What is the difference between present and past?

[untermensche]

The paper burnt will not unburn.

It can, but it's unlikely.

I do not believe you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Increasing entropy is often the constant of what makes the present different from the past. But we also know that entropy is only statistical; it doesn't always have to be that way. So given enough universes, there will eventually be a universe exactly like ours that starts complex, but decreases its entropy as much as our universe increases entropy. This universe would be exactly like ours except it would go backwards.

So, what would this universe be like; would we consciously go from its "early" high entropy state to its lower entropy state? Or would we somehow consciously go from its end to its beginning, in which case there would be no conscious difference between our universe and this "backward" universe? I am really confused.

It's so weird to think about this without assuming or at least considering what the consciousness is and how it relates to entropy/time/present/past/future.

I think we have to assume that our sense of time results from the biological properties of the human brain. The sense of time that a human has is grounded in each of the states its brain is in, which is to say that is it independent of the direction in which consecutive states occur, if any. Since it is a sense, it can go wrong, just like vision and hearing. So, we shouldn't make too much of what our sense tells us, just like it would be absurd to insist that since we see colours as red, blue, yellow etc. then we should expect that the world is indeed somehow red, blue and yellow.

So the question may be like this: Assuming there is an objective time, i.e. beyond our sense of time, how would our sense of time be affected if for example the universe suddenly went backward, for example for doing the Big Crunch. Given my assumption, the answer is simple. At the moment that the universe would be moving backward through a particular point in objective time, our brain would go through the same successive subjective states it had gone through before the Big Crunch started, and we would somewhat stupidly think of the current time in the exact same way as we had at the same point in objective time during the post-Big Bang expansion. So, we would look forward to having brilliant future even though we would in fact be going with the rest of the universe towards our common past. We would look like idiots.

This suggest there is something wrong in our assumptions. For example, it may not be true that the universe could possibly go backward in time. Maybe be the universe would have a Big Crunch phase but time would just go on forward and the Big Crunch would not be the inverse replica of the Big Bang expansion. With the consequence that although we are here today during expansion time, we probably won't be there at the broad equivalent of today during the Crunch period.

In this sense, our sense of time, although grounded in each brain state independently of the other states, is an indication that the arrow of time is significant, possibly even an ontological reality, even if we can expect to have access to it ever as such. All we will ever have is our sense of time.

Enough for now.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think you're both onto something with the relationship between consciousness and time. My personal feeling is that consciousness itself simply is the flow of time, and the flow of time is simply consciousness. I guess that puts me in the Barbour camp.

A great tweet was posted by Sean Carroll some years ago, in which he was trying to be intentionally obtuse to show the consequences of believing time's flow is an illusion:

My consciousness freely travels up and down my world line, but sadly it only carries the memories appropriate to the moment it inhabits.

I think he is describing a reality. Furthermore, I think he could have said that consciousness travels up and down all the world lines of all conscious beings, carrying only the memories appropriate to the moment and the being it inhabits. None of this would contradict our experience, and it solves many conceptual problems to interpret things this way.

Damn right you are (and he was).
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Increasing entropy is often the constant of what makes the present different from the past. But we also know that entropy is only statistical; it doesn't always have to be that way. So given enough universes, there will eventually be a universe exactly like ours that starts complex, but decreases its entropy as much as our universe increases entropy.

If what happens is fundamentally statistical then there are no fundamental laws of nature. There are just by-laws applying locally to this universe and different by-laws applying to that universe. Laws only in appearance.

If so, going further, there should be universes with events so messed up no coherent structure could possibly emerge, therefore no recognisable laws, and definitely no life in any recognisable sense of the word. According to your hypothesis, such universes would have to exist as well. And why not? Who said physics had to be coherent in some way? God?

This universe would be exactly like ours except it would go backwards.

You can have your cake and eat it. No, sorry.

So, either it would be another phase of the same universe, exactly like the current phase we are in, but going backward in time, which require that time would keep going forward, so to speak.

Or, do we want to say that time itself would reverse? Then I'm not sure what it would mean in terms of phases. If time itself was going backward, then backward relative to what? You can rely on the idea of successive moments to define direction because "successive" has to be explained to. Successive relative to what? This would suggest that time would be relative to something else. Like what?

And if time keeps going forward, if the universe is subject to statistical evolution then the second phase, the Big Crunch, need not be identical to the Big Bang expansion in reverse.
EB

 

[ryan]

It can, but it's unlikely.

I do not believe you.

If QM is true, then the position of all particles are just statistical occurrences. If you wait long enough, any statistical possibility will become probable. This is a well-known implication of QM.

 

[ryan]

So then the other option is what interests me. If a universe essentially did the opposite of what our universe does, we all would be doing everything backwards. So if the consciousness does go with this universe in a backwards fashion, would it go backwards in the backwards universe giving every consciousness the same kind of progressive experiences that we have in this universe?

I don't see how. Causation is a temporal relationship between two events, where the occurrence of the result depends on the occurrence of the antecedent. That dependency is usually conceived of in terms of a physical force--a loss of energy during the transition between events--which depends entirely on the progression of entropy. Consciousness depends on memory, but the memory of a reverse-entropy entity would be constantly disappearing. There would be no basis for consciousness to function as a guidance mechanism. No way for memory to develop or a mind to mature.

I feel like you are answering the last question. The last question was about whether or not the consciousness could go forward in a reversing universe. But now I am wondering the other possibility. Would the consciousness somehow start at the end of the backwards universe, ignore time, and progress exactly how it progress in this universe?

In other words, does the consciousness depend on time? If it doesn't, why does it go through the 4 dimensions at all? Or does time even need to exist? Could the universe just be a 3d structure with no time dimension extending into the past and future?

 

[ryan]

Increasing entropy is often the constant of what makes the present different from the past. But we also know that entropy is only statistical; it doesn't always have to be that way. So given enough universes, there will eventually be a universe exactly like ours that starts complex, but decreases its entropy as much as our universe increases entropy. This universe would be exactly like ours except it would go backwards.

So, what would this universe be like; would we consciously go from its "early" high entropy state to its lower entropy state? Or would we somehow consciously go from its end to its beginning, in which case there would be no conscious difference between our universe and this "backward" universe? I am really confused.

It's so weird to think about this without assuming or at least considering what the consciousness is and how it relates to entropy/time/present/past/future.

I think we have to assume that our sense of time results from the biological properties of the human brain. The sense of time that a human has is grounded in each of the states its brain is in, which is to say that is it independent of the direction in which consecutive states occur, if any. Since it is a sense, it can go wrong, just like vision and hearing. So, we shouldn't make too much of what our sense tells us, just like it would be absurd to insist that since we see colours as red, blue, yellow etc. then we should expect that the world is indeed somehow red, blue and yellow.

So the question may be like this: Assuming there is an objective time, i.e. beyond our sense of time, how would our sense of time be affected if for example the universe suddenly went backward, for example for doing the Big Crunch. Given my assumption, the answer is simple. At the moment that the universe would be moving backward through a particular point in objective time, our brain would go through the same successive subjective states it had gone through before the Big Crunch started, and we would somewhat stupidly think of the current time in the exact same way as we had at the same point in objective time during the post-Big Bang expansion. So, we would look forward to having brilliant future even though we would in fact be going with the rest of the universe towards our common past. We would look like idiots.

This suggest there is something wrong in our assumptions. For example, it may not be true that the universe could possibly go backward in time. Maybe be the universe would have a Big Crunch phase but time would just go on forward and the Big Crunch would not be the inverse replica of the Big Bang expansion. With the consequence that although we are here today during expansion time, we probably won't be there at the broad equivalent of today during the Crunch period.

In this sense, our sense of time, although grounded in each brain state independently of the other states, is an indication that the arrow of time is significant, possibly even an ontological reality, even if we can expect to have access to it ever as such. All we will ever have is our sense of time.

Enough for now.
EB

Yeah, I don't even know why I bother. We don't even know the true nature of time and what our consciousness has to do with it (assuming consciousness even exists); and like you said, what is really, ontological going on out there, beyond the biology. Those are some big gaps to fill in with assumptions.

I think maybe it will become more clear in 100 years, but imagine if it only got more complicated?!

 

[untermensche]

I do not believe you.

If QM is true, then the position of all particles are just statistical occurrences. If you wait long enough, any statistical possibility will become probable. This is a well-known implication of QM.

Not for one observer.

And none of that can be proven.

 

[ryan]

If QM is true, then the position of all particles are just statistical occurrences. If you wait long enough, any statistical possibility will become probable. This is a well-known implication of QM.

Not for one observer.

What do you mean? It's for everything. There is a chance that the whole universe can turn into pumpkin tomorrow!

And none of that can be proven.

QM is about as strong as a theory gets. I don't know what standards you are using, but they should be somewhat reasonable. Science is as good as it gets for knowledge about the universe.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't see how. Causation is a temporal relationship between two events, where the occurrence of the result depends on the occurrence of the antecedent. That dependency is usually conceived of in terms of a physical force--a loss of energy during the transition between events--which depends entirely on the progression of entropy. Consciousness depends on memory, but the memory of a reverse-entropy entity would be constantly disappearing. There would be no basis for consciousness to function as a guidance mechanism. No way for memory to develop or a mind to mature.

I feel like you are answering the last question. The last question was about whether or not the consciousness could go forward in a reversing universe. But now I am wondering the other possibility. Would the consciousness somehow start at the end of the backwards universe, ignore time, and progress exactly how it progress in this universe?

In other words, does the consciousness depend on time? If it doesn't, why does it go through the 4 dimensions at all? Or does time even need to exist? Could the universe just be a 3d structure with no time dimension extending into the past and future?

My point was that it very much depends on time. That is, the whole point of consciousness is to guide moving bodies around so that they survive and reproduce. Survival demands an awareness of the immediate conditions. An ability to predict future conditions would definitely tend to favor survival. That is, it would be an evolutionary advantage. So, yes, consciousness depends on time and temporal causal chains. Without temporal progression, there would be no reason for consciousness to evolve.

 

[untermensche]

Not for one observer.

What do you mean? It's for everything. There is a chance that the whole universe can turn into pumpkin tomorrow!

And none of that can be proven.

QM is about as strong as a theory gets. I don't know what standards you are using, but they should be somewhat reasonable. Science is as good as it gets for knowledge about the universe.

The theory is strong.

Your claims without any evidence at all about what it means are empty.

I do not believe you for a second.

I know there are some who share your faith.

I do not believe any of you for a second.

You can't get me to believe nonsense like that without proof. Not equations and what people make from those equations, evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My point was that it very much depends on time. That is, the whole point of consciousness is to guide moving bodies around so that they survive and reproduce. Survival demands an awareness of the immediate conditions. An ability to predict future conditions would definitely tend to favor survival. That is, it would be an evolutionary advantage. So, yes, consciousness depends on time and temporal causal chains. Without temporal progression, there would be no reason for consciousness to evolve.

You seem to be trying to interpret the movements of the stars in the night's sky from what you know of how the economy of your back garden works in broad daylight.

There's a very large gap between causation as something fundamentally associated with the human experience, and the concept of time as a necessary parameter in fundamental physics. There are two levels here: one is pedestrianly human and the other is awesomely metaphysical.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Time is necessary to process. It is convenient to apply cause to process as in if this then that. Human beings are conglomerates of process. Cause is presumed in time based systems composing that conglomerate. What's so metaphysical about that?

Experience is a reading of information by a process. Experience is one thing that can happen with information produced by humans. Experience can be seen as a reaction to information by suitably designed processes. Really, what's the problem?

 

[Copernicus]

My point was that it very much depends on time. That is, the whole point of consciousness is to guide moving bodies around so that they survive and reproduce. Survival demands an awareness of the immediate conditions. An ability to predict future conditions would definitely tend to favor survival. That is, it would be an evolutionary advantage. So, yes, consciousness depends on time and temporal causal chains. Without temporal progression, there would be no reason for consciousness to evolve.

You seem to be trying to interpret the movements of the stars in the night's sky from what you know of how the economy of your back garden works in broad daylight.

You are straining too hard to be clever. Take a laxative, read a magazine, and relax.

There's a very large gap between causation as something fundamentally associated with the human experience, and the concept of time as a necessary parameter in fundamental physics. There are two levels here: one is pedestrianly human and the other is awesomely metaphysical.
EB

I was replying to ryan's post, so I'm not sure why you seem to think my response was inappropriate. The OP introduced the effect of a "backwards universe" on consciousness, which is indeed fundamentally associated with human experience.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You seem to be trying to interpret the movements of the stars in the night's sky from what you know of how the economy of your back garden works in broad daylight.

You are straining too hard to be clever.

Actually, no. Rather, I just can't stop myself.

I guess I'm in a mood of some sort. Medical science appears powerless to explain so I'm trying to find out the cause all by myself. You'll have to bear with me in the meantime. Just don't tempt me!

Take a laxative, read a magazine, and relax.

Thanks, I'm really fortunate to have optimal bowel movements between wakeup time and breakfast. Clockwork.

And, I don't think I should relax any further. I noticed recently I've become particularly accommodating with inconveniences of all sorts. As I said, I seem to be in some kind of mood. Still, thanks for the advice.

There's a very large gap between causation as something fundamentally associated with the human experience, and the concept of time as a necessary parameter in fundamental physics. There are two levels here: one is pedestrianly human and the other is awesomely metaphysical.
EB

I was replying to ryan's post, so I'm not sure why you seem to think my response was inappropriate. The OP introduced the effect of a "backwards universe" on consciousness, which is indeed fundamentally associated with human experience.

I never alluded to your post as a 'response', let alone an inappropriate one.

My post was entirely about the substance of what you said.

Your choice.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Time is necessary to process. It is convenient to apply cause to process as in if this then that. Human beings are conglomerates of process. Cause is presumed in time based systems composing that conglomerate. What's so metaphysical about that?

Experience is a reading of information by a process. Experience is one thing that can happen with information produced by humans. Experience can be seen as a reaction to information by suitably designed processes. Really, what's the problem?

Sorry but I'm not going to try to second-guess what your position may be in relation to this thread's OP. Where is it?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Leaving cause behind, present is the point in process we are viewing. After and before what we are viewing are future and past, respectively.

 

[ryan]

Leaving cause behind, present is the point in process we are viewing. After and before what we are viewing are future and past, respectively.

We are viewing in the past if the past still exists. What is the difference between viewing 10 minutes ago and viewing now?

 

[PyramidHead]

Leaving cause behind, present is the point in process we are viewing. After and before what we are viewing are future and past, respectively.

We are viewing in the past if the past still exists. What is the difference between viewing 10 minutes ago and viewing now?

Our consciousness can view any moment of time, past, present, or future. However, part of what it views is the current state of whatever brain is harboring it at each moment, including memories and accumulated experience, creating the illusion of time flowing from one moment to the next.

 

[ryan]

We are viewing in the past if the past still exists. What is the difference between viewing 10 minutes ago and viewing now?

Our consciousness can view any moment of time, past, present, or future. However, part of what it views is the current state of whatever brain is harboring it at each moment, including memories and accumulated experience, creating the illusion of time flowing from one moment to the next.

Why can't I be conscious in the past right now (in a block or growing block universe)?