by modern theories of Physics and especially by Special Relativity and by Quantum Field Theory. These theories have shown that Time is nothing more than Relative relationships between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time even in Physical Space. The Time that we use is not Absolute Time, but rather it is always relative to some Reference Physical Process. References are things like the Number of rotations of the hand on a mechanical Stop Watch, the Number of Rotations of the Earth on its axis, or the Number of Oscillations of a Cesium Atomic Clock. Each of these References will have their own accuracy specifications with the Cesium Atomic Clock being the most accurate. There are new Optical Clocks coming on line that are supposedly more Accurate than the Cesium Atomic Clock, but I will stick with the decades "Tried and True" Cesium Atomic Clock for this discussion. Logically, Science has used the Cesium Atomic Clock as the Reference for all other References. But the Cesium Clock is just a Physical Process, so we have all the other References being Relative Processes to the Cesium Atomic Clock Process.

The upshot of all this is that Science does not use or know how to measure any kind of Absolute Time Phenomenon. It is always the Relative behavior of Physical Processes. This is the key to understanding that there is actually no such thing as an Absolute Time in Science or in the Universe. Science has discovered that Time as we think of it does not Exist. The Relative Time between Physical Processes is completely Local to the Physical Processes themselves. So we can say that before the Big Bang when there was supposedly no Matter, no Energy, and no Space, that there could not be any kind of Relative Time that was even Possible. Therefore, there was no Infinite Past, no Million Year Past, and not even a One Second Past, before the Big Bang. We actually should not even call the Relationship between Physical Processes, Relative Time. It is just a Relationship of the relative Numbers that are counted by the References. We can take the next step in this analysis and say there is no such thing as Time without specifying Absolute or Relative. A disappointing thing about the Non Existence of Time is that there is no possibility of Time Travel because there is nothing to go Back in and nothing to go Forward in.

Now let's consider Time from a Special Relativity point of view. First of all, Time is Not the Fourth Dimension of Space in spite of what the Science Snake Oil book writers say. Time plus the three dimensions of space form a mathematical four dimensional Manifold. Time is always given the index 0, and the three indexes of Space are given as 1, 2, and 3. If Time was considered to be the Fourth Dimension it would have been given an Index of 4 when they first formulated the equations. Time is simply a parameter that describes a particular behavior of Physical Matter. One of the most important results of Special Relativity is that Time slows down in a moving Frame. Even Cesium Atomic Clocks slow down. So a Cesium Clock on board the Space Station will run slower than a Cesium Atomic Clock on the ground. The knee jerk reaction to this is to say Time has slowed down. But all we know is that the Cesium Atomic Clock on the Station will register a smaller Number of Oscillations than the same Atomic Clock on the ground. But this only means that the Cesium Atomic Oscillations are slowed and it says nothing about what some Time concept is actually doing. It is the Relationship between the Number of Oscillations on the Station with the Number of Oscillations on the ground that is important. It is results like this that forced Scientists to realize that there is no Absolute Time Clock driving the Universe. If there was, then it would be impossible for Time to slow down on the Station and not on the ground. They realized that Time was not an independently Real Phenomenon that exists in the Universe. Time is always the result of Relationships between different Physical Processes. Without Physical Processes, Time does not even make any sense.

SK!

No exceptions taken particularly relative to the unreality of time. Have you considered:

Consciousness: the metaphysical and physical time processes.
Quantum observation: previous/future events can change
Eternity: temporal and eternal time (speed of light time stoppage, Unity of Opposites, etc.)

[JackDaydream]

We have a built in preconception of what Time is. We instinctively believe that there is some separate Phenomenon in Physics that we call Time. We believe that this Time Phenomenon is continuously running and always has been running in the background of everything that happens in the Universe. But this is a mistaken Belief and has been disproved by modern theories of Physics and especially by Special Relativity and by Quantum Field Theory. These theories have shown that Time is nothing more than Relative relationships between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time even in Physical Space. The Time that we use is not Absolute Time, but rather it is always relative to some Reference Physical Process. References are things like the Number of rotations of the hand on a mechanical Stop Watch, the Number of Rotations of the Earth on its axis, or the Number of Oscillations of a Cesium Atomic Clock. Each of these References will have their own accuracy specifications with the Cesium Atomic Clock being the most accurate. There are new Optical Clocks coming on line that are supposedly more Accurate than the Cesium Atomic Clock, but I will stick with the decades "Tried and True" Cesium Atomic Clock for this discussion. Logically, Science has used the Cesium Atomic Clock as the Reference for all other References. But the Cesium Clock is just a Physical Process, so we have all the other References being Relative Processes to the Cesium Atomic Clock Process.

The upshot of all this is that Science does not use or know how to measure any kind of Absolute Time Phenomenon. It is always the Relative behavior of Physical Processes. This is the key to understanding that there is actually no such thing as an Absolute Time in Science or in the Universe. Science has discovered that Time as we think of it does not Exist. The Relative Time between Physical Processes is completely Local to the Physical Processes themselves. So we can say that before the Big Bang when there was supposedly no Matter, no Energy, and no Space, that there could not be any kind of Relative Time that was even Possible. Therefore, there was no Infinite Past, no Million Year Past, and not even a One Second Past, before the Big Bang. We actually should not even call the Relationship between Physical Processes, Relative Time. It is just a Relationship of the relative Numbers that are counted by the References. We can take the next step in this analysis and say there is no such thing as Time without specifying Absolute or Relative. A disappointing thing about the Non Existence of Time is that there is no possibility of Time Travel because there is nothing to go Back in and nothing to go Forward in.

Now let's consider Time from a Special Relativity point of view. First of all, Time is Not the Fourth Dimension of Space in spite of what the Science Snake Oil book writers say. Time plus the three dimensions of space form a mathematical four dimensional Manifold. Time is always given the index 0, and the three indexes of Space are given as 1, 2, and 3. If Time was considered to be the Fourth Dimension it would have been given an Index of 4 when they first formulated the equations. Time is simply a parameter that describes a particular behavior of Physical Matter. One of the most important results of Special Relativity is that Time slows down in a moving Frame. Even Cesium Atomic Clocks slow down. So a Cesium Clock on board the Space Station will run slower than a Cesium Atomic Clock on the ground. The knee jerk reaction to this is to say Time has slowed down. But all we know is that the Cesium Atomic Clock on the Station will register a smaller Number of Oscillations than the same Atomic Clock on the ground. But this only means that the Cesium Atomic Oscillations are slowed and it says nothing about what some Time concept is actually doing. It is the Relationship between the Number of Oscillations on the Station with the Number of Oscillations on the ground that is important. It is results like this that forced Scientists to realize that there is no Absolute Time Clock driving the Universe. If there was, then it would be impossible for Time to slow down on the Station and not on the ground. They realized that Time was not an independently Real Phenomenon that exists in the Universe. Time is always the result of Relationships between different Physical Processes. Without Physical Processes, Time does not even make any sense.

SK!

No exceptions taken particularly relative to the unreality of time. Have you considered:

Consciousness: the metaphysical and physical time processes.
Quantum observation: previous/future events can change
Eternity: temporal and eternal time (speed of light time stoppage, Unity of Opposites, etc.)

In reading the discussion about consciousness and the nature of time and causality, one aspect which I wonder about is the relationship between science and metaphysics. It does seem that some see science as the extreme model for understanding reality Others may query science, in view of its limitations and this does throw back the question of understanding of causation, reality and consciousness as an underlying aspect of philosophy. It may be asked is metaphysics useful here, in trying to establish understanding of the concepts which are at the core of understanding the way reality 'works' or appears to work, from the standpoint of human understanding of causality.

[JackDaydream]

We have a built in preconception of what Time is. We instinctively believe that there is some separate Phenomenon in Physics that we call Time. We believe that this Time Phenomenon is continuously running and always has been running in the background of everything that happens in the Universe. But this is a mistaken Belief and has been disproved by modern theories of Physics and especially by Special Relativity and by Quantum Field Theory. These theories have shown that Time is nothing more than Relative relationships between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time even in Physical Space. The Time that we use is not Absolute Time, but rather it is always relative to some Reference Physical Process. References are things like the Number of rotations of the hand on a mechanical Stop Watch, the Number of Rotations of the Earth on its axis, or the Number of Oscillations of a Cesium Atomic Clock. Each of these References will have their own accuracy specifications with the Cesium Atomic Clock being the most accurate. There are new Optical Clocks coming on line that are supposedly more Accurate than the Cesium Atomic Clock, but I will stick with the decades "Tried and True" Cesium Atomic Clock for this discussion. Logically, Science has used the Cesium Atomic Clock as the Reference for all other References. But the Cesium Clock is just a Physical Process, so we have all the other References being Relative Processes to the Cesium Atomic Clock Process.

The upshot of all this is that Science does not use or know how to measure any kind of Absolute Time Phenomenon. It is always the Relative behavior of Physical Processes. This is the key to understanding that there is actually no such thing as an Absolute Time in Science or in the Universe. Science has discovered that Time as we think of it does not Exist. The Relative Time between Physical Processes is completely Local to the Physical Processes themselves. So we can say that before the Big Bang when there was supposedly no Matter, no Energy, and no Space, that there could not be any kind of Relative Time that was even Possible. Therefore, there was no Infinite Past, no Million Year Past, and not even a One Second Past, before the Big Bang. We actually should not even call the Relationship between Physical Processes, Relative Time. It is just a Relationship of the relative Numbers that are counted by the References. We can take the next step in this analysis and say there is no such thing as Time without specifying Absolute or Relative. A disappointing thing about the Non Existence of Time is that there is no possibility of Time Travel because there is nothing to go Back in and nothing to go Forward in.

Now let's consider Time from a Special Relativity point of view. First of all, Time is Not the Fourth Dimension of Space in spite of what the Science Snake Oil book writers say. Time plus the three dimensions of space form a mathematical four dimensional Manifold. Time is always given the index 0, and the three indexes of Space are given as 1, 2, and 3. If Time was considered to be the Fourth Dimension it would have been given an Index of 4 when they first formulated the equations. Time is simply a parameter that describes a particular behavior of Physical Matter. One of the most important results of Special Relativity is that Time slows down in a moving Frame. Even Cesium Atomic Clocks slow down. So a Cesium Clock on board the Space Station will run slower than a Cesium Atomic Clock on the ground. The knee jerk reaction to this is to say Time has slowed down. But all we know is that the Cesium Atomic Clock on the Station will register a smaller Number of Oscillations than the same Atomic Clock on the ground. But this only means that the Cesium Atomic Oscillations are slowed and it says nothing about what some Time concept is actually doing. It is the Relationship between the Number of Oscillations on the Station with the Number of Oscillations on the ground that is important. It is results like this that forced Scientists to realize that there is no Absolute Time Clock driving the Universe. If there was, then it would be impossible for Time to slow down on the Station and not on the ground. They realized that Time was not an independently Real Phenomenon that exists in the Universe. Time is always the result of Relationships between different Physical Processes. Without Physical Processes, Time does not even make any sense.

I wonder so much about your final statement, 'Without Physical Proceses, Time does not even make any sense.'.
It may be that physical processes are inherent in sentience, and this is laid out in the processes related to time. However, it could be asked to what extent is the nature of consciousness inherent to the physical aspects of time, or independent? The answers may lie in human consciousness, but it may still beg the question of what lies beyond consciousness and how this connects with the processes of causality, especially in relation to how these may be laid out in the apparent sequences which human beings conceptualize under the category or framework of the experience of time.

[JackDaydream]

This question was one which I began thinking about after reading an article, 'Time and Causality', by Robert Solomon (in, 'Nexus: The Alternative News Magazine (June- July 2022). I began discussing it with 3017Metaphysician in another thread but to avoid going off-topic in that thread it seemed better to create a specific one based on the ideas in the article.

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'. He states that 'conscious beings in our physical, three-dimensional world can only be aware of single states of physical reality in each "now" - or current instant, which consequently have to emerge separately. He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.' He draws upon the ideas of Liebniz, who suggested that, 'there is no real influence of one created substance upon another.'

Solomon's understanding of causality is based partly on Donald Hoffmann's theory of the interface of perception, in which, 'consciousness itself, not space , time and physical objects is the the fundamental reality from which all else is derived.' Solomon argues that,
'For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space; time and physical objects_ and with great success. They thought that they were studying reality, but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of the images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself.'

I could go further in quoting from the article but I am trying to keep my outpost fairly concise. Solomon's viewpoint on time is accepted by many but his overall argument is unorthodox, in its interpretation of causation. However, there is recognition of the influence of the observer effect in scientific experiments, suggesting that consciousness does have an active role in causation. The question is to what extent is consciousnes the centre of the process of causality? Where does the concept of time fit into the nature of consciousness itself and, is causality a linear sequence of events, or is it more complex, beyond space and time as categories of experience?

Jack!

Just a quick sound bite on the basics first:

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. The physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of spacetime as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light. However, in 1905, Einstein based a work on special relativity on two postulates:

The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference)
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.


Apparently, one cannot separate space with time much like the concepts of up/down. With respect to causation basics:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Not that this is the direction you should lean towards, but perhaps to TB's point, he may be thinking something outside time caused time (and space) to exist. Otherwise, we have a sort of necessary 'thing' that is caused by itself (for reasons only itself knows), associated with the notion of a thing called father time. Metaphorically, father time (temporal time/eternal time) is a necessary being, for which his existence is necessary for the reasons he himself/itself only knows. The question would be, who outside of time caused father time to exist. So, much like you cannot separate up from down, time from space, you have temporal and eternal time.

I think more importantly, for consciousness to have emerged, the way we understand consciousness, as philosophers, it's easy to understand Schop's world as Will from the standpoint of propagation. These automatic wheels set in motion that caused consciousness/sentient beings to exist in the way of changing inert matter into animate objects, seems to infer a metaphysical will that wills some things into existence. And it seems consciousness arrived later in the game of evolution, for some reason hence: It took 13. 8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99. 998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0. 002% of the Universe.

Perhaps in Multiverse theories, we are just a baby universe to another universe that is somehow more advanced in terms of conscious existence.

Consciousness:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Thank you for your working definitions. I am not a great fan of Wikipedia, but it useful in some areas of philosophy for thinking of basic definitions. These may need to be expanded upon in the light of the arguments in philosophy. However, to find the basics is essential because it may be that the quandries of definitions may be stumbling blocks to even beginning discussion, especially in metaphysics, which may appear at odds with science. The basics of definitions, especially the idea of consciousnes, is useful for thinking about this complicated area of philosophy and its relationship with empirical science.

[JackDaydream]

It our tier, an object is somewhat defined by the space it occupies. Or that two objects cannot occupy the same space. It is a dimension. If I look to the sky to the celestial bodies, there is an experiential space full of objects. I experienced a visual of celestial bodies. However, spacetime say that those celestial bodies are long gone into a probable celestial dust from which new stars are born. If our sun is 2b years that is 8 times over. In the fundamental state, this which is essence is also space. In this way essence is fundamental space and the dimension of the manifold is spacetime and perhaps time and space are dimensions of consciousness. Thus explains the numinous space assign in consciousness. In my interpretation, the manifold is the form of essence. In the case of a human, the manifold is the entirety of human interpretation. It is the timeless essence and the spacetime evolution of the manifold.

Thanks for your responses. I guess that it could be asked what is space and time in the sense of dimensions. To some extent, it may be answered empirically. However, the nature of dimensions and consciousness may be harder in terms of quantum physics and metaphysics. Science may have made understanding more empirical, as a basis for examining the empirical aspects of epistemology and metaphysics. However, with the quantum universe and multidimensional reality the picture of reality may have become more complicated. I am not saying this simply to make understanding of reality more complicated, but simply to try to open up to a picture of reality which embraces the complexities which may be apparent, especially in relation to quantum physics.

[snt]

Interesting topic and OP!

You may be interested to look into the origin of Emmanuel Kant's work which involves an inspirational insight that he received from the work of David Hume, which involves Hume's rejection of causality after which an ongoing argumentative battle about the nature of causality arose between Kant and Hume that presumably would define modern philosophy.

"Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume’s skeptical view of causality, most explicitly in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783); and, because causality, for Kant, is a central example of a category or pure concept of the understanding, his relationship to Hume on this topic is central to his philosophy as a whole. Moreover, because Hume’s famous discussion of causality and induction is equally central to his philosophy, understanding the relationship between the two philosophers on this issue is crucial for a proper understanding of modern philosophy more generally."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

The insight that Kant received from Hume resulted in his vision on a priori synthetic concepts (and thus the basis for his work) which are fundamentally space and time with causality being a necessity.

With regard your question. Hume argued the following:

"A body A is in motion, another B is at rest in the straight line [of this motion]. The motion of A is something, that of B is something else, and, nevertheless, the latter is posited through the former.

Hume famously uses this example (among others) in the Enquiry to illustrate his thesis that cause and effect are entirely distinct events, where the idea of the latter is in no way contained in the idea of the former (EHU 4.9; SBN 29):"

Kant was against that idea and argued the following:

"Kant concludes, in § 30, by stating that we are now in possession of “a complete solution of the Humean problem” (4, 313; 66)—which, Kant adds,

rescues the a priori origin of the pure concepts of the understanding and the validity of the general laws of nature as laws of the understanding, in such a way that their use is limited only to experience, because their possibility has its ground merely in the relation of the understanding to experience, however, not in such a way that they are derived from experience, but that experience is derived from them, a completely reversed kind of connection which never occurred to Hume. (ibid.)"

According to Kant, experience is derived from the a priori true (pure) nature of causality (as necessity of space and time).

"For Kant, the concepts of both causality and necessity arise from precisely the operations of our understanding—and, indeed, they arise entirely a priori as pure concepts or categories of the understanding. It is in precisely this way that Kant thinks that he has an answer to Hume’s skeptical problem of induction: the problem, in Kant’s terms, of grounding the transition from merely “comparative” to “strict universality” (A91–92/B123–124).

Succession is necessary; … the effect does not merely follow upon the cause but is posited through it and follows from it. The strict universality of the rule is certainly not a property of empirical rules, which, through induction, can acquire nothing but comparative universality: i.e., extensive utility. "

At question would be: is the idea of a Universal law valid? Is causality a necessity derived from the a priori synthetic concepts space and time? Is conscious experience derived from that necessity?

I would beg to differ. I would base my critique on the idea of a pure form of consciousness (as potential) and not as it has manifested to provide capacities such as reasoning. In order to go beyond ideas of the understanding to address the fundamental nature of reality, the idea of a Universal law seems ill suited.

Some evidence that you cited in the OP shows that conscious mind can exert a physical effect on reality in the future and past. That hints at applicability of a non-local nature that renders the idea of necessity of causality invalid, despite that in practice it can be perceived as necessity. The conclusion would be that causality would require a different explanation than necessity derived from Universal law.


The following citation of Solomon appears contradictory. If reality would arise out of consciousness, then 'reality itself' doesn't exist. What would be your opinion?

'For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space; time and physical objects_ and with great success. They thought that they were studying reality, but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of the images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself.'

[snt]

We can take the next step in this analysis and say there is no such thing as Time without specifying Absolute or Relative. A disappointing thing about the Non Existence of Time is that there is no possibility of Time Travel because there is nothing to go Back in and nothing to go Forward in.

...

Time is always the result of Relationships between different Physical Processes. Without Physical Processes, Time does not even make any sense.

An interesting perspective, however I find it questionable. The consideration that time measurement arises from rhythms observed in nature is by no means an argument to consider that time itself is not existing.

When science addresses time, it does so within a context that is only applicable to rhythms observed in nature since it has no other ground for measurement than relations. That does not imply however that time itself is limited by such a limited view.

Relations in physical reality are not limited to itself by the mere notion that relation per se demands an explanation. That implies that the same is necessarily applicable to the concept time.

Time travel may well be possible. The OP provides a reference that science has already shown that consciousness can exert a physical effect in both the future and past. When considering the idea of time travel, there are more options available than the consideration of a physical being to travel in time. Conscious mind may be able to travel in time and exert effects for which there is already some evidence.

[snt]

Apparently, one cannot separate space with time much like the concepts of up/down. With respect to causation basics:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Not that this is the direction you should lean towards, but perhaps to TB's point, he may be thinking something outside time caused time (and space) to exist. Otherwise, we have a sort of necessary 'thing' that is caused by itself (for reasons only itself knows), associated with the notion of a thing called father time. Metaphorically, father time (temporal time/eternal time) is a necessary being, for which his existence is necessary for the reasons he himself/itself only knows. The question would be, who outside of time caused father time to exist. So, much like you cannot separate up from down, time from space, you have temporal and eternal time.

It is interesting to notice that you (as a metaphysician) hold such a view on the applicability of causality to explain reality and I wonder how it is possible in the face of the mere consideration of the possibility of metaphysics.

I have found the suggested argument for causality illogical the moment that I noticed it. Who is saying that the Universe began to exist? Who is arguing that that idea has implications for explaining reality? The factor 'who' (conscious mind) is completely ignored. Metaphysics is ignored as if there were just physics and causality to consider 'as is' without considering that the considerer is necessarily involved as well.

If causality is true, how can metaphysics be possible?

I think more importantly, for consciousness to have emerged, the way we understand consciousness, as philosophers, it's easy to understand Schop's world as Will from the standpoint of propagation. These automatic wheels set in motion that caused consciousness/sentient beings to exist in the way of changing inert matter into animate objects, seems to infer a metaphysical will that wills some things into existence. And it seems consciousness arrived later in the game of evolution, for some reason hence: It took 13. 8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99. 998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0. 002% of the Universe.

When one speaks of sentient beings and humans, one is to consider the moment of existence as inevitable. From such a perspective the human could have always existed by mere necessity although its form is pure meaning and as such the scope of its existence adheres merely to a meaningful context.

[stevie]

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'.

Mere assertion contradicting everyday life. Appropriate reply 'Time exists objectively'.

He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.'

"If I can utter a mere assertion, why should I not add another mere assertion?" *lol