“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[bilby]

In any event, the future is not observable. Maybe it is most correct to say that the future has never been observed from any present.

The future is not observable from the reference frame of those for whom it is the future. But it is observable from other frames of reference, for which it is the past.

Observers in different reference frames need not agree on the order in which observed events occurred; There is no universally agreed "now", and "future" or "past" are defined by reference to "now".

There is only a "present" if all those using the term share a reference frame.

No human has ever travelled at relativistic velocities, so all humans agree on a "present" (to a precision so high as to render the disagreement undetectable*). But that doesn't make simultaneity universal, any more than "nature abhors a vacuum" was true before any human had been to space.

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








* The Apollo astronauts have experienced the most relativistic time dilatation of any human, at around 3 to 4 microseconds, which is three or four orders of magnitude below the threshold of human perception at around 10 milliseconds.

 

[pood]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

 

[bilby]

I believe he is deriving the equivalency of the past, present and future by appealing to the theory of relativity, which is a perfectly sensible thing to do, while always bearing in mind that since we do not have at present a way to reconcile the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, if and when we do get such a reconciliation we may have further surprises in store with regard to time and space.

Whatever surprises might be in store, it will remain true that moving clocks run slow - because this is an observed fact.

When Einstein developed Relativity, not one of the observed effects of Newtonian mechanics altered in any way; Only the observations that were in conflict with Newton changed their status, but not their actuality, in that they now became explicable and predictable.

Any future theory that replaces Relativity must and will include a prediction that moving clocks will run slow, because if the new theory cannot predict this observed fact about reality, it cannot replace the current theory of Relativity, which does successfully and accurately predict that observation.

Advances in science always reduce the number of possible ways in which reality might behave; Science is, in a very real sense, the elimination of that which is not possible. We have a feeling that science makes more things possible, but it does not - it opens to us more areas of the vast "possibility space" that is reality, not by adding new ways forward, but by removing blind paths.

Science doesn't tell engineers how to build a rocket that will get to the Moon, so much as it tells them how not to build one, so they don't waste time and effort trying to do it that way.

 

[pood]

Of course, relative simulatenity only occurs with spacelike separation as opposed to timelike, but that is orthogonal to the main point. Still it probably should be mentioned.

 

[Elixir]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

You’re expected to correct for that, so that “the time” the flash happened always refers to where the flash’s electrons turned air into plasma! Otherwise conversation is meaningless.
/s

 

[pood]

I believe he is deriving the equivalency of the past, present and future by appealing to the theory of relativity, which is a perfectly sensible thing to do, while always bearing in mind that since we do not have at present a way to reconcile the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, if and when we do get such a reconciliation we may have further surprises in store with regard to time and space.

Whatever surprises might be in store, it will remain true that moving clocks run slow - because this is an observed fact.

When Einstein developed Relativity, not one of the observed effects of Newtonian mechanics altered in any way; Only the observations that were in conflict with Newton changed their status, but not their actuality, in that they now became explicable and predictable.

Any future theory that replaces Relativity must and will include a prediction that moving clocks will run slow, because if the new theory cannot predict this observed fact about reality, it cannot replace the current theory of Relativity, which does successfully and accurately predict that observation.

Advances in science always reduce the number of possible ways in which reality might behave; Science is, in a very real sense, the elimination of that which is not possible. We have a feeling that science makes more things possible, but it does not - it opens to us more areas of the vast "possibility space" that is reality, not by adding new ways forward, but by removing blind paths.

Science doesn't tell engineers how to build a rocket that will get to the Moon, so much as it tells them how not to build one, so they don't waste time and effort trying to do it that way.

Yes, that’s true, but I was referring specifically to this notion of a block universe, that the future, past and present all exist. There may still be ways for this not to be true. Damned if I can see what they are, though.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Sure, the block world maybe possibly false or true, but from my perspective it doesn’t really matter. A proposition about the future can be true even in advance of the event it describes happening, so there are now a vast number of true statements about the future, even if we don’t know what they are. For me the main point, as I have discussed, is that the future can be as fixed as the past, without curtailing compatibilist free will.

Given the "can" in your "can be true in advance", I read that as a conditional statement. So as not to have to bring epistemic considerations into this, I here limit the context to the (meta)physical. So, would I say:

a) "It is (meta)physically true that Michael goes to the mountains tomorrow", or would I say
b) "It is actually (meta)physically true that Michael goes to the mountains tomorrow", or would I say
c) "It is possibly (meta)physically true that Michael goes to the mountains tomorrow"?

I choose c) which would actually be expressed as "It is possibly true that Michael goes to the mountains tomorrow." It so happens that your conditional "can" certainly appears to align with my "possibly".

Now, what is actually true is that Michael plans on going to the mountains tomorrow. If Michael actually goes to the mountains tomorrow, it is possibly true that he will not have internet access. And, so far as I can tell, my point about the semantics still holds. Remember, I have no problem understanding and expressing compatibilism in terms of "free from", and some/many compatibilists are completely satisfied with being "free from". That's fine. It is the experienced "free to" for which I do not yet see a way to express in terms of compatibilism. And if it cannot be expressed coherently, frankly, in itself, that is fine as well. After all, it is how reality is experienced which is far more important than the (meta)physics of any variety of determinism.

 

[pood]

Sure, the block world maybe possibly false or true, but from my perspective it doesn’t really matter. A proposition about the future can be true even in advance of the event it describes happening, so there are now a vast number of true statements about the future, even if we don’t know what they are. For me the main point, as I have discussed, is that the future can be as fixed as the past, without curtailing compatibilist free will.

Given the "can" in your "can be true in advance", I read that as a conditional statement. So as not to have to bring epistemic considerations into this, I here limit the context to the (meta)physical. So, would I say:

I suppose I should have said, “propositions are truth-valued in advance of the events they describe — that is, they are already true or false, even before said events occur. Which means they can be true, or they can be false. But they will be one or the other.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

In any event, the future is not observable. Maybe it is most correct to say that the future has never been observed from any present.

The future is not observable from the reference frame of those for whom it is the future. But it is observable from other frames of reference, for which it is the past.

Observers in different reference frames need not agree on the order in which observed events occurred; There is no universally agreed "now", and "future" or "past" are defined by reference to "now".

There is only a "present" if all those using the term share a reference frame.

No human has ever travelled at relativistic velocities, so all humans agree on a "present" (to a precision so high as to render the disagreement undetectable*). But that doesn't make simultaneity universal, any more than "nature abhors a vacuum" was true before any human had been to space.

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








* The Apollo astronauts have experienced the most relativistic time dilatation of any human, at around 3 to 4 microseconds, which is three or four orders of magnitude below the threshold of human perception at around 10 milliseconds.

Yes. I understand all that. It is compatible with what I said. The future has never been observed from any present, but there are occasions of observing a past from a present. There is asymmetry in observability. Nothing I said is contradicted.

 

[pood]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

You’re expected to correct for that, so that “the time” the flash happened always refers to where the flash’s electrons turned air into plasma! Otherwise conversation is meaningless.
/s

Not sure I follow. The phenomenon refers to when the photons make contact with the eye, for which there will be a delay because of the finite speed of light.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Sure, the block world maybe possibly false or true, but from my perspective it doesn’t really matter. A proposition about the future can be true even in advance of the event it describes happening, so there are now a vast number of true statements about the future, even if we don’t know what they are. For me the main point, as I have discussed, is that the future can be as fixed as the past, without curtailing compatibilist free will.

Given the "can" in your "can be true in advance", I read that as a conditional statement. So as not to have to bring epistemic considerations into this, I here limit the context to the (meta)physical. So, would I say:

I suppose I should have said, “propositions are truth-valued in advance of the events they describe — that is, they are already true or false, even before said events occur. Which means they can be true, or they can be false. But they will be one or the other.

And that is perfectly in keeping with what I said.

 

[bilby]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

You’re expected to correct for that, so that “the time” the flash happened always refers to where the flash’s electrons turned air into plasma! Otherwise conversation is meaningless.
/s

Not sure I follow. The phenomenon refers to when the photons make contact with the eye, for which there will be a delay because of the finite speed of light.

[peacegirl]Not if the light is already at the eye, because the event is large enough and luminous enough. Then the image can be formed by the mind of the observer at the exact instant that the event occurs, even though the light from the event will still take some time to arrive.[/peacegirl]

 

[pood]

Sure, the block world maybe possibly false or true, but from my perspective it doesn’t really matter. A proposition about the future can be true even in advance of the event it describes happening, so there are now a vast number of true statements about the future, even if we don’t know what they are. For me the main point, as I have discussed, is that the future can be as fixed as the past, without curtailing compatibilist free will.

Given the "can" in your "can be true in advance", I read that as a conditional statement. So as not to have to bring epistemic considerations into this, I here limit the context to the (meta)physical. So, would I say:

I suppose I should have said, “propositions are truth-valued in advance of the events they describe — that is, they are already true or false, even before said events occur. Which means they can be true, or they can be false. But they will be one or the other.

And that is perfectly in keeping with what I said.

Yes, well the point is that Aristotle and other denied this, and I suppose maybe some still do, but it makes perfect logical sense.

 

[pood]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

You’re expected to correct for that, so that “the time” the flash happened always refers to where the flash’s electrons turned air into plasma! Otherwise conversation is meaningless.
/s

Not sure I follow. The phenomenon refers to when the photons make contact with the eye, for which there will be a delay because of the finite speed of light.

[peacegirl]Not if the light is already at the eye, because the event is large enough and luminous enough. Then the image can be formed by the mind of the observer at the exact instant that the event occurs, even though the light from the event will still take some time to arrive.[/peacegirl]

Yes, at another board the theory of relativity did not sit well with her. In the end, she declared it to be false. Well, glad that’s settled, then!

 

[Elixir]

Not sure I follow.

Nothing to follow! That's why the sarcasm tag. Unless we're talking about GPS, "real time" is disregarded even though it dominates at macro scales.

 

[pood]

Not sure I follow.

Nothing to follow! That's why the sarcasm tag. Unless we're talking about GPS, "real time" is disregarded even though it dominates at macro scales.

Oh, I see, I overlooked the /s. My bad!

 

[peacegirl]

The above illustrates the point. What I call “now” and “here” for that matter is an indexical, a frame of reference. In Einstein’s relativity train experiment, the two lighting flashes for the ground observer happen simultaneously. For the passenger on the train, the flash at the front of the train happens first, because the train is rushing toward it, and the flash at the back happens sometime later. If there were a third train rushing in the opposite direction of the first train, the observer on that train would see the flash happening at the back of the train first, followed by the flash at the front. Three different observers have three different temporal accounts of when the flashes occurred, and all are correct, because the question of when the flashes *really* happened is meaningless unless one specifies a reference frame.

You’re expected to correct for that, so that “the time” the flash happened always refers to where the flash’s electrons turned air into plasma! Otherwise conversation is meaningless.
/s

Not sure I follow. The phenomenon refers to when the photons make contact with the eye, for which there will be a delay because of the finite speed of light.

[peacegirl]Not if the light is already at the eye, because the event is large enough and luminous enough. Then the image can be formed by the mind of the observer at the exact instant that the event occurs, even though the light from the event will still take some time to arrive.[/peacegirl]

It's not about the image being formed by the mind of the observer. It is about seeing the object directly, which takes no time. But like DBT said, it takes a well-functioning brain to interpret what is seen through language.

 

[steve_bank]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

 

[peacegirl]

Real time and instantaneous are not the same thing. There is physically no such thing as instantaneous. Colloquially an instantaneous response to a situation means responding as it happens. You don't have a cup of coffee before taking action.

When I watch a football game on TV it is In real time, the delay is inconsequential, I see it as it is happening.

Two people communicating on the forum are in real time even though there are propagation delays.

Two people talking on a cell phone are talking in real time.

GPS is a real time system.

You can name it however you want. He was making a distinction between light traveling with the information to the eye and converted by the brain into an image, which takes time, versus seeing the object instantly as we turn our gaze toward it due to efferent vision which does not involve travel time or a distance to traverse. The properties of light don’t change, only an understanding as to how the eyes function.

 

[DBT]

The point of freedom of choice is that you can take any option at any given time a number of options are presented

And you *can* it's just that you *won't*.

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined!

“It might be true that you would have done otherwise if you had wanted, though it is determined that you did not, in fact, want otherwise.” - Robert Kane

We have discussed this thousands of times now: can means there are "possibilities" that you can observe, not "actualities". "Possibilities" are always "events that happen if/where/when..."

The compatibilist definition of free will does not include ''a lot of different things can happen in the world.''

Nope, it does, because a lot of different things can and do happen in the world. At Tom's diner, we can see someone being stiffed, only getting half a coffee, whereas in Marvin's diner we can see something different happening involving a gun toting psychopath.

Clearly different things happen in different places.

Nobody is disputing that all sorts different things can and do happen, all the time and all over the world, but as explained multiple times, this has absolutely nothing to do with free will, compatibilism or determinism.

In fact, this would necessarily have to be the interpretation of "possibility".

This is because libertarians are defining it that way too just along a different spatial dimension.

If it's OK to recognize possibilities at different locations in (n + 1) dimensions, it's OK to recognize it at different locations in ( n ) dimensions. The math doesn't change in structure adding or removing dimensions, really, as long as you still have at least one dimension on the input.

Different things can and do happen, so we see different things that happen as possibilities. These things can happen.....but if we are talking about determinism, and our perception of the world is limited to appearances rather than underlying causality and outcomes fixed by antecedents, what we see as possibilities are in fact inevitabilities.

And that is why compatibilism has carefully crafted a definition of free will, albeit flawed, to suit.