Rich, would you describe your idea of time as duration as analogous to a bubble passing through the time landscape whose path is unchartered and whose wake dissipates with distance?
Jake TarragonOctober 04, 2017 at 14:37#1109630 likes
My new metaphysics:
Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it because existence is an expression of the Great Self Creating Fractal Imperative.
Rich, would you describe your idea of time as duration as analogous to a bubble passing through the time landscape whose path is unchartered and whose wake dissipates with distance?
I would describe duration (the time of life) as exactly as it seems, i.e. I constant flux of observation and memories. It is all that is. It is not expanding but rather changing and morphing into something new.
Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it
Not only can't it be proved, but there is zero experience or evidence of it. Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith, which is fine but it should be worshipped in churches not public schools.
Is the path we walk fated? Do we have choice? Is the past written or is it just as unclear as the future?
What does philosophy, or even science, have to say about causation?
In the simplest of terms, every event has an influence on what follows downstream in time. You light a fire. It illuminates and gives off light. The light attracts moths and the heat cooks a meal. The moths attract bats and the meal attracts people and so on. A very basic sequence of events; causation isn't this simple but you get the point.
In fact, our lives depend on causation and we (excluding myself) always ponder the consequences of our actions.
If so, it follows that our lives, at least the circumstances of our existence, are subject to causal principles. Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate?
Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate?
Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism. It is as if people are clueless about the choices they and everyone else is making. The world is exactly as it appears: causal, no control, probabilistic with novelty.
Jake TarragonOctober 04, 2017 at 18:58#1110600 likes
Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith,
I have some faith in it, but not total faith. Because the very rationalism which leads me to espouse determinism, also recognizes that there is no proof of it. It's an emotional preference, and I recognise it as such, so I win/win. I can have my rationality and eat it. No churchgoer can say that.
szardosszemagadOctober 04, 2017 at 19:00#1110650 likes
The universe is either causal, or not. This is something you have to accept by, for instance, faith.
Once you decided the universe is causal, then it follows that it is deterministic.
Once you decide the universe is not causal, then you have no right to pretend that you recognize patterns or you can establish rules according to which the world operates.
Reply to Jake Tarragon Well you have a mixture of faith, rationalization, emotion, and a religion (spirituality), as do we all. Determinism is simply the religion of atheists and I firmly believe everyone needs some faith in their lives.
Jake TarragonOctober 04, 2017 at 19:05#1110690 likes
Once you decided the universe is causal, then it follows that it is deterministic.
The universe could , in principle, be a mixture of causal and non-causal. Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation demonstrate quite a strong belief in that don't they?
szardosszemagadOctober 04, 2017 at 19:06#1110720 likes
The universe could , in principle, be a mixture of causal and non-causal. Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation demonstrate quite a string belief in that don't they?
No,even in principle that is not possible. ESPECIALLY not in principle.
szardosszemagadOctober 04, 2017 at 19:06#1110730 likes
Determinism is not a religion. It is not, because it does not derive from some supernatural authorit
Sure it derives from a supernatural authority called Natural Laws, which in themselves were originally derived from Christian religion. That is your historical chain of events. As an atheist, you believe in fate and supernatural forces guiding your faith, you just leave out the word God. There is literally no difference between your religion and Calvinism. You even have your priests like Dennett. It's all very interesting to observe.
Can you choose what to have for breakfast? Yes. Does the same effect usually follow cause in controlled conditions? Yes. So some form of compatibilism is true.
Why can't one person in time be walking a novel path while another person at the end of time sees the path that he will make through his novel choices?
Why can't one person in time be walking a novel path while another person at the end of time sees the path that he will make through his novel choices?
Better to actually talk about what you observe in life if you wish to understand life. These mind experiments are parlor games too pass the time and amuse.
Reply to Rich Like all types of play though Rich, they are usually preparing you for something much larger in which the skills will be required. Creativity in thought is in line with your own beliefs, yes?
Reply to MikeL It depends, if one wishes to be a science fiction writer then creativity comes in very handy. If one wishes to be a philosopher, keen observation is more essential. A philosopher has to b find real patterns in life, not just make stuff up and then observe who can create a more fantastical tale. We already know how creative humans can be.
A philosopher has to b find real patterns in life, not just make stuff up
I think life is incredibly malleable in this regard. I find true insight comes from making up logical patterns and seeing how life fits. Observing the observable without running it against a pattern even a subconscious pattern I would think limiting in what it reveals. But I think its a case of tomarto, tomAto.
Reply to MikeL One observes and finds patterns, not the other way around. What in life c is predictable? It is just made up out of thin air. I have no problem with faith, but that is religion not philosophy. The two really should not be confused though everyone had both.
One observes and finds patterns, not the other way around.
Sure, I take your point. Sometimes though by applying one observed pattern to a different phenomenon insight can be revealed. It has nothing to do with faith - it is a tool I use to find a workable truth.
Reply to MikeL Yes one can apply patterns to all observations. That is the whole idea. Philosophy had nothing to do with logic. It is all about observations and patterns. This is what the Daoists and other ancients excelled at.
Reply to MikeL They had extremely keen observational skills as did other ancients. But it is much easier teaching parlor games like logic than it is to teach observational skills, hence logic finds its way into standard course curriculum.
Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism.
How would we formulate determinism or fate without causation?
If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it.
I think determinism is self evident. Even pre-determinism is self-evident. I see no conflict between that and free choice. It's a temporal problem.
At the end of time, looking back I can see the path you walked. It is determined - unless we are invoking the multiple universes theory you did afterall only walk one path right?
You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 05, 2017 at 10:35#1113480 likes
Reply to MikeL
If you create your path by making choices, then there is no determinism. The fact that the past has already been determined is irrelevant, because you are not standing at the end of time looking back, you are at the present, now. If determinism meant that just the past is already determined, then there would be no conflict between free will and determinism, but determinists think that the future is determined as well. That's why free will and determinism are incompatible.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover The future is determined, we just can't see it yet because we are at the wrong part of time. We made the choices that determined it. Just because I am unable to see it yet does not mean it is not deterministic.
There is a paradox at work though as seeing the deterministic path before time has passed you along it may cause you to make another choice, breaking the pattern. The key to the paradox however lies in understanding that the changes you make because you saw the future were always the changes you made. It was determined that you would see your future and make the changes.
Perhaps a multiple universes interpretation would not go astray after all.
szardosszemagadOctober 05, 2017 at 16:25#1114720 likes
Well anyone can call supernatural natural. In this manner God is quite natural since S/He is exactly equivalent to Natural Laws. It's all about the nature of religion which words are used. But ultimately Determinism is exactly the same as Calvinism.
It's the age old debate of determinism. Is the path we walk fated? Do we have choice? Is the past written or is it just as unclear as the future?
I think this is relevant, not sure - So, One of the Hindu gods was sitting around, lonely. For company, he made himself forget he was god, and split himself into many parts. That's us. I have this image of god behind the stage in a puppet theater that includes everything. He plays all the parts, speaks all the voices.
If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it.
Right. You can say anything you want. And Determinism as well as other religions say exactly the same thing using different words. Zero evidence for either which is what makes it a story. But you can say anything you want.
You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position.
What a mess. "You created", choices, free will, determined". I don't think you left anything out. I suppose you could add all of the synonyms.
The future is determined, we just can't see it yet because we are at the wrong part of time. We made the choices that determined it. Just because I am unable to see it yet does not mean it is not deterministic.
So I've already made the choices which I will make tomorrow, concerning the day after tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to say that we've already made the choices which we will make in the future. If you say that these choices are already determined, then they aren't choices at all. What appears as choosing is not. It is an illusion.
So I've already made the choices which I will make tomorrow, concerning the day after tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to say that we've already made the choices which we will make in the future. If you say that these choices are already determined, then they aren't choices at all. What appears as choosing is not. It is an illusion.
So when you went to the shops yesterday, that wasn't a choice? I can see that you did it. The path is written and it happened only once, so it was determined. I can draw a path of every move you've made since the day you were born, all determined, all choices. I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it.
We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so.
Reply to MikeL What you have here Mike is a crater and you are filling it with every word and concept in the dictionary. It doesn't provide any understanding just to use words and create sentences with them.
Reply to Rich You make it sound like I'm scrambling. I find the whole thing quite straight forward. Maybe the crater is one I have created in your thinking and you are trying to understand it by filling it with my words.
1) We have memory which shapes our actions and choices.
2) We make choices as to which direction we wish to go and we used will to effect these choices.
3) Results unfold. Nothing is determined since there are enumerable probabilistic events that are also unfolding all around us. (I have no idea where any of gets the idea that anything is predictable. Is anyone actually observing the world?).
4) We learn and new memories are created as duration unfolds.
There are causes (internal and external), there are constraints, there are choices that the mind makes (forget about free will), and there are probabilistic results. This is all in conformance to daily observations. No need to make up absurd stories such as we are computers or chemicals that talk to each other.
Reply to Rich If I stand at a craps table and watch the thrower roll the dice in his hand, blow on them, get his girlfriend to blow on them, whisper a short prayer under his breath and then cast the dice down the table, just as the temperature drops half a degree and a small gust from a surge in the airconditioning hits the table, the thrower may roll a seven. With so many variables at play, it could have been anything at all that he rolled.
When I watch it back on tape, he keeps rolling a seven. He can't do anything else other than roll a seven regardless of how many times I watch it. It is determined, it was determined, it will be revealed as determined. Only if we could back up, keep the variables exactly the same, and have him roll an eight this time would determinism be proven false, but then again so would all the laws of physics.
Reply to MikeL Mike, you can watch it on the tape as long as it works correctly. After that you are up the creek. It is all probabilistic.
Take a deep breath and really try to understand. I mean REALLY try to understand. Everyone is so quick to the draw. No patience to deeply observe and understand nature.
Reply to Rich The initial conditions that created the path were probabilistic, but the single path was created through time nonetheless. By changing our position in time we can see it.
Multiple Worlds theory could explain a paradox of making a different choice knowing the outcome ahead of time. But even then, only one path ends up being walked.
Reply to Rich Perhaps an important conceptual point to consider is that probability does have an outcome. As the cast dice slow their angular momentum, the probability of certain combinations occurring ratchet down markedly until ultimately there is only 1 option. Probability 100% determined.
The counter that could be made to take the sting of absolutism out of determinism is to suggest that while our path is determined, it cannot be predicted using environmental variables from the past.
For this argument to work, you would need to assume an origin of thought that is spontaneous and independent on any other variables, internal or external.
Of course, sitting at the end of time, I can see when those little blips happened and how it made you choose the path you took.
You seem to be considering determinability and predictability to be coterminous? Or, another question: are determination and predetermination the same? In any case, I would say that determinism, as a metaphysical or ontological postulate, is entirely prejudicial, however unavoidable and indispensable it might be as an underpinning to any naturalistic understanding of the world.
But even then, only one path ends up being walked.
Actually no. You, whoever you might be, is spread out over an infinite mega-universe that is growing exponentially all the time. Do you understand that your concept is far more fantastic than a God. All because of a pre-defined goal of no-God, fated universe. Oh well, one fantasy is as good as the next.
Perhaps an important conceptual point to consider is that probability does have an outcome
This works. The problem is, and this will end our conversation, is that if I was interested in sci-fi, I would read some of the great authors. For now, I'm interested in philosophy.
You seem to be considering determinability and predictability to be coterminous?
I'll be honest. I had to look coterminous up. Good word: having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning. I'm not really thinking in terms of boundaries, other than those of past, present and future. On the face of it the two words seem very similar although I have a little bug on my shoulder telling me there is directional difference between the words. I can't isolate it though.
If you can predict something then it is determinable. If something can be determined then it is predictable- although it may not be considered a prediction if you already know it. Perhaps that's the nagging feeling I have.
The difference is the reference frame. Standing at the present the future is not predictable, however, that it will come to pass is not questioned. A person watching from the future knows the path. That's why we study history. If only Julius Caesar hadn't walked into the forum on that horrible day- but he did, and the rest, as we say, is history - or determined
Reply to Rich If you want to understand more about the nature of nature my advice would be that you start playing palor games. Rigidity of thought is the antithesis of creativity.
If you can predict something then it is determinable. If something can be determined then it is predictable- although it may not be considered a prediction if you already know it. Perhaps that's the nagging feeling I have
Have you hear of the "three body problem"? The point is that complex processes are not predictable in any but a probabilistic way. Think of the weather. What will happen weatherwise can be guessed at in an educated (all the more so with the aid of computer modeling) way, but will never be precisely predictable. In any instance of prediction there is always the possibility that we could be way off.
This begs the question as to whether the weather (and the rest of nature) is precisely (rigidly) determined or is merely probabilistic, with genuine novelty always in play and thus there being a truly open future. The point is that we just don't (and cannot) know, and the fact that nature is not 100% predictable could merely be due to our inability to predict complexity, even though that complexity might be 100% rigidly determined. For this reason I cannot say that determinability and predictability are the same.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say "a person watching from the future" constructs a story of events that he posits as the path.
That's a good point. I guess he would have to be watching from the beginning to know all the path. But yet path there was and it was only the single path.
Reply to Janus I think I see your argument. That things are essentially unknowable and therefore cannot be said to be determined (known).
The counter though would be to argue that you don't need to know the complexity to see the path that results. Even if the path is ultimately immeasurable at the quantum level, it is only immeasurable to you.
Ultimately a path was walked, knowable or not, and that path was walked only once and was therefore determined.
Of course, according to our understanding a single path was traversed, but does that have any meaning beyond the context of our understanding? In a way this would seem to be a version of naïve realism.
Reply to Janus I don't see how it could be naive realism. We agree that a single path was walked. Looking back, that path took a very specific route, whether we know what it was or not. Therefore the path was determined. I could not happen any other way for the timeline we are on.
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the path "took a very specific route" how does it follow from that that it must have been determined in an ontological as opposed to a merely epistemological sense?
Reply to Janus That fact that it exists is proof of its determination. It was formed through choices, sure, but is was formed one specific way and the timeline has recorded that.
The past is determined insofar as we tell our stories that determine it to be like this, and not that. I don't believe there is any timeline apart form our linear (and thus reductive) understanding of time.
In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption.
In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption.
I quite enjoy your outlook Janus. Let's see though, would it be fair to extrapolate from what you've said that time does not exist in the linear sense? If it did we could track through it, creating a path.
szardosszemagadOctober 06, 2017 at 04:39#1117560 likes
I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".
I'm enjoying this conversation too, Mike. To answer your question, I would say that time as succession (presuming that is what you mean by "linear time") unquestionably exists for us. Events occurring, some earlier and some later, is what makes our world as experienced intelligible at all.
So, the idea is that it is not a matter of us over here, observing the world over there, but of us being immersed in the dynamic temporal collaboration that is being-in-the-world. There is no world beyond that human being-in-the-world, I would say, following Heidegger.
Reply to Janus I like the idea that we are a small cloud putting through a fog of unknown or dissipating past and future, but I can still insist on determinism even in that scenario, so I have to ask how you would define determinism.
It's a bit of a puzzle to me how you can ''say anything you want''. This hasn't been the case in my life and, I suppose, this is true for all people. There has to be good reasons for opening one's mouth or putting pen on paper.
What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''?
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 06, 2017 at 10:28#1118150 likes
I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it.
No you can't skip to the end of time, that's the point. Time is more than just a curtain. What hasn't yet occurred cannot be viewed, it is impossible because it hasn't occurred. The position you argue seems to be based on the false assumption that you can skip around in time. You can't. And if you really think that you can, you should demonstrate this ability.
We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so.
Again, this is false. Things are not "written" until they are actually written.
I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".
It is unnatural to call natural supernatural.
In magic, such a illusion is called sleight of hand.
Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK.
What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''?
I don't know, but that is pretty much what is going on, so I accept it. Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. What's your favorite story about determinism? That it exists? That you can bounce into the future and look back? That everything is fated? That we are all a bag of chemicals being guided by the all-knowing Natural Laws?
szardosszemagadOctober 06, 2017 at 18:34#1119260 likes
Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK.
Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith?
I get insulted just by the insinuation that all and every human being can't but must worship some god or other. That's nice if you do, and good for you, but leave me out of this cheap thrill.
Natural laws are not omnipotent, and certainly not omniscient. They may be omnipresent, but that is currently up for debate among cosmologists.
You have been imbibing religion, and you can't get your head above the water of seeing the world only as a relationship of sort to a god or gods.
"Beam me up, Scottie, there is life out there more than just religion."
Exactly where do they not apply? Where everything ceases to exist? God?
szardosszemagadOctober 06, 2017 at 21:21#1119690 likes
Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing".
Rich, you are locked in a mindset where you can't imagine a godless universe. Whereas the one we live in can exist very easily without god. Any god.
This is not my shortcoming that you are so closed-minded. If you can't get out of your prison, a prison of needing a god so badly that you believe everyone else needs one, too, then you are really a devout believer. A philosopher, however, in my opinion, you are not.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Is your assertion that the future does not exist? If it does then it must be determined. If it does not, then we open up a new direction in the discussion.
Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing".
They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct?
Srap TasmanerOctober 07, 2017 at 04:52#1120740 likes
They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct?
This is becoming abusive @Rich. I humbly suggest you stick to telling us what you think, and stop telling everyone else what they think. Nobody's asked you to psychoanalyze them.
I think you're right on this one. First you have preferences and then you find the philosophy that fits them.
It could also be that there are too many competing philosophies, none more valid than the other, and you have to make a choice. This choice can only made based on preferences.
I haven't dived to the right depth yet but causation seems so real to me. You push a stone, it moves. The temperature falls, we get ice. I insult you, you get hurt...and so on. [I]Causation[/i] is built into our worldview - we plan our moves, we think before we speak, we weigh the options, etc. To deny causation is madness.
Then, it's obvious that we're part of this web of causation. Of course, I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part.
I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part.
I agree, all types of free will are constrained. It's a relative term. I have the free will to fly, but not really.
They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything.
Thanks for displaying a low IQ level. Now I know how you are able to cling to your false belief. I told you that laws know nothing, and yet you insist they do.
The cat eventually always comes out of the bag. Your incredible inability to grasp concepts and distinguish between two extant ones shines through. I don't think I need to keep on fighting this Quixotic battle against a Windmill, that you are, Rich; an entity that has no reasonable thought as you have so eloquently and multiply disclosed about yourself.
I am not mocking you or trying to insult you. I just simply observed that you are incapable of realizing that natural laws are not human beings, equipped with the faculty of knowledge. You stated that falsehood now twice; I am convinced you can't be convinced otherwise. Therefore I made the judgment call that you are incapable of real, proper intellectual discourse, as you lack basic elements of reasoning and comprehension, and also lack a sufficient amount of ability for complex thought and complex ideas.
Of course, I expect you now to come back and say that I am the one who lacks reason. That will not daunt me, as it will be a simple knee-jerk reaction by you. I won't even consider it seriously, as it will come from someone, you in particular, who has demonstrated that he or she is not worthy of participating on a philosophy website, by reason of intellectual deficiency.
As something we can refer to, the future exists. But if "exists" is restricted to definite physical forms, through a physicalist premise, then the future does not exist, because there are no definite physical forms in the future.
Is your assertion that the future does not exist? If it does then it must be determined. If it does not, then we open up a new direction in the discussion.
Do you recognize that time itself, what is referred to by this word, "time", is not a physical thing? Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence. So we can refer to "the future" without implying any particular material thing. And if we are not referring to any particular material thing, then there is no sense in using the term "determined". We refer to the future, and claim that the future exists, without implying that the future is determined because we are not referring to a particular material object which has determinate existence.
Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence.
Future and past are immaterial, but what of the present? It must also be immaterial, and yet it contains materiality -- space-time.
Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own.
Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form.
When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not?
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 08, 2017 at 12:20#1124250 likes
Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own.
Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all. When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two.
Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form.
I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present.
When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not?
In your description here, you are looking at the past, and trying to find the separation between past and future there. When you do not find the division between past and future in the past, you claim that there is none. This is a mistaken exercise because you will only find the division between past and future at the present.
Can you, in your mind, separate the things which exist in time, from time itself? If so, let's say something about time itself. Living at the present, do you notice that there is always a future in front of you, and a past behind you? Now let's turn to the physical existence, and see what it is about physical existence which makes the difference between past and future notable. Do you notice that the past is full of things which have already happened and things which have already existed? This is what allows you to have memories, and form visual images of things in the past, they have already existed and been experienced by you. Now bring your focus up to the very close past, right up to the point of what you are doing now, looking at the screen or whatever. The screen has been existing in front of your face continuously, right up to the point of now, and it continues to exist, even now as you read this. But let your mind jump to the future for a moment. You cannot see any screen there, or remember any physical object from the future. The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience. Do you apprehend the nothingness in the future when referring to physical existence?
Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all.
How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say.
Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities? Thus if a past exists a present exists and a future exists, all must contain space, as space is inseparable from it. We know that the past did indeed contain space- we have memories and books about it, and we know that the present does also contain space, therefore a future must also contain space.
The space that the future contains will have items in it arranged in specific positions, just as it did in the past, just as it does now. Thus it is determined.
I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present.
Your argument might become that time is feeding through the present like cloth through a sewing machine, at the rate a second per second stitching reality together behind it, but that still assumes the materiality of the future and thus a spatial component which implies a determined relationship between the objects in that future. There can be no stitching of the cloth.
When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two.
If you choose to make the present the only meaningful description of time, and relegate the future and past to concept, then the premise becomes that all that exists is the present. Zeno's paradox seems to want to come into play at this point and ask exactly what instant of this instant is the present. Surely time is infinitely divisible. Surely time cannot move unless it is continuous.
The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip.
The workaround for this workaround would be to suggest that rather than time being linear in the direction of duration, it is in fact perpendicular to the axis of duration. The present itself stretches across time from left to right (past to future), but moves forward the length of one duration. Thus all present moments are simultaneous - all time is occurring simultaneously. It is right now that the Colosseum is being built and it is right now that Apokrisis is in his spaceship staring out the window at the eternal heat death wishing he'd been wrong.
Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic.
The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience.
Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 08, 2017 at 21:07#1125840 likes
How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say.
Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future.
Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities?
No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future).
The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip.
Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present.
Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic.
I don't see how you make this conclusion. If we assume two dimensions of time, one is just as real as the other, so it makes no sense to say that we have to forfeit one to enable the other. Therefore the conclusion that all moments exist at the same time is unwarranted.
Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come.
Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then we cannot hold it as a fundamental principle. And the fact that anything can be destroyed at any moment indicates that there is no spatial existence on that side of the present.
Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future.
This is no difference at all. Do you think that the people of the past didn't work to avoid unpleasant things and create pleasant ones? It is the story of much of mankind.
Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities?— MikeL
No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future).
Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point. He says:
"Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time."
That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute. The tortured serpentine paths of the determined past are a reflection of the choices people made. Then, as now, as in the future we may choose to change or annihilate things. It is what gave the past is unique determined shape and gives the future its unique determined shape.
Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it?
If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself? How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past?
Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present.
No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment.
This is why it becomes totally deterministic. The entire timeline occurs at once.
Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, thenwe cannot hold it as a fundamental principle.
There are a few sweeping statements in here I need you to clarify. The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary? That doesn't make sense to me, but if it did, then my next question would be necessary to what?
The second highlighted part builds on from the first. What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what?
I can point your head at the difference. I can describe it to you. But I can't make you see it. If you do not see that the future is substantially different from the past, then so be it.
The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary?
Remember, I asked you to differentiate between time, and the things which exist in time. What you manipulate at the present, is spatial existence, not the present itself.
What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what?
What we cannot hold as a fundamental principle is the continuity of spatial existence, at the present. This is the faulty principle which you will not let go of. And you will not let go of it because you are in denial concerning the very obvious, substantial difference between past and future, which you refuse to acknowledge. All human beings, all the time, recognize that they cannot change the past, but they can work to produce a future which they might like. Do you not see the difference between future and past? The past is fixed, "closed", but as Tom Petty said, "the future was wide open": "Into the Great Wide Open".
Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point.
Of course he disagrees with me on this point. This is the hole which modern physics has fallen into as a result of people believing that special relativity expresses a truth about time.
Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it?
No, I don't agree with that at all. First, I do not think that the concept of space-time provides a proper representation of reality, so we must start with a deconstruction of that. Once we have done that then we can see that the passing of time doesn't necessitate any particular spatial event, or existence whatsoever. Now, "the waterfall at the end" is a description of a spatial event. It is not necessitated by the passing of time.
That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute.
I don't believe this statement from you. I think that is exactly what is being disputed. If you actually believed that human beings could change their world, you wouldn't believe that the waterfall at the end is necessitated by the passing of time. These two are completely inconsistent, incompatible, contrary, statements. You desire to say that human beings can work to avoid an unpleasant future, and produce a pleasant future, but at the same time, you want to say that there are things in the future, which are already fixed, "the waterfall at the end". Then, you take this faulty example, of a thing which is fixed (the waterfall at the end), and proceed through the use of some very faulty inductive reasoning, to claim that all things in the future are fixed, determined just like the past. Now, you base your denial of the very substantial difference between future and past, in this very faulty inductive reasoning.
How can you say, and truly believe what you're saying, "that fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute", when you claim that there is no difference between future and past? Do you believe that human beings can change what has happened in the past? If not, then how can you make that statement in honesty, without allowing for a substantial difference between future and past? You recognize that human beings cannot change the past, then you claim that they can change the future, but you deny a difference between future and past. See the inconsistency?
If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself?
Spatial existence manifests from the realm of the future. This is where the Neo-Platonic Forms are, which are the cause of material existence. Temporal existence is defined by the passing of time. In the future, time has not yet passed. So these Forms are described as eternal (meaning outside of time, rather than forever in time).
How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past?
I really don't understand these other questions, perhaps we could take them one at a time, and you could explain more thoroughly the issues which you are questioning.
No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment.
I don't understand this either. Why would you conclude, that if the present had breadth, it must be wide enough to encompass the entire past? The breadth of the present is defined by how we experience time. So even if yesterday, last year, etc., must be somehow included within the concept, we do not experience those presently, along with our experience of now, except by memory, so their is really no difference, in this respect, between accounting for past events in a one dimensional time, and in a two dimensional time.
This is the hole which modern physics has fallen into as a result of people believing that special relativity expresses a truth about time.
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
Why would you conclude, that if the present had breadth, it must be wide enough to encompass the entire past?
You told me that the present had duration. How long is that duration? Is it less than the duration of the entire timeline? There are two conceivable answers.
1. No, the duration is the same - in which case the entire timeline is the present. The present is now. So the entire timeline is happening right now. If that is the case then it is determined.
2. Yes, the duration of the present is shorter than the timeline. In this case the present will run out before it reaches the end of the timeline. Having reached the end of its duration time will freeze. There will be no further progress into the future.
Thus, for the argument to stay alive, in addition to duration you might also invoke a breadth for the present and have the breadth span the entire timeline. The breadth is at right angles to the duration of the present. Thus when the present moves it does not move from past to future, but rather sideways across the timeline, so that all instants of the timeline occur now. As you can see though this solution also proves that the future is determined.
I really don't understand these other questions, perhaps we could take them one at a time, and you could explain more thoroughly the issues which you are questioning.
OK, imagining for a second that none of what I said proves determinism, the question becomes about the interface between the future and the present. Where does this occur? The present is a duration of time which encapsulates me but there is no nebulous haze of future that I can see around me. It is filled with both space and time - nothing is outside of space or time, but we have established that space is determined. Everything in space has a place and is performing an action of some sort. Therefore, the bubble of time you are calling the present must also be determined. It must, at the very least, become determined at the start of the duration of the present. So now you must have not only a determined past, but also a determined present.
Spatial existence manifests from the realm of the future. This is where the Neo-Platonic Forms are, which are the cause of material existence. Temporal existence is defined by the passing of time. In the future, time has not yet passed. So these Forms are described as eternal (meaning outside of time, rather than forever in time).
How much more determined can you get than a state of being that is eternal? If it is outside of time, it doesn't change.
I don't believe this statement from you. I think that is exactly what is being disputed. If you actually believed that human beings could change their world, you wouldn't believe that the waterfall at the end is necessitated by the passing of time. These two are completely inconsistent, incompatible, contrary, statements.
- this about the comment of free choice in a determined universe.
I will answer with my corrupted version of the Parable of Death I heard many years ago. Maybe you know it.
A man was walking through a street market in Switzerland with his wife and two children when he looked up and saw Death staring directly at him. The man was terrified and fled the scene. He raced home and threw some items in a bag,grabbed his passport and flew out the door, leaving his wife and children behind. He flew from country to country, backtracking at points to throw death of his trail, until eventually he arrived in Australia four days later. He left the city immediately and headed into the Outback - a huge desolate area where you can see anyone approaching from a hundred kilometers away. Each night he pitched tent and the next day took it down and moved on. On his forth day, he was coming out of a swimming hole when a brown snake - one of the most deadliest in the world bit him. He fell ill instantly and slumped against the tree. His vision began to blur and he blinked it into focus again - only to see Death in front of him once again.
The man looked at Death and said to him: "I am surprised you found me all the way out here. When I saw you at the market in Switzerland I took off. I have flown around the world and thought I had hidden myself well."
Death replied: "You're surprised? You couldn't possibly imagine my surprise when I saw you in that street market in Switzerland with your wife and two children eight days ago, knowing I would be meeting you here alone in Outback Australia today at this moment."
Of course we can make choices. But the choices are fated. The universe is determined.
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life.
What's more since SR only applies to non-accelerating (inertial) frames of references, which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, all of its peculiar paradoxical implications can be discarded into the junk pile. Its only application is science fiction literature.
What is left is GR which had a rather obscure and obtuse expression of time that has nothing to do with time as we experience it or even measure it. If there is something there it will have to be ultimately radically reformulated to describe anything meaningful from an ontological point of view. Gravity remains mysterious.
Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect not SR and GR and for good reason, these theories contradict each other and are a mess, which is the real reason no one understands them or can explain them. SR is irrelevant and GR is a mass of impenetrable equations that say something about the actions of gravity but say nothing about life.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 10, 2017 at 23:19#1135520 likes
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
That is correct. The problem with the space-time conception is that it makes time the fourth dimension of space. But a proper understanding of the passing of time, as a necessary condition for spatial existence, will demonstrate that time should rather be the 0th dimension. This allows for the reality of the non-spatial existence which we understand as ideas and concepts, which are demonstrated to have causal efficacy over the material world. Then we can comprehend real non-dimensional existence, and activity within non-dimensional points. This will shed a new light on the problems of quantum physics because it will enable us to comprehend a real non-dimensional matrix, rather than the inadequate field theory.
You told me that the present had duration. How long is that duration? Is it less than the duration of the entire timeline? There are two conceivable answers.
1. No, the duration is the same - in which case the entire timeline is the present. The present is now. So the entire timeline is happening right now. If that is the case then it is determined.
2. Yes, the duration of the present is shorter than the timeline. In this case the present will run out before it reaches the end of the timeline. Having reached the end of its duration time will freeze. There will be no further progress into the future.
You've forgotten one thing though, time as we know it, only exists as the present comes to pass. So the "entire timeline" is from now until what we call the beginning of time. The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. That answers #1. The second thing is what I said about the human experience of the present. What we call "the present" is limited to how we experience the present. So depending on the context, one might use "the present" to refer to a second, a minute, the day, the year, whatever arbitrary duration one chooses.
The only difference I am proposing, from how we currently use "the present", is that we cannot include any future time in "the present". So if I say "the present hour", it is the hour which has just past. The present minute is the minute which just past, etc.. The future is separated out, as having had no time yet.
Thus, for the argument to stay alive, in addition to duration you might also invoke a breadth for the present and have the breadth span the entire timeline. The breadth is at right angles to the duration of the present. Thus when the present moves it does not move from past to future, but rather sideways across the timeline, so that all instants of the timeline occur now. As you can see though this solution also proves that the future is determined.
The breadth of time is at a right angle to the flow of time, and it's magnitude is a representation of how we experience the present. So we have a time line created by the "flow of time", which begins at the point of "now", and extends into the past. The beginning point, what we call by the name "now", is not a zero dimensional point though. We have to allow for this dimensionality of the point which we call the present now, because if there was none, there could be no motion or activity whatsoever, at the now. But we observe activity at the now, therefore the now has some sort of temporal duration. However, it cannot be the same sort of duration which the timeline expresses because the time line only allows for points in time. If the point of the now has breadth, duration, then the whole timeline must be redrawn to allow that the timeline has breadth.
OK, imagining for a second that none of what I said proves determinism, the question becomes about the interface between the future and the present. Where does this occur? The present is a duration of time which encapsulates me but there is no nebulous haze of future that I can see around me. It is filled with both space and time - nothing is outside of space or time, but we have established that space is determined. Everything in space has a place and is performing an action of some sort. Therefore, the bubble of time you are calling the present must also be determined. It must, at the very least, become determined at the start of the duration of the present. So now you must have not only a determined past, but also a determined present.
You are making a false representation here, referring to "the future that I can see around me". What you see around you is the activity of things. The activity is the result of this process which is the future becoming the past (time passing) This occurs at the present. This activity is "determined", but it is determined by the Platonic Forms, which exist on the future side of the present, it is not determined by what has occurred in the past. Because the present has breadth, the Forms may interact with each other during the process of emanation, at the present. There is an association between the length and breadth of time such that a wider part of last moment is related to a narrower part of this moment. . This interaction provides for the premise that no one particular Form has absolute power of determination over what will occur, at any particular moment, unless there was an omnipotent God or some such thing. The possibilities for interaction of the Forms, are endless, so the possibilities for actions at the present are likewise endless.
So there is no interface between the future and the present, the interface is between the future and the past, and this is what we call the present. Consider that "space" is nothing but a conception which helps us to understand the existence of physical objects. There is no actual space independent from our minds, only things existing. Instead of positing a fixed "space", within which things exist and move around, we need to adjust the concept of space, uniting it with the concept of existing things, such that the things are space, and the activity of things can be understood as the activity of space. Space is in no way fixed, it is defined according to what exists there.
How much more determined can you get than a state of being that is eternal? If it is outside of time, it doesn't change.
The Forms are only outside of time, to the extent that the concept of "time" is currently defined by spatial movements and activities. So the Forms are eternal (outside of time) in relation to this concept of time, which ties time to spatial existence. As soon as we adjust our conception of time, such that space is understood as active and emergent, then we can talk about time prior to spatial existence. This allows that the Forms have actual existence in time, but in a time when there is no spatial existence.
Of course we can make choices. But the choices are fated. The universe is determined.
Insisting that the universe is determined doesn't answer my question of why you contradict yourself. You said it is a fact that human beings can change their world, but you also claim that what's to be, in the future, is already determined, just hidden behind a curtain. So how is it that human beings can change their world when what's to be is just hidden from us. I don't see how this allows for change. You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you?
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
— MikeL
That is correct.
OK, well, I'm glad we can both agree that in the universe as most people understand it, our world is determined.
Now we enter into a theory that has been created for the purpose of proving there is no determinism, and want to debate that instead. That's fine, I'll debate anything, so let's have a look.
Then we can comprehend real non-dimensional existence, and activity within non-dimensional points.
So, what type of activity might we see in a Time dimension with no spatial relationships? The mixing of ideas and concepts? The blueprint of of the coming present?
If the point of the now has breadth, duration, then the whole timeline must be redrawn to allow that the timeline has breadth.
Let's redraw the timeline with the breadth you call the 'now'. That only reinforces that every moment that ever existed is happening now. So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year? It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined.
The second thing is what I said about the human experience of the present. What we call "the present" is limited to how we experience the present. So depending on the context, one might use "the present" to refer to a second, a minute, the day, the year, whatever arbitrary duration one chooses.
I choose the entire timeline from the past to the end of the future? Determined. - but you sense the weakness of the position and the shut that option down when you say: Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The only difference I am proposing, from how we currently use "the present", is that we cannot include any future time in "the present".
Not to worry, sooner or later the nebulous future has to come out from hiding. As soon as it does, it interacts with the space dimensions, immediately rendering it determined. Our present of dubious duration becomes a series of connected determined present moments (if we decide we don't want to superpose all the nows).
You are making a false representation here, referring to "the future that I can see around me". What you see around you is the activity of things. The activity is the result of this process which is the future becoming the past (time passing) This occurs at the present. This activity is "determined", but it is determined by the Platonic Forms, which exist on the future side of the present, it is not determined by what has occurred in the past.
So, we are no longer even arguing that the present- the place we make choice- is determined, only what it is determined by. And you say it is determined by the Platonic Forms on the future side of the present. But I thought you wanted people in the present to have free choice. How can they when they live in a determined world - as determined by the Platonic Forms of the future? Isn't that the argument you're trying to use against me?
Because the present has breadth, the Forms may interact with each other during the process of emanation, at the present.
Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :)
You've forgotten one thing though, time as we know it, only exists as the present comes to pass. So the "entire timeline" is from now until what we call the beginning of time. The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet.
If time has not come into existence in the future yet, then we only have space in the future. Space is full of spatial relations - it is determined, just like the past. Time when it comes along merely sweeps over it, creating the illusion of movement, just like flipping the pages of book with an animated comic drawn on them.
Insisting that the universe is determined doesn't answer my question of why you contradict yourself. You said it is a fact that human beings can change their world, but you also claim that what's to be, in the future, is already determined, just hidden behind a curtain. So how is it that human beings can change their world when what's to be is just hidden from us. I don't see how this allows for change. You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you?
There is no contradiction. Human beings can change their world, that is why their determined paths through time are so complex, rather than straight lines. Do you not think that when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon he made the decision to do so? - a decision you yourself have conceded was determined.
Your theory to prove that the universe is not determined wants to separate time into its own dimension separate from space, but the problem is that it does not mean space no long exists. By taking this position, you create a model where it is the sweep of Time over a determined universe that creates the movement we call the present.
I think you understand this problem and therefore have attempted to dissolve space into time, calling it a concept of the future. The problem with this model is that once again we have time and space together again, causing determination. You might just as well leave them where they were.
Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life.
Do you want me to work with you guys on this or do you prefer me to keep my side? I'm happy enough to jump on your side for a while.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 12, 2017 at 02:35#1139390 likes
OK, well, I'm glad we can both agree that in the universe as most people understand it, our world is determined.
Where do you get this idea, that "most people" understand our universe as determined. Physicists make up a small portion of the people in the world, and not even all of them think that the world is determined. I would say that it's more likely that most people think that the world is not determined, because this is the default position produced by living and choosing. It only seems to be a small number of determinist philosophers who really think that the universe is determined.
So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year?
There's a substantial difference between future and past, that's why, I've gone over this numerous times. You deny this to claim determinism, but it is evident in all of our activities. Without this substantial difference, there is no such thing as "now".
It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined.
Yes it does make sense to preclude the future, because time has not yet come to pass in that realm, so there is literally no time there. And there is separation between time points, because there is two dimensions of time, one which accounts for the breadth of the time points, and one which accounts for the separation (temporal duration) between points. There is no such points in the future, nor is there temporal duration, in the future, because time has not yet passed in the future. Any suggested points, or temporal duration, in the future, are purely hypothetical.
So, we are no longer even arguing that the present- the place we make choice- is determined, only what it is determined by. And you say it is determined by the Platonic Forms on the future side of the present. But I thought you wanted people in the present to have free choice. How can they when they live in a determined world - as determined by the Platonic Forms of the future? Isn't that the argument you're trying to use against me?
As I explained, the Forms offer a seemingly endless numbers of possible combinations, for determining what will occur.. Whichever combinations occur, this determines what happens. People with free choice can choose combinations and make them occur. So as much as you interpret this as "the world is determined", part of this determining is carried out by the free will , which is not itself determined. Either you should interpret this as "part of the world is not determined", the part where free will is, or that the free will is separate from the world which you see as determined.
Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :)
Right, you should always be wary because someone with free will could cause something unexpected, and also undesirable, to happen to you. That's just the nature of reality. Neo-Platonic Forms and such are needed to describe this aspect of reality.
If time has not come into existence in the future yet, then we only have space in the future. Space is full of spatial relations - it is determined, just like the past. Time when it comes along merely sweeps over it, creating the illusion of movement, just like flipping the pages of book with an animated comic drawn on them.
No, that's a faulty conclusion, to say that if there is no time in the future, then there must be space in the future. There is neither of these, and that's why reality is so hard to grasp.
There is no contradiction. Human beings can change their world, that is why their determined paths through time are so complex, rather than straight lines. Do you not think that when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon he made the decision to do so? - a decision you yourself have conceded was determined.
No, you are misrepresenting what I said. I wouldn't say that a free choice is determined. I would say that the activities which occur as the result of a free choice are determined. They are determined by that free choice, but I wouldn't say that the choice itself is determined. Do you see the difference?
Your theory to prove that the universe is not determined wants to separate time into its own dimension separate from space, but the problem is that it does not mean space no long exists.
I already went through the reasons why we must assume that space doesn't exist prior to the present. It's all supported by empirical evidence concerning how human beings have been observed to change the world. It is this empirically based principle which leads to the conclusion that time needs to be separated from space.
You demonstrate a misunderstanding of these principles.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Metaphysician Undercover. Nice debating with you. See you on the next OP. :)
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 13, 2017 at 01:32#1142440 likes
Reply to MikeL
Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I hope you respect the fact that I've explained to you why I believe what I believe, and you haven't yet answered my question of how you can believe that everything in the future is already determined, like it's just behind a curtain, yet you also believe that human beings can change things. How can you hold contradictory beliefs?
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I know what you are saying Metaphysician Undercover. You presented your case well, but I put you in a bind by getting to you to concede to a determined past. In doing so, two different ways of looking at time became conflated.
The first way of looking at time, is in terms of the timeline. The timeline consists of the past, present and future. That is why you found yourself at odds with physics- all I had to do was say space and time and it became determined because every space on the timeline is associated with a time, and the timeline is a path.
The second way of looking at time is as the present. There is no past or future, period. There is only this bubble we live in where I can move things in space, a memory of events and ruminations about what will happen next. There is no need for a Platonic cloud - I think that arose as part of the conflation with the need for a timeline future while preserving the present as the only thing that existed (or maybe you actually think there is one, I don't know).
I do believe that both ways of looking at time allow for choice. In a timeline model I am quite OK with the idea of someone from the future coming to the present with knowledge of what will happen. Maybe I watch too much SciFi.
Which one do I think is truest reflection of reality? The second. The timeline is the construct in our mind.
Like I said, I think you did a good job at articulating your case. I was playing a devil's advocate roll to see if there was a deeper truth about it all I could find as well. When you push back against ideas you find their strength and weaknesses.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 13, 2017 at 20:21#1145500 likes
I know what you are saying Metaphysician Undercover. You presented your case well, but I put you in a bind by getting to you to concede to a determined past. In doing so, two different ways of looking at time became conflated.
Your "two different ways seems to neglect other possibilities. The way I look at time is that the future is substantially different from the past. And this is extremely evident in the way that we approach everything we do and all aspects of our lives. So to deny this is to deny the obvious. But you do deny the obvious, claiming that if the past is determined then so is the future.
Which one do I think is truest reflection of reality? The second. The timeline is the construct in our mind.
No, neither the first nor the second is the "truest reflection of reality". The option I've given you is much more consistent with our experiences and learned lessons.
Like I said, I think you did a good job at articulating your case. I was playing a devil's advocate roll to see if there was a deeper truth about it all I could find as well. When you push back against ideas you find their strength and weaknesses.
Good job then MikeL! At least you were very attentive, and stuck with it trying to understand my twisted logic, right through the entire description. As you say, we'll meet on another thread.
Comments (106)
Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it because existence is an expression of the Great Self Creating Fractal Imperative.
Basically "everything is fractal" :)
I would describe duration (the time of life) as exactly as it seems, i.e. I constant flux of observation and memories. It is all that is. It is not expanding but rather changing and morphing into something new.
Not only can't it be proved, but there is zero experience or evidence of it. Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith, which is fine but it should be worshipped in churches not public schools.
What does philosophy, or even science, have to say about causation?
In the simplest of terms, every event has an influence on what follows downstream in time. You light a fire. It illuminates and gives off light. The light attracts moths and the heat cooks a meal. The moths attract bats and the meal attracts people and so on. A very basic sequence of events; causation isn't this simple but you get the point.
In fact, our lives depend on causation and we (excluding myself) always ponder the consequences of our actions.
If so, it follows that our lives, at least the circumstances of our existence, are subject to causal principles. Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate?
Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism. It is as if people are clueless about the choices they and everyone else is making. The world is exactly as it appears: causal, no control, probabilistic with novelty.
I have some faith in it, but not total faith. Because the very rationalism which leads me to espouse determinism, also recognizes that there is no proof of it. It's an emotional preference, and I recognise it as such, so I win/win. I can have my rationality and eat it. No churchgoer can say that.
Once you decided the universe is causal, then it follows that it is deterministic.
Once you decide the universe is not causal, then you have no right to pretend that you recognize patterns or you can establish rules according to which the world operates.
The universe could , in principle, be a mixture of causal and non-causal. Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation demonstrate quite a strong belief in that don't they?
No,even in principle that is not possible. ESPECIALLY not in principle.
Determinism is not a religion. It is not, because it does not derive from some supernatural authority.
You are mixing up faith with religion. Big mistake.
We have the (possible) example of the Copenhagen interpretation, which demonstrates the principle.
Sure it derives from a supernatural authority called Natural Laws, which in themselves were originally derived from Christian religion. That is your historical chain of events. As an atheist, you believe in fate and supernatural forces guiding your faith, you just leave out the word God. There is literally no difference between your religion and Calvinism. You even have your priests like Dennett. It's all very interesting to observe.
Spheres aren't. Most human constructions aren't.
Can you choose what to have for breakfast? Yes. Does the same effect usually follow cause in controlled conditions? Yes. So some form of compatibilism is true.
Better to actually talk about what you observe in life if you wish to understand life. These mind experiments are parlor games too pass the time and amuse.
I think life is incredibly malleable in this regard. I find true insight comes from making up logical patterns and seeing how life fits. Observing the observable without running it against a pattern even a subconscious pattern I would think limiting in what it reveals. But I think its a case of tomarto, tomAto.
Sure, I take your point. Sometimes though by applying one observed pattern to a different phenomenon insight can be revealed. It has nothing to do with faith - it is a tool I use to find a workable truth.
How would we formulate determinism or fate without causation?
If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it.
At the end of time, looking back I can see the path you walked. It is determined - unless we are invoking the multiple universes theory you did afterall only walk one path right?
You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position.
If you create your path by making choices, then there is no determinism. The fact that the past has already been determined is irrelevant, because you are not standing at the end of time looking back, you are at the present, now. If determinism meant that just the past is already determined, then there would be no conflict between free will and determinism, but determinists think that the future is determined as well. That's why free will and determinism are incompatible.
There is a paradox at work though as seeing the deterministic path before time has passed you along it may cause you to make another choice, breaking the pattern. The key to the paradox however lies in understanding that the changes you make because you saw the future were always the changes you made. It was determined that you would see your future and make the changes.
Perhaps a multiple universes interpretation would not go astray after all.
According to you, Rich, the natural is supernatural.
For the record, I disagree.
But do carry on. Your pseudo-intellectual antics are now starting to become amusing, and to lose their vexing effect.
Well anyone can call supernatural natural. In this manner God is quite natural since S/He is exactly equivalent to Natural Laws. It's all about the nature of religion which words are used. But ultimately Determinism is exactly the same as Calvinism.
I think this is relevant, not sure - So, One of the Hindu gods was sitting around, lonely. For company, he made himself forget he was god, and split himself into many parts. That's us. I have this image of god behind the stage in a puppet theater that includes everything. He plays all the parts, speaks all the voices.
Can't remember where I read that.
You can't. It's all part of the same dogma.
Quoting TheMadFool
Right. You can say anything you want. And Determinism as well as other religions say exactly the same thing using different words. Zero evidence for either which is what makes it a story. But you can say anything you want.
Nice story.
Quoting MikeL
What a mess. "You created", choices, free will, determined". I don't think you left anything out. I suppose you could add all of the synonyms.
So I've already made the choices which I will make tomorrow, concerning the day after tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to say that we've already made the choices which we will make in the future. If you say that these choices are already determined, then they aren't choices at all. What appears as choosing is not. It is an illusion.
So when you went to the shops yesterday, that wasn't a choice? I can see that you did it. The path is written and it happened only once, so it was determined. I can draw a path of every move you've made since the day you were born, all determined, all choices. I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it.
We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so.
If the shapes fit into the holes, Rich, then there's nothing wrong with putting them in.
1) We have memory which shapes our actions and choices.
2) We make choices as to which direction we wish to go and we used will to effect these choices.
3) Results unfold. Nothing is determined since there are enumerable probabilistic events that are also unfolding all around us. (I have no idea where any of gets the idea that anything is predictable. Is anyone actually observing the world?).
4) We learn and new memories are created as duration unfolds.
There are causes (internal and external), there are constraints, there are choices that the mind makes (forget about free will), and there are probabilistic results. This is all in conformance to daily observations. No need to make up absurd stories such as we are computers or chemicals that talk to each other.
When I watch it back on tape, he keeps rolling a seven. He can't do anything else other than roll a seven regardless of how many times I watch it. It is determined, it was determined, it will be revealed as determined. Only if we could back up, keep the variables exactly the same, and have him roll an eight this time would determinism be proven false, but then again so would all the laws of physics.
Take a deep breath and really try to understand. I mean REALLY try to understand. Everyone is so quick to the draw. No patience to deeply observe and understand nature.
Multiple Worlds theory could explain a paradox of making a different choice knowing the outcome ahead of time. But even then, only one path ends up being walked.
For this argument to work, you would need to assume an origin of thought that is spontaneous and independent on any other variables, internal or external.
Of course, sitting at the end of time, I can see when those little blips happened and how it made you choose the path you took.
You seem to be considering determinability and predictability to be coterminous? Or, another question: are determination and predetermination the same? In any case, I would say that determinism, as a metaphysical or ontological postulate, is entirely prejudicial, however unavoidable and indispensable it might be as an underpinning to any naturalistic understanding of the world.
This is not determinismQuoting MikeL
How do you perform this magic? Too much Dr. Who.
Quoting MikeL
Sure, if one can absorb themselves into this mathematical absurdity.
Quoting MikeL
Actually no. You, whoever you might be, is spread out over an infinite mega-universe that is growing exponentially all the time. Do you understand that your concept is far more fantastic than a God. All because of a pre-defined goal of no-God, fated universe. Oh well, one fantasy is as good as the next.
Quoting MikeL
This works. The problem is, and this will end our conversation, is that if I was interested in sci-fi, I would read some of the great authors. For now, I'm interested in philosophy.
I'll be honest. I had to look coterminous up. Good word: having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning. I'm not really thinking in terms of boundaries, other than those of past, present and future. On the face of it the two words seem very similar although I have a little bug on my shoulder telling me there is directional difference between the words. I can't isolate it though.
If you can predict something then it is determinable. If something can be determined then it is predictable- although it may not be considered a prediction if you already know it. Perhaps that's the nagging feeling I have.
The difference is the reference frame. Standing at the present the future is not predictable, however, that it will come to pass is not questioned. A person watching from the future knows the path. That's why we study history. If only Julius Caesar hadn't walked into the forum on that horrible day- but he did, and the rest, as we say, is history - or determined
Quoting Janus
Prejudicial to what?
Have you hear of the "three body problem"? The point is that complex processes are not predictable in any but a probabilistic way. Think of the weather. What will happen weatherwise can be guessed at in an educated (all the more so with the aid of computer modeling) way, but will never be precisely predictable. In any instance of prediction there is always the possibility that we could be way off.
This begs the question as to whether the weather (and the rest of nature) is precisely (rigidly) determined or is merely probabilistic, with genuine novelty always in play and thus there being a truly open future. The point is that we just don't (and cannot) know, and the fact that nature is not 100% predictable could merely be due to our inability to predict complexity, even though that complexity might be 100% rigidly determined. For this reason I cannot say that determinability and predictability are the same.
Quoting MikeL
Prejudicial, that is rationally unfounded, in itself.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say "a person watching from the future" constructs a story of events that he posits as the path.
That's a good point. I guess he would have to be watching from the beginning to know all the path. But yet path there was and it was only the single path.
So we do assume.
The counter though would be to argue that you don't need to know the complexity to see the path that results. Even if the path is ultimately immeasurable at the quantum level, it is only immeasurable to you.
Ultimately a path was walked, knowable or not, and that path was walked only once and was therefore determined.
How do we know that though?
Even if we invoke a Multiple Worlds interpretation of paths. For each timeline, a single path was walked and can therefore be said to be determined.
Of course, according to our understanding a single path was traversed, but does that have any meaning beyond the context of our understanding? In a way this would seem to be a version of naïve realism.
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the path "took a very specific route" how does it follow from that that it must have been determined in an ontological as opposed to a merely epistemological sense?
Can we agree that the past is determined?
The past is determined insofar as we tell our stories that determine it to be like this, and not that. I don't believe there is any timeline apart form our linear (and thus reductive) understanding of time.
Quoting MikeL
In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption.
I quite enjoy your outlook Janus. Let's see though, would it be fair to extrapolate from what you've said that time does not exist in the linear sense? If it did we could track through it, creating a path.
I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".
It is unnatural to call natural supernatural.
I'm enjoying this conversation too, Mike. To answer your question, I would say that time as succession (presuming that is what you mean by "linear time") unquestionably exists for us. Events occurring, some earlier and some later, is what makes our world as experienced intelligible at all.
So, the idea is that it is not a matter of us over here, observing the world over there, but of us being immersed in the dynamic temporal collaboration that is being-in-the-world. There is no world beyond that human being-in-the-world, I would say, following Heidegger.
It's a bit of a puzzle to me how you can ''say anything you want''. This hasn't been the case in my life and, I suppose, this is true for all people. There has to be good reasons for opening one's mouth or putting pen on paper.
What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''?
No you can't skip to the end of time, that's the point. Time is more than just a curtain. What hasn't yet occurred cannot be viewed, it is impossible because it hasn't occurred. The position you argue seems to be based on the false assumption that you can skip around in time. You can't. And if you really think that you can, you should demonstrate this ability.
Quoting MikeL
Again, this is false. Things are not "written" until they are actually written.
In magic, such a illusion is called sleight of hand.
Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK.
I don't know, but that is pretty much what is going on, so I accept it. Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. What's your favorite story about determinism? That it exists? That you can bounce into the future and look back? That everything is fated? That we are all a bag of chemicals being guided by the all-knowing Natural Laws?
Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith?
I get insulted just by the insinuation that all and every human being can't but must worship some god or other. That's nice if you do, and good for you, but leave me out of this cheap thrill.
Natural laws are not omnipotent, and certainly not omniscient. They may be omnipresent, but that is currently up for debate among cosmologists.
You have been imbibing religion, and you can't get your head above the water of seeing the world only as a relationship of sort to a god or gods.
"Beam me up, Scottie, there is life out there more than just religion."
I'm not sure you need to, but that is what you are doing.
Quoting szardosszemagad
Let's just say they prefer the word God, while the Determinatist pseudo-scientific preference is Natural Laws. It's a matter of taste.
Quoting szardosszemagad
Exactly where do they not apply? Where everything ceases to exist? God?
Rich, you are locked in a mindset where you can't imagine a godless universe. Whereas the one we live in can exist very easily without god. Any god.
This is not my shortcoming that you are so closed-minded. If you can't get out of your prison, a prison of needing a god so badly that you believe everyone else needs one, too, then you are really a devout believer. A philosopher, however, in my opinion, you are not.
They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct?
This is becoming abusive @Rich. I humbly suggest you stick to telling us what you think, and stop telling everyone else what they think. Nobody's asked you to psychoanalyze them.
I think you're right on this one. First you have preferences and then you find the philosophy that fits them.
It could also be that there are too many competing philosophies, none more valid than the other, and you have to make a choice. This choice can only made based on preferences.
Quoting Rich
I haven't dived to the right depth yet but causation seems so real to me. You push a stone, it moves. The temperature falls, we get ice. I insult you, you get hurt...and so on. [I]Causation[/i] is built into our worldview - we plan our moves, we think before we speak, we weigh the options, etc. To deny causation is madness.
Then, it's obvious that we're part of this web of causation. Of course, I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part.
I agree, all types of free will are constrained. It's a relative term. I have the free will to fly, but not really.
We all have choices. I agree.
There is no such thing as free will. There are only choices in direction. Duration unfolds as all is resolved.
Human nature shares faith.
Thanks for displaying a low IQ level. Now I know how you are able to cling to your false belief. I told you that laws know nothing, and yet you insist they do.
The cat eventually always comes out of the bag. Your incredible inability to grasp concepts and distinguish between two extant ones shines through. I don't think I need to keep on fighting this Quixotic battle against a Windmill, that you are, Rich; an entity that has no reasonable thought as you have so eloquently and multiply disclosed about yourself.
I am not mocking you or trying to insult you. I just simply observed that you are incapable of realizing that natural laws are not human beings, equipped with the faculty of knowledge. You stated that falsehood now twice; I am convinced you can't be convinced otherwise. Therefore I made the judgment call that you are incapable of real, proper intellectual discourse, as you lack basic elements of reasoning and comprehension, and also lack a sufficient amount of ability for complex thought and complex ideas.
Of course, I expect you now to come back and say that I am the one who lacks reason. That will not daunt me, as it will be a simple knee-jerk reaction by you. I won't even consider it seriously, as it will come from someone, you in particular, who has demonstrated that he or she is not worthy of participating on a philosophy website, by reason of intellectual deficiency.
I know all about God.
As something we can refer to, the future exists. But if "exists" is restricted to definite physical forms, through a physicalist premise, then the future does not exist, because there are no definite physical forms in the future.
Quoting MikeL
Do you recognize that time itself, what is referred to by this word, "time", is not a physical thing? Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence. So we can refer to "the future" without implying any particular material thing. And if we are not referring to any particular material thing, then there is no sense in using the term "determined". We refer to the future, and claim that the future exists, without implying that the future is determined because we are not referring to a particular material object which has determinate existence.
Future and past are immaterial, but what of the present? It must also be immaterial, and yet it contains materiality -- space-time.
Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own.
Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form.
When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not?
Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all. When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two.
Quoting MikeL
I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present.
Quoting MikeL
In your description here, you are looking at the past, and trying to find the separation between past and future there. When you do not find the division between past and future in the past, you claim that there is none. This is a mistaken exercise because you will only find the division between past and future at the present.
Can you, in your mind, separate the things which exist in time, from time itself? If so, let's say something about time itself. Living at the present, do you notice that there is always a future in front of you, and a past behind you? Now let's turn to the physical existence, and see what it is about physical existence which makes the difference between past and future notable. Do you notice that the past is full of things which have already happened and things which have already existed? This is what allows you to have memories, and form visual images of things in the past, they have already existed and been experienced by you. Now bring your focus up to the very close past, right up to the point of what you are doing now, looking at the screen or whatever. The screen has been existing in front of your face continuously, right up to the point of now, and it continues to exist, even now as you read this. But let your mind jump to the future for a moment. You cannot see any screen there, or remember any physical object from the future. The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience. Do you apprehend the nothingness in the future when referring to physical existence?
How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say.
Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities? Thus if a past exists a present exists and a future exists, all must contain space, as space is inseparable from it. We know that the past did indeed contain space- we have memories and books about it, and we know that the present does also contain space, therefore a future must also contain space.
The space that the future contains will have items in it arranged in specific positions, just as it did in the past, just as it does now. Thus it is determined.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Your argument might become that time is feeding through the present like cloth through a sewing machine, at the rate a second per second stitching reality together behind it, but that still assumes the materiality of the future and thus a spatial component which implies a determined relationship between the objects in that future. There can be no stitching of the cloth.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If you choose to make the present the only meaningful description of time, and relegate the future and past to concept, then the premise becomes that all that exists is the present. Zeno's paradox seems to want to come into play at this point and ask exactly what instant of this instant is the present. Surely time is infinitely divisible. Surely time cannot move unless it is continuous.
The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip.
The workaround for this workaround would be to suggest that rather than time being linear in the direction of duration, it is in fact perpendicular to the axis of duration. The present itself stretches across time from left to right (past to future), but moves forward the length of one duration. Thus all present moments are simultaneous - all time is occurring simultaneously. It is right now that the Colosseum is being built and it is right now that Apokrisis is in his spaceship staring out the window at the eternal heat death wishing he'd been wrong.
Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come.
Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future.
Quoting MikeL
No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future).
Quoting MikeL
Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present.
Quoting MikeL
I don't see how you make this conclusion. If we assume two dimensions of time, one is just as real as the other, so it makes no sense to say that we have to forfeit one to enable the other. Therefore the conclusion that all moments exist at the same time is unwarranted.
Quoting MikeL
Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then we cannot hold it as a fundamental principle. And the fact that anything can be destroyed at any moment indicates that there is no spatial existence on that side of the present.
This is no difference at all. Do you think that the people of the past didn't work to avoid unpleasant things and create pleasant ones? It is the story of much of mankind.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point. He says:
"Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time."
That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute. The tortured serpentine paths of the determined past are a reflection of the choices people made. Then, as now, as in the future we may choose to change or annihilate things. It is what gave the past is unique determined shape and gives the future its unique determined shape.
Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it?
If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself? How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment.
This is why it becomes totally deterministic. The entire timeline occurs at once.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There are a few sweeping statements in here I need you to clarify. The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary? That doesn't make sense to me, but if it did, then my next question would be necessary to what?
The second highlighted part builds on from the first. What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Can we destroy space? I had no idea. What happens when we do?
I can point your head at the difference. I can describe it to you. But I can't make you see it. If you do not see that the future is substantially different from the past, then so be it.
Quoting MikeL
Remember, I asked you to differentiate between time, and the things which exist in time. What you manipulate at the present, is spatial existence, not the present itself.
Quoting MikeL
What we cannot hold as a fundamental principle is the continuity of spatial existence, at the present. This is the faulty principle which you will not let go of. And you will not let go of it because you are in denial concerning the very obvious, substantial difference between past and future, which you refuse to acknowledge. All human beings, all the time, recognize that they cannot change the past, but they can work to produce a future which they might like. Do you not see the difference between future and past? The past is fixed, "closed", but as Tom Petty said, "the future was wide open": "Into the Great Wide Open".
Quoting MikeL
Of course he disagrees with me on this point. This is the hole which modern physics has fallen into as a result of people believing that special relativity expresses a truth about time.
Quoting MikeL
No, I don't agree with that at all. First, I do not think that the concept of space-time provides a proper representation of reality, so we must start with a deconstruction of that. Once we have done that then we can see that the passing of time doesn't necessitate any particular spatial event, or existence whatsoever. Now, "the waterfall at the end" is a description of a spatial event. It is not necessitated by the passing of time.
Quoting MikeL
I don't believe this statement from you. I think that is exactly what is being disputed. If you actually believed that human beings could change their world, you wouldn't believe that the waterfall at the end is necessitated by the passing of time. These two are completely inconsistent, incompatible, contrary, statements. You desire to say that human beings can work to avoid an unpleasant future, and produce a pleasant future, but at the same time, you want to say that there are things in the future, which are already fixed, "the waterfall at the end". Then, you take this faulty example, of a thing which is fixed (the waterfall at the end), and proceed through the use of some very faulty inductive reasoning, to claim that all things in the future are fixed, determined just like the past. Now, you base your denial of the very substantial difference between future and past, in this very faulty inductive reasoning.
How can you say, and truly believe what you're saying, "that fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute", when you claim that there is no difference between future and past? Do you believe that human beings can change what has happened in the past? If not, then how can you make that statement in honesty, without allowing for a substantial difference between future and past? You recognize that human beings cannot change the past, then you claim that they can change the future, but you deny a difference between future and past. See the inconsistency?
Quoting MikeL
Spatial existence manifests from the realm of the future. This is where the Neo-Platonic Forms are, which are the cause of material existence. Temporal existence is defined by the passing of time. In the future, time has not yet passed. So these Forms are described as eternal (meaning outside of time, rather than forever in time).
Quoting MikeL
I really don't understand these other questions, perhaps we could take them one at a time, and you could explain more thoroughly the issues which you are questioning.
Quoting MikeL
I don't understand this either. Why would you conclude, that if the present had breadth, it must be wide enough to encompass the entire past? The breadth of the present is defined by how we experience time. So even if yesterday, last year, etc., must be somehow included within the concept, we do not experience those presently, along with our experience of now, except by memory, so their is really no difference, in this respect, between accounting for past events in a one dimensional time, and in a two dimensional time.
Quoting MikeL
Quantum field theory effectively destroys space, and what happens is quantum entanglement.
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Hmmm, is this part of the new theory?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You told me that the present had duration. How long is that duration? Is it less than the duration of the entire timeline? There are two conceivable answers.
1. No, the duration is the same - in which case the entire timeline is the present. The present is now. So the entire timeline is happening right now. If that is the case then it is determined.
2. Yes, the duration of the present is shorter than the timeline. In this case the present will run out before it reaches the end of the timeline. Having reached the end of its duration time will freeze. There will be no further progress into the future.
Thus, for the argument to stay alive, in addition to duration you might also invoke a breadth for the present and have the breadth span the entire timeline. The breadth is at right angles to the duration of the present. Thus when the present moves it does not move from past to future, but rather sideways across the timeline, so that all instants of the timeline occur now. As you can see though this solution also proves that the future is determined.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
OK, imagining for a second that none of what I said proves determinism, the question becomes about the interface between the future and the present. Where does this occur? The present is a duration of time which encapsulates me but there is no nebulous haze of future that I can see around me. It is filled with both space and time - nothing is outside of space or time, but we have established that space is determined. Everything in space has a place and is performing an action of some sort. Therefore, the bubble of time you are calling the present must also be determined. It must, at the very least, become determined at the start of the duration of the present. So now you must have not only a determined past, but also a determined present.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
How much more determined can you get than a state of being that is eternal? If it is outside of time, it doesn't change.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover - this about the comment of free choice in a determined universe.
I will answer with my corrupted version of the Parable of Death I heard many years ago. Maybe you know it.
A man was walking through a street market in Switzerland with his wife and two children when he looked up and saw Death staring directly at him. The man was terrified and fled the scene. He raced home and threw some items in a bag,grabbed his passport and flew out the door, leaving his wife and children behind. He flew from country to country, backtracking at points to throw death of his trail, until eventually he arrived in Australia four days later. He left the city immediately and headed into the Outback - a huge desolate area where you can see anyone approaching from a hundred kilometers away. Each night he pitched tent and the next day took it down and moved on. On his forth day, he was coming out of a swimming hole when a brown snake - one of the most deadliest in the world bit him. He fell ill instantly and slumped against the tree. His vision began to blur and he blinked it into focus again - only to see Death in front of him once again.
The man looked at Death and said to him: "I am surprised you found me all the way out here. When I saw you at the market in Switzerland I took off. I have flown around the world and thought I had hidden myself well."
Death replied: "You're surprised? You couldn't possibly imagine my surprise when I saw you in that street market in Switzerland with your wife and two children eight days ago, knowing I would be meeting you here alone in Outback Australia today at this moment."
Of course we can make choices. But the choices are fated. The universe is determined.
Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life.
What's more since SR only applies to non-accelerating (inertial) frames of references, which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, all of its peculiar paradoxical implications can be discarded into the junk pile. Its only application is science fiction literature.
What is left is GR which had a rather obscure and obtuse expression of time that has nothing to do with time as we experience it or even measure it. If there is something there it will have to be ultimately radically reformulated to describe anything meaningful from an ontological point of view. Gravity remains mysterious.
Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect not SR and GR and for good reason, these theories contradict each other and are a mess, which is the real reason no one understands them or can explain them. SR is irrelevant and GR is a mass of impenetrable equations that say something about the actions of gravity but say nothing about life.
That is correct. The problem with the space-time conception is that it makes time the fourth dimension of space. But a proper understanding of the passing of time, as a necessary condition for spatial existence, will demonstrate that time should rather be the 0th dimension. This allows for the reality of the non-spatial existence which we understand as ideas and concepts, which are demonstrated to have causal efficacy over the material world. Then we can comprehend real non-dimensional existence, and activity within non-dimensional points. This will shed a new light on the problems of quantum physics because it will enable us to comprehend a real non-dimensional matrix, rather than the inadequate field theory.
Quoting MikeL
You've forgotten one thing though, time as we know it, only exists as the present comes to pass. So the "entire timeline" is from now until what we call the beginning of time. The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. That answers #1. The second thing is what I said about the human experience of the present. What we call "the present" is limited to how we experience the present. So depending on the context, one might use "the present" to refer to a second, a minute, the day, the year, whatever arbitrary duration one chooses.
The only difference I am proposing, from how we currently use "the present", is that we cannot include any future time in "the present". So if I say "the present hour", it is the hour which has just past. The present minute is the minute which just past, etc.. The future is separated out, as having had no time yet.
Quoting MikeL
The breadth of time is at a right angle to the flow of time, and it's magnitude is a representation of how we experience the present. So we have a time line created by the "flow of time", which begins at the point of "now", and extends into the past. The beginning point, what we call by the name "now", is not a zero dimensional point though. We have to allow for this dimensionality of the point which we call the present now, because if there was none, there could be no motion or activity whatsoever, at the now. But we observe activity at the now, therefore the now has some sort of temporal duration. However, it cannot be the same sort of duration which the timeline expresses because the time line only allows for points in time. If the point of the now has breadth, duration, then the whole timeline must be redrawn to allow that the timeline has breadth.
Quoting MikeL
You are making a false representation here, referring to "the future that I can see around me". What you see around you is the activity of things. The activity is the result of this process which is the future becoming the past (time passing) This occurs at the present. This activity is "determined", but it is determined by the Platonic Forms, which exist on the future side of the present, it is not determined by what has occurred in the past. Because the present has breadth, the Forms may interact with each other during the process of emanation, at the present. There is an association between the length and breadth of time such that a wider part of last moment is related to a narrower part of this moment. . This interaction provides for the premise that no one particular Form has absolute power of determination over what will occur, at any particular moment, unless there was an omnipotent God or some such thing. The possibilities for interaction of the Forms, are endless, so the possibilities for actions at the present are likewise endless.
So there is no interface between the future and the present, the interface is between the future and the past, and this is what we call the present. Consider that "space" is nothing but a conception which helps us to understand the existence of physical objects. There is no actual space independent from our minds, only things existing. Instead of positing a fixed "space", within which things exist and move around, we need to adjust the concept of space, uniting it with the concept of existing things, such that the things are space, and the activity of things can be understood as the activity of space. Space is in no way fixed, it is defined according to what exists there.
Quoting MikeL
The Forms are only outside of time, to the extent that the concept of "time" is currently defined by spatial movements and activities. So the Forms are eternal (outside of time) in relation to this concept of time, which ties time to spatial existence. As soon as we adjust our conception of time, such that space is understood as active and emergent, then we can talk about time prior to spatial existence. This allows that the Forms have actual existence in time, but in a time when there is no spatial existence.
Quoting MikeL
Insisting that the universe is determined doesn't answer my question of why you contradict yourself. You said it is a fact that human beings can change their world, but you also claim that what's to be, in the future, is already determined, just hidden behind a curtain. So how is it that human beings can change their world when what's to be is just hidden from us. I don't see how this allows for change. You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you?
OK, well, I'm glad we can both agree that in the universe as most people understand it, our world is determined.
Now we enter into a theory that has been created for the purpose of proving there is no determinism, and want to debate that instead. That's fine, I'll debate anything, so let's have a look.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
A time outside of space is fine with me.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So, what type of activity might we see in a Time dimension with no spatial relationships? The mixing of ideas and concepts? The blueprint of of the coming present?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is analogous to the sewing machine example I gave before, which showed a determined future.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Let's redraw the timeline with the breadth you call the 'now'. That only reinforces that every moment that ever existed is happening now. So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year? It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I choose the entire timeline from the past to the end of the future? Determined. - but you sense the weakness of the position and the shut that option down when you say: Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Not to worry, sooner or later the nebulous future has to come out from hiding. As soon as it does, it interacts with the space dimensions, immediately rendering it determined. Our present of dubious duration becomes a series of connected determined present moments (if we decide we don't want to superpose all the nows).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So, we are no longer even arguing that the present- the place we make choice- is determined, only what it is determined by. And you say it is determined by the Platonic Forms on the future side of the present. But I thought you wanted people in the present to have free choice. How can they when they live in a determined world - as determined by the Platonic Forms of the future? Isn't that the argument you're trying to use against me?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :)
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Here's the entire quote so you know I have not taken you out of context: Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If time has not come into existence in the future yet, then we only have space in the future. Space is full of spatial relations - it is determined, just like the past. Time when it comes along merely sweeps over it, creating the illusion of movement, just like flipping the pages of book with an animated comic drawn on them.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There is no contradiction. Human beings can change their world, that is why their determined paths through time are so complex, rather than straight lines. Do you not think that when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon he made the decision to do so? - a decision you yourself have conceded was determined.
Your theory to prove that the universe is not determined wants to separate time into its own dimension separate from space, but the problem is that it does not mean space no long exists. By taking this position, you create a model where it is the sweep of Time over a determined universe that creates the movement we call the present.
I think you understand this problem and therefore have attempted to dissolve space into time, calling it a concept of the future. The problem with this model is that once again we have time and space together again, causing determination. You might just as well leave them where they were.
Quoting Rich
Do you want me to work with you guys on this or do you prefer me to keep my side? I'm happy enough to jump on your side for a while.
Where do you get this idea, that "most people" understand our universe as determined. Physicists make up a small portion of the people in the world, and not even all of them think that the world is determined. I would say that it's more likely that most people think that the world is not determined, because this is the default position produced by living and choosing. It only seems to be a small number of determinist philosophers who really think that the universe is determined.
Quoting MikeL
There's a substantial difference between future and past, that's why, I've gone over this numerous times. You deny this to claim determinism, but it is evident in all of our activities. Without this substantial difference, there is no such thing as "now".
Quoting MikeL
Yes it does make sense to preclude the future, because time has not yet come to pass in that realm, so there is literally no time there. And there is separation between time points, because there is two dimensions of time, one which accounts for the breadth of the time points, and one which accounts for the separation (temporal duration) between points. There is no such points in the future, nor is there temporal duration, in the future, because time has not yet passed in the future. Any suggested points, or temporal duration, in the future, are purely hypothetical.
Quoting MikeL
As I explained, the Forms offer a seemingly endless numbers of possible combinations, for determining what will occur.. Whichever combinations occur, this determines what happens. People with free choice can choose combinations and make them occur. So as much as you interpret this as "the world is determined", part of this determining is carried out by the free will , which is not itself determined. Either you should interpret this as "part of the world is not determined", the part where free will is, or that the free will is separate from the world which you see as determined.
Quoting MikeL
Right, you should always be wary because someone with free will could cause something unexpected, and also undesirable, to happen to you. That's just the nature of reality. Neo-Platonic Forms and such are needed to describe this aspect of reality.
Quoting MikeL
No, that's a faulty conclusion, to say that if there is no time in the future, then there must be space in the future. There is neither of these, and that's why reality is so hard to grasp.
Quoting MikeL
No, you are misrepresenting what I said. I wouldn't say that a free choice is determined. I would say that the activities which occur as the result of a free choice are determined. They are determined by that free choice, but I wouldn't say that the choice itself is determined. Do you see the difference?
Quoting MikeL
I already went through the reasons why we must assume that space doesn't exist prior to the present. It's all supported by empirical evidence concerning how human beings have been observed to change the world. It is this empirically based principle which leads to the conclusion that time needs to be separated from space.
You demonstrate a misunderstanding of these principles.
Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I hope you respect the fact that I've explained to you why I believe what I believe, and you haven't yet answered my question of how you can believe that everything in the future is already determined, like it's just behind a curtain, yet you also believe that human beings can change things. How can you hold contradictory beliefs?
The first way of looking at time, is in terms of the timeline. The timeline consists of the past, present and future. That is why you found yourself at odds with physics- all I had to do was say space and time and it became determined because every space on the timeline is associated with a time, and the timeline is a path.
The second way of looking at time is as the present. There is no past or future, period. There is only this bubble we live in where I can move things in space, a memory of events and ruminations about what will happen next. There is no need for a Platonic cloud - I think that arose as part of the conflation with the need for a timeline future while preserving the present as the only thing that existed (or maybe you actually think there is one, I don't know).
I do believe that both ways of looking at time allow for choice. In a timeline model I am quite OK with the idea of someone from the future coming to the present with knowledge of what will happen. Maybe I watch too much SciFi.
Which one do I think is truest reflection of reality? The second. The timeline is the construct in our mind.
Like I said, I think you did a good job at articulating your case. I was playing a devil's advocate roll to see if there was a deeper truth about it all I could find as well. When you push back against ideas you find their strength and weaknesses.
Your "two different ways seems to neglect other possibilities. The way I look at time is that the future is substantially different from the past. And this is extremely evident in the way that we approach everything we do and all aspects of our lives. So to deny this is to deny the obvious. But you do deny the obvious, claiming that if the past is determined then so is the future.
Quoting MikeL
No, neither the first nor the second is the "truest reflection of reality". The option I've given you is much more consistent with our experiences and learned lessons.
Quoting MikeL
Good job then MikeL! At least you were very attentive, and stuck with it trying to understand my twisted logic, right through the entire description. As you say, we'll meet on another thread.