Huw Price - What is Causation?

In a 'billiard-ball world' of Newtonian science, causation was obvious-things had to touch each other in space and a cause always had to precede an effect. But quantum mechanics destroys such notions. What then is causation? Moreover, must causes always be physical? Is 'mental causation' a coherent concept? What about 'top-down causation'?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on causation: bit.ly/35I4mnb
Huw Price an Australian philosopher, currently the Bertrand Russell Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy, Cambridge, and a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@Casey-Jones]

I understand this video totally because I watched it several times next week

[@Eronx]

You mean, you will watch it several times next week :)

[@TLecture]

Thank you Robert for the wide variety of philosophical views you choose to interview and for your style of interviewing that allows you to challenge your interviewee with honest questions while also allowing them to give their insight in a fair way. I love your healthy skepticism and I still found myself appreciating and accepting Huw Price’s theory. That demonstrates your ability to present your bias in earnest discussion while also allowing us viewers to make a decision for ourselves. Great work, I love your channel and the work you do!

[@grandeau3802]

That’s the difference between Robert and others, who would like to slap the guests every time they say something they don’t like to hear.

[@freetibet1000]

To me the underlying message in this video is not to get stuck on the level of “ordinary folk physics” which indeed stipulates the absolute validity of causation. I interpret this that the way we are shaped to perceive reality is just a small part of how the totality of reality can be experienced. To be honest, the way we are able to perceive reality is only just an experience based on the particularities of our existence. We can maybe call it a ‘paradigm’ that we are ordinarily trapped in and even when we do experiments and calculations to challenge our ordinary views of reality we cannot step outside of the paradigm that a human existence is trapped in and therefor cannot experience what reality is outside of what we are able to directly comprehend. On the other hand, human beings are wonderfully equipped with the ability to speculate and fantasize which gives us plenty of reasons to be fascinated about reality and our place in it. But if we want tangible proofs we will most probably hit the boundaries of the human continuum beyond which we cannot travel. But what about a mind unfettered by the physicality of a body? Can such a mind exist in this world? Yes, says the spiritual mystics. Doubtful, says our ordinary logic and present day science. We will all know at the time of death but then we have already passed beyond the boundaries of the human continuum and cannot report back what’s it like on that other side. This whole discussion on cause and effect is directly linked to our experience of life and death. In fact, we have already all but forgotten our birth and have not yet experienced our own death which leaves us smack bang in the middle (somewhere) in between these two extremes in our lives. Without having done a deeper analysis of our own existence we assume that we are essentially the same person that was born somewhere in the past and will someday in the future stop to exist, right? Well, have a (much) closer look at what’s really going on in your mind and body and you will soon understand that the personal ‘you’ that you cling to is just a fabrication or a phantom image. It’s illogical to believe in a fundamentally existing ‘self’ on the one hand and then maintain the notion of living in a world of causality and ever changing phenomena. Those two views are contradictory but are held by most people nevertheless. I suggest we start looking at this unsolved ‘issue’ if we want to start to unravel the totality of reality. I suggest we start the process towards deeper understanding what consciousness and awareness is all about. Instead of categorically believe consciousness is aware of an outer world only maybe we should start finding out the more hidden powers of consciousness and awareness instead? The science community have now reached the point where consciousness and awareness must be given a much larger consideration if the field of science wants to evolve and know ever deeper truths about reality. Consciousness and awareness can never been separated out of the equations of what reality really is. If science wants to understand non-duality, time-less reality, causality & beyond it needs to bring in consciousness and awareness into the field of studies and start to understand the real relationships between them. Fortunately, even today there exists fundamental knowledge in this field of studies (outside of the academic world) which can bring light to these studies. Unfortunately, the world for religion have long since been high-jacked by fundamental and dogmatic thinking and cannot be considered the type of open minded and analytical oriented approach we need. But within the spiritual traditions of the east we will still find a wealth of knowledge that have sprung from the open-minded curiosity that’s need for this type of work. These traditions have been very diligent in preserving and maintaining true knowledge and effective methods throughout many generations of profound investigations by outstanding individual human beings. A fruitful interaction between the science community and representatives of the spiritual domain have been initiated and an ongoing dialog between them continues. This is very encouraging for all of us that wants to deepen our understanding of ourselves and the reality we live in.

[@itsnoteasy5339]

This was well spoken, Thank you for this comment.

[@Littleprinceleon]

So what does the eastern spiritualism say about consciousness (and its relation to awareness)? Would you care to provide any link to a web describing these in a way you agree with? Thanks. Do you mean by "fundamentally existing" self a non-emergent phenomenon? Even if the everyday self is "just" a mental construct, probably one of the most important to human existence. In order for an individual to be able to make a coherent WHOLE out of the mental pictures about the inner and outer world an INTEGRATIVE brain function is required. Diffuse or branched personalities are not really compatible with such a brain structure. If you want to be truly honest, you have to admit that speculations about a (barely) unknowable "reality" (even in the highly advanced form of ancient hindu traditions) maybe just a product of human fantasy based on experiences which can and will be explained by the western scientific method. Accusing modern scientists of dogmatism is very ridiculous, to say the least. Do you have any direct experience with any kind of research? Mainly those who fail to rigorously prove their claims tend to accuse scientific community with dogmatism or even worse. The likes of Rupert Sheldrake or Luc Montaigne... Sciences and technologies start to progress when the representatives are finally able to restrict their fantasy to the bare minimum required for creativity within the frame of otherwise strictly bounded thinking. Without boundaries you can't build even a religious framework, not even a fictional world in a fantasy novel! Without boundaries you may achieve meditational states but to make any sense of them one again has to rely on some foundations. The pHysical reality seems to have rather different underlying causes then the pSychical reality. But I do hope that the letter is not constituted "just" by phenomenons emerging from a series of layers as described by chemistry, biology, sociology. But even if behind the most "spiritual" concept of self are still just emergent properties there is a chance, a hope that some kind of cosmical memory or at least a collective unconscious mind is affected by our activities. I find it hard to identify with a world which doesn't really "care" about my inner self. So no, I don't buy into buddhistic beliefs about utter emptiness of the phenomenal world. Maybe they are right as a final approximation of the ultimate reality. But why would we care if there's is a chance that we can do better. Even if it will be an illusion. Because nothing is just that: nothing. Even if the whole world stems from it.

[@freetibet1000]

@@Littleprinceleon Thank you for your reply. 🙏 I apologize for a very lengthy reply but I hope it might throw some light on how a Buddhist practitioner view the relationship between mind and phenomena: “The birth of self” A sense of self arise when the present moment of awareness is not understood correctly. Self arise due to the futile attempt to solidify and perpetuate a passing moment. Grasping and holding onto whatever is being experienced by the mind is the defining moment when the mind strays into delusion. This process is futile for the precise reason it is incorrect in its understanding of the true nature of mind and phenomena. A sense of self arise when experiences are not understood to arise due to awareness and are mistakenly perceived as external events produced by independently existing causes and conditions only. Self starts to view itself as an independent entity and observer separate from phenomena. From that point onwards the fictional self believes in its own independent existence and starts to perceive itself and the world of phenomena in a dualistic manner, as if they existed independently from each other. From that point the self starts to develop a neurotic need for control over what the perceived self is exposed to. It starts to grasp and cling to whatever it believes is of desired and pleasurable value and act with anger and aversion towards whatever it thinks is a threat. Mind have now strayed away from understanding its true nature and the state of Samsara is born. From now onwards every action through body, speech and mind will be tainted and will continuously plant karmic unwholesome seeds in its mind-stream (alaya -base consciousness) which will perpetuate this state of delusion indefinitely. Karma is a natural consequence and process of perpetuating and solidifying the experiences based on a deeply rooted belief in duality and truly existing self and phenomena. Undesirable and painful events will continuously arise due to the minds inability to apprehend its true nature in conjunction with arising phenomena. The deluded mind will respond to events and experiences in mistaken ways due to the formation of mental habitual patterns which will further entrench it in its miserable state of ignorance. Not until this whole process of delusion is understood and corrected the mind will continue to wander in the deep shadows of a world filled with sufferings and miseries. Life after life. Eons after eons. It is this ignorant state that is the real creator of birth, old age, sickness and death. Over and over again. Since this process is created by the minds misunderstanding of its most fundamental nature it can only be liberated from all its self-created miseries through its own efforts to regain understanding and insight into its own true nature. Not at any point, no matter for how long it remains have ignorance the power to destroy the true enlightened nature of the mind. When the minds true untainted nature is fully seen and realized life and death, sufferings and miseries, ignorance and stupidity is not experienced any more. The mind is liberated and will never again fall into a state of ignorance because it now knows its true nature. Through the experience of ignorance wisdom have arisen. That is an irreversible process because wisdom represents the true nature, which is beyond the temporary nature of all phenomena. Ignorance is possible to uproot because it is impermanent and rooted in a false understanding. Ignorance was never an essential part of minds essence. A complete understanding of the true nature of mind is all that’s need. Nothing needs to be added or subtracted to make it complete. The enlightenment nature is complete and beyond all descriptions such as location, size, purity, goodness, etc. It is said to be unborn and beyond any aspect of time yet constantly fresh and anew in its innate ability to be aware. Anyone remaining in this state of awakened truth will relate and respond to all experiences correctly and unbiased. No unwholesome karma is produced since its ground of duality is not present in the mind of enlightenment. To remain in a natural state of non-clinging is the ultimate state of enlightenment. It is a state beyond all other states and utterly free from fabrication and deliberation. It is complete freedom. The primordial state. Ohm Ah Hung

[@dennisjustice9377]

I love seeing and hearing the agreements and disagreements and lessons from know too unknown

[@mintakan003]

Hume had something to say about this. If B always follow A, there's a tendency to say A "caused" B. (This is probably not a precise description of his position.). In data science, folks are fond of saying "correlation" is not "causation". The whole thing has a human-centric (cognitive process) POV. The clapping the hands together is a genius example. Because it introduces another (human centric) notion, oftentimes not made explicit, in the discussion. This is the notion of "agency". Of course, physical systems do not exactly operate this way. But we project something like this onto them. It also affects how we do science. We might not be content to do "observational studies", and try to guess the "causal factor" from the correlations (along with time series), e.g. in biological, medical, epidemiological research. The stronger statements come from actually doing *active* experimentation, repeatedly, under various conditions. This gives us a more solid ground from which to make causal statements. Physics is trickier. Because most equations are time reversible. Also the notion of the "block universe" is not exactly the same as "future causation" for quantum physics, in the way he discussed it. The "block universe" is more like a Netflix movie. Everything that has happened, or will happen, is already there. There's no future, in the modifiable sense, that can influence the past. The notion of "future causation" in quantum physics may come from the "agency" of an experimenter setting up a particular experiment (e.g, delayed choice double slit experiment). Somehow the experimental results seem to be a self consistent system (across time), regardless of the human-centric sense of spacetime "locality".

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Sure, conclusions depend on one's perspective. My perspective is that time is a concept only. Thus, to me, there is no past, present or future, there are only existents moving relatively. A consequence of this perspective is the disappearance of all temporal paradoxes, a bonus, right? A light year illustrates the perspective clearly, the distance traveled by light is measured by one orbit of the Earth around the Sun. See how there is no time invoked in the statement, only distance and objects moving relatively? The existence of the entire universe is but one event, the only event, afawk. Use an imaginary microscope to zoom in on what folks conventionally call the beginning of an event and see there only a continuity of moving existents. Put another way, what is 'seen' is the transfer of inertia. That is to say, the boundaries of conventional events are like time, conceptual only.

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL how would you make rigorous testable statements without concepts? All the concepts are man-made and only an approximation of happenings. How is movement conceptualised without the notion of time (relative rate of changes)? Hmm? Of course everything is connected, no-one of serious scientists deny that. Their claim is that many (most) spatio-temporally DISTANT events can be neglected as their contribution to a given observed phenomena is mathematically negligible. Einsteins unification of space and time means very much that you are writing about: we can't measure time itself, only distances in spacetime. Of course if something could be at absolute rest (the universe itself ?!) then the measured distance (inner change) would be in the direction of time only. Wether the universe has boundaries is an open question... The problem begins at the point that you assume that your existentials are permanent. Because? Hmm? There are no proofs whatsoever that any particle could exist indefinitely. I assume that "your" existentials are more fundamental than particles: but not even the quantum fields are hypothesized to be permanent... So your conclusion: reality is an ever-changing (Panta Rhei) universe. Feel free to replace the term universe with Buddha, God, universal mind.... Because there's one question left: "And so what?" If there is motion than processes do evolve. Whether they evolve in time or space only, this activity (actions) requires the concept of regularities. And that which exists amongst and due to those regularities will experience time-like and space-like properties. (In order to reflect upon anything of course it has to be capable to make simulations /no matter how imperfect/ of his surroundings in itself.) There are string theories, Boltzmann's brain(s) or that of Wolfram's computational model... So, what are your existentials like? Just as much as time is "only conceptual" - emergent, so is the so called consciousness. Where does the willful agency step onto the scene? How can we even change the focus of our attention? Even if we were just a collection of interacting patterns: there is a duration to this system... How to conceptualise duration without the notion of time? Lightspeed is about relative RATEs of change, it is even called the maximal speed of causation: it gives us the maximum density of change (either more time-like or more space-like, depending on the relative motion). Even if the whole system (universe) would be permanent, still subsystems existing within should be subject to change. Subsystem called "life on earth" surely does seem to have an origin, even if that one "seed" (LUCA - last universal common ancestor) was already alive ... Even ordinary thinking requires concepts: one may try to make those as concrete as possible to avoid the creation of abstract categories. Still, to distinguish between any two parts of the whole you have to make a choice: where to draw the line of division. You may achieve a state of "adwaita", but still your body (brain) will only "see/feel" (experience) what it has evolved to. Surely, there are lots of "spiritual" selective pressures. The thing is: can one show the difference between wishful fantasies and teleological explanations in the case of those phenomena which are/will be properly (even if not fully) explained by scientific approach?

[@Kyanzes]

This channel should have millions of subscribers. The extrapolation into cosmic levels: we had to come up with dark energy for the expansion and dark matter for galactical rotation otherwise our minds could not interpret the behavior of the massive scale. There HAS to be dark matter there otherwise it makes no sense to us. Cannot be seen, cannot be detected, only inferred. Yet we accept it otherwise we would need to conclude the massive level works contrary to our human scale experience.

[@noahway13]

Millions would be nice, but you greatly over estimate the IQ of the general public.

[@david_porthouse]

Causality is a useful concept in the classical world. I take a decision to do something, perhaps with the assistance of tossing a coin, and then I can trace a sequence of cause and effect. This unless someone wants to argue that the outcome of the coin toss is part of a cosmic conspiracy. It is not so useful for the random uncontrollable phenomena of quantum mechanics. If anyone wants to go on using it, then accept that there are circumstances where cause and effect are interchangeable. This may puzzle us, but it doesn’t stop us doing computer simulations of quantum mechanics. To do a Lorentz transformation we need to press a button which has a side effect of reseeding the random number generator in use, which means that the framework of our computer simulation is temporarily privileged. We can simulate random nonlocal phenomena although the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy condition could be awkward. The Costa de Beauregard interpretation has a photon as the information carrier, so it is bound to say that it makes no difference if one of the detectors in the Clauser/Aspect experiment is made of antimatter. This could be wrong. I am predicting Bell’s over-correlation will be suppressed.

[@doylestevenson7395]

Robert is a so much better and honest thinker, than most of his academic guests, that I really look forward to listen to more of his personal takes rather than usual answers they give, the most annoying one is:" that question doesn't make sense", " there's nothing norther then north pole" I'd just slap them every time that say that

[@S3RAVA3LM]

So you accept that you're stuck at the bus stop while observing the other traffic flow. You have gotten to one point, sure, and haven't a clue other than where the driver of the bus takes you. The bus is the consensus.

[@djgroopz4952]

True dat

[@doylestevenson7395]

@@S3RAVA3LM if the answers are:" time didn't exist, so it doesn't make sense to ask what was before" I just wanna slap 'em and and yes, I'd rather stick withy my agnostic apathy lol

[@bitkurd]

There is something beyond north but human brain can not perceive it. In order to see beyond north, you will have to become nobody. Nobody can pass the gateless gate

[@doylestevenson7395]

@@bitkurd Ulysses did it already and it worked, so maybe that's true 😉

[@sonarbangla8711]

Cause and effect is defined mathematically when a complex number z=x+iy when change in y due to change in x is defined by the imaginary number i as the ratio of effect/cause, explained by Tristan Needham in VISUAL COMPLEX ANALYSIS, page 217.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

from present to future there is quantum wave mechanics? measurement of quantum wave probabilities in future causes particle in the present?

[@lisac.9393]

So interesting! Thank you! This is a great channel.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could higher entropy from past (galaxies accelerating away) to lower entropy in present produce arrow of time for causation?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what implication does entropy have for time on cosmological scale?

[@blip0o0]

I think this might make more sense if you listen to it backwards😐

[@MrSanford65]

What we call the past is actually limited by human meaning, an intellectual capability. In other words, our past isn’t the same as in the past of the universe, reality, and time itself. Our past can only be a fraction of what the past really is , with anything outside at fraction perhaps equaling to the present and future because it’s not limited by our fractional intelligence. As far as backward causation, one may look for things like PTSD and related issues as a form of backwards causation . And that is because phenomena that is felt and not spoken is the true essence of everything

[@carlmurphy2416]

I like how this discussion took place on the USS Enterprise.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

measurement of quantum probabilities causing particle in present when accelerating contraction from gravity changes to accelerating expansion of space?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might quantum field / wave function have backward causality from future? which connection /.entanglement is maintained by particles going forward from the past?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might backward causation of quantum probabilities in future measure particle in the present?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is there relationship of subjectivity to time?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

how is future there in 4D block universe? can the future be seen as the present and past?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

in the present time of causation, future time is changing to or becoming past space?

[@CesarClouds]

According to physics, a cause is always behind the future event.

[@ioakimboutakidis1090]

Oooof. I don't know. While I understand the point that so called backwards causation could help reconcile the tension between quantum mechanics (and really mostly the entanglement phenomenon) and relativity--- unlike "spooky action" at a distance, what's the experiment you could design to provide evidence for this? Entanglement is well-established experimentally. Special and General relatively are super well-established experimentally. It seems to me--although obviously this may be my failing of imagination--that the very core of experimental design and methodology presumes that backwards causation is not possible and therefore does not need to be accounted for because it can't be accounted for. I think I agree with Mr. Lawrence here that the price is too high

[@stephenzhao5809]

Thanks. The real is that a plane existence is the more basic and stable than a 3d-object we observed, e.g. an electron quantum field is a plane existence, only at the measured moment it'd become a particle. Entanglement of two photons is because the two photons have become a new quantum field (sutble different from that of one photon’s) when it's delivered to different places it's still the same new quantum field, the new plane being, but at the measured moment they are simultaneously becoming 2 3d-objects (photons). Macro 3d objects are held by infinite number of factors through decoherences, e.g. cosmic microwave background.

[@haydenwalton2766]

surely not infinite - but probability through a very very big data set

[@xenphoton5833]

This is why everything that is experienced as a physical/material construct in this plane of existence (the perceptional frame of biological organism) should be considered in nature to be more of events as opposed to objects

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@xenphoton5833 Are the boundaries of events imaginary or actual?

[@Littleprinceleon]

That photons are explained as excitations in the respective bosonic field is one thing. Where have you learned that entangled photons are part of some new field?

[@Littleprinceleon]

Localisation of macroscopic objects is believed to be achieved via spontaneous collapse of the wavefunction of one of the constituent particles/"wavicles"... calculated to happen on the timescale of 300 years per fundamental particle (source: Sean Caroll's lecture at the Royal Institute)

[@lonniedeckermusic]

Brilliant!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe backward causation from future (quantum probability) to present (classic particle) as accelerating contraction from gravity reverses and slows to zero, then accelerating expansion of space into past from dark energy at cosmological constant?

[@gkelly34]

Wonderful and mind blowing

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Might I say -- im not a know it all -- that when I think of 'quantum level' or the fundamental, I understand it as higher, as metaphysics acknowledges that the more subtle something is, the more powerful, thus higher, finer, purer, natural; the physical world is not the highest, rather the lowest. Earth is below water, water below air, air below fire, fire below the Ether, which the Ether is the origin of the 4 elements. Or, what do you think?

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

Past, present, future, all being there only validates the Bible. God is omnipresent. Thank you for clarifying causation.

[@williamflynn4954]

If we can only travel through 4-dimensional spacetime at light speed then moving through our 3-dimensional reality would cause that movement to be subtracted from our movement through time. And indeed, if we COULD move through 3-D space at lightspeed (which is impossible for anything with mass) our apparent passage through time would be zero (this is well established and known as time dilation). if we "live" in a simulation then light speed would be the FLOP-rate (processing speed) of the computer, i.e. no changes can be made to the simulation in between FLOPs.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

The more a thing changes location in one direction the less change of location is available for all other directions. Think about the increasing amount of effort needed to tilt a gyroscope away from its axis the more that it spins.

[@SimonMclennan]

Love the way physicists undermine our ‘folk physics’ reality of our experience. Being here is a pretty big reality - a bit more grounded than say an unproven theory thought up by one of these ‘folk’ beings ha ha

[@kallianpublico7517]

Are all causes pretexts? If so are all effects...contextual meanings? What then is measurement? Is measurement the manipulation of time in order to join singular pretexts to singular meaning? Is time therefore dependent on intention: is intention the manipulation of time? How? How do we manipulate "time"? Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that the more we know about position the less we know about velocity and vice-versa. It also tells us that if we could "measure" time we could interfere with it. In quantum mechanical measurement we do not directly measure time but we do measure velocity; and this implies a singular context for time. Velocity is distance over time after all. But is a qm measurement of velocity an attentive, exposure of time or an intentional, imposition of time? Certainly no qm measurement measures time directly. Therefore time must be an imposition. The question now becomes why. Why do we impose time (and space)? To join our contexts to our pretexts, our experience to our thoughts? To simplify our relationship with the world by singling out correlates? Is the presence of an electron fundamentally incompatible with an electric field? Is an electron a pretext? Why does charge need a carrier? Does motion need an object or a pretext? The existence of phenomena in consciousness is accompanied by the presence of objects. The sun 🌞 gives light and heat. Lightning is seen in the presence of storm clouds. What if consciousness is a barrier for preventing us from seeing these things everywhere? Consciousness separates pretext from context while spacetime binds pretext to context? Binds through measurement?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

We may have communicated in the past but only in a manner of speaking. There is no past, present or future except conceptually speaking. There are things and they are moving. Everything else is a consequence of that.

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Does matter train mentality? Do objects align consciousness? How? If mentality is subordinate to matter then why the confusion about the nature of the quantum realm? If the quantum world contains fundamental matter:particles: objects, then why can't we get our head around it; if mentality is subordinate to matter? Since the objects of the quantum realm are more fundamental than the objects of the world at large shouldn't we understand it more than we do the macroscopic world? Do we already possess an understanding of the quantum world? Is it available to us in a way more susceptible than the methods of physics? Does conscious familiarity with quantum objects require a shift in intention? A shift corresponding to a shift in attention?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@kallianpublico7517 - "Does matter train mentality"? No. "Do objects align consciousness"? No. "How"? Nohow. "If mentality is subordinate to matter then why the confusion about the nature of the quantum realm"? Mentality is not subordinate to matter. Matter serves as the substrate for processes that maintain thoughts and processes that provide for thought interaction, i.e. thinking. (Thoughts are analogies encoded in neural discharge frequency. Synapses enable frequency encoded analogy interaction, i.e. thinking. (If you know anything about logic gates and synapses you will see the glaring parallel and you will know why there is logic in our thoughts)). "If the quantum world contains fundamental matter:particles: objects, then if mentality is subordinate to matter, why can't we get our head around it"? "Since the objects of the quantum realm are more fundamental than the objects of the world at large shouldn't we understand it more than we do the macroscopic world"? Mentality is not subordinate to matter. "Do we already possess an understanding of the quantum world"? I hear some people know some things about it. Me, I've given physic's Standard Model only a superficial glance and studied just a little in the pyramid of knowledge that supports it. "Is it available to us in a way more susceptible than the methods of physics"? If by "it" you mean the being conscious process and if by "susceptible" you mean able-to-be-understood then physics can help us understand substrate details but chemistry then micro biology then neurology would provide more relevant information regarding the relationship between matter and the conscious. "Does conscious familiarity with quantum objects require a shift in intention"? I don't know but probably because i don't understand the question. "A shift corresponding to a shift in attention"? Seems to me you are looking at the topic through the lens of a physics based mental structure theory. If this is true then for so long as it remains true the gap between mind and matter will seem like a gaping chasm. It took years before my growing ability to reason reached critical mass and revealed the devastating truth about Santa, quite a shock I can tell ya. It was an epiphany. I had another recently... My self is an abstract entity. (Because my essence is a process going on in a substrate and process is an abstract notion).

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "Matter serves as the substrate for processes that provide for thought.."? What process? If thinking is not a process but is derived from a process then what process are you talking about? Processes that provide for thought? Elaborate on that. You seem to be saying that curiousity and discovery, even language, is derivative of something else? Well what is that something else? Is it matter, mentality or do you think it is an algorithm or a circuit? Or maybe you think it is a natural process like erosion? You are vague and nebulous. A process is a sequence of steps leading to a definite or particular end. It may be purposeful, in which case it needs an intender or agent; or it may be natural, as in erosion, in which case it requires the denotation of forces. Does this process of yours lead to an agent or a force?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@kallianpublico7517 ""Matter serves as the substrate for processes that provide for thought.."? What process"? "(Thoughts are analogies encoded in neural discharge frequency. Synapses enable frequency encoded analogy interaction, i.e. thinking. ...)." If you are unfamiliar with neurology then you are not equipped to understand.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could non-locality maintain a connection between entangled particles beyond speed of light? how might non-locality faster than speed of light be manifested?

[@Littleprinceleon]

Speed Limit of light is more appropriately conceptualised as the rate of the (wavelike) spreading of disturbances in the EM field. As was demonstrated not even disturbances in spacetime itself (gravitational waves) can spread faster. But this whole wavelike behaviour is a consequence of a chain of locally manifesting interactions... ...if there was a light-second long rope: no matter what kind of particles it would be made of, if you pull one end, the other end starts to move at least one second later. But it is, as if between entangled particles there was some special rope enabling instant action: or maybe just the highly advanced concepts of DISTANCE break down in this case. My naive layperson interpretation (based on YT videos discussing actual science) is the following: the quantum fields do not necessitate a fix dimensional space(time), so on the quantum level particles (we should rather call them wavicles) are as far as the strength of entanglement between them defines. Usually these wavicles make up macroscopical objects (for example a bunch of molecules), which are characterized by lots of "weak" entanglements: where the phase relations between the original waves (of the strongly entangled particles) are no longer retrievable by any means, resulting in non-reversible decoherence. There are quantum systems - (mentioned in a video about entanglement by Arvin Ash), which do decohere to an extant, but can be "stimulated" to re-cohere. In theory the original phase relations are still present in the combinations of all the phases, but the amount of computation needed to decode the origins exceeds the available limit of the system. These weaker correlations can be influenced by even very small energies, so they become sensitive to the effects of gravity. And the relations to more energetic objects define the spatiotemporal characteristics of the given system.

[@Littleprinceleon]

Short answer: if two spatially distant places are specially connected as if there's no distance between them, you cannot characterize their relation by terms like "speed" or "fast". The spooky action is "simply" INSTANTANEOUS.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

causation has subjective element and can be described by space and time?

[@charlesrothauser1328]

Is there a threshold between the quantum world and the newtonian world?

[@david_porthouse]

We can be sure that objects heavier than the Planck mass are classical objects, for which the appropriate treatment is to replace quantum mechanics by classical Brownian motion on the same scale. There are certain chain reactions which propagate from the quantum world up to the classical world. I am always citing the detonation of nitrogen tri-iodide by an alpha particle, but there is the photomultiplier tube and nuclear fission.

[@charlesrothauser1328]

@@david_porthouse quantum particles do not last very long at all, I am amazed that in space quantum particles wink into and out of existence rapidly.

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@charlesrothauser1328 you may think of virtual particles or some of the more exotic composite particles. Those that are part of the standard model, are stable enough

[@Littleprinceleon]

The so called collapse of the wavefunction(s)... 🤫

[@Littleprinceleon]

Upandatom has a video with good basic explanation of the findings of quantum coherence in the chlorophyll pigments probably lasting just long enough to achieve a highly efficient energy transfer from light photons to a chemical system of molecules

[@marcobrambilla2439]

If All it is already written and someway present, who's the writer?

[@Tom_Quixote]

If there's a writer, who is the publisher?

[@marcobrambilla2439]

@@Tom_Quixote you're brilliant

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

cosmological constant expansion of universe could provide a direction for time as well as space?

[@farhadtowfiq6767]

With solid mathematics!

[@brianstevens3858]

Causality is not a simple as the example, when two hands clap in a vacuum there is no medium to carry the sound, so at it's heart it takes more to cause the sound than just the "apparent" initiating event.

[@B.S...]

If you assume that you have the free will to clap your hands together then causality exists. But if free will doesn’t exist then your clapping is predetermined by the effect, or retro causality, or if you prefer Super-Determinism.

[@farhadtowfiq6767]

Free will like consciousness is global and happens in time eternity. Everything we go through is like the side effects of what already happened in the future. The personal free will even is not free will. It is interpretation of the person predicting the conditional future and projecting the predicted pain and pleasure of the future into the present time. The nervous actions compatible with pleasure and avoidance of pain are automatic.

[@suatustel746]

As a 71 yrs old man my deeds determined by my free will worked against my wishes or targets throughout whole my life, coincidences or good fortune happened to me without my control, directions....

[@farhadtowfiq6767]

@@suatustel746 coincidences and good fortune are also responsible for the universe rise from trivial nothingness to this level of complexity today and keep going. If there was any physical law that allowed the big bang would have also caused it to fizzled out.

[@suatustel746]

@@farhadtowfiq6767 there're any holes in Big-Bang theory, inflation doesn't bode as well.... What's left behind. Simulation .... Universe can only be understood by Algorithmic terms, haven't come across spiritual entities so far, if someone experienced them they can only be interpreted as glitches from. programmers?????!!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Seems to me that everything that happens is a consequence of inertia.

[@breno2024]

@2:12 You could start with the hand clapping and describe it forwards because you can directly (so-to-speak) observe and analyze the events. Your understanding of causation is exceedingly important in those observations and analysis. When you start from the end state and work backwards, you are also applying your understanding of causation to conceptualize, not observe, the events. A monumentally important distinction. @6:59 Let's ignore reality and make some stuff up so our theories will work out. @8:59 folk physics.... utter buffoonery

[@Littleprinceleon]

But spooky action is real... So?

[@breno2024]

@@Littleprinceleon what is real when talking about quantum phenomena? the interdependent nature of all phenomena seems pretty real so-to-speak and since scientists, including Albert, have difficulty perceiving or conceiving the subtlety of such interdependence, spooky might not be so spooky.

[@ZahraLowzley]

There is an Official Campaign Club for Abolishing Time, which has been entirely unsuccessful as an enterprise as they refuse to set a date to meet, on Principal.

[@Littleprinceleon]

Nail on the head... Nice anecdote. 😃 That about summarises my view on over-active physicists trying to extrapolate an unproven and all so very specific hypothesis to such extents, as to become a fundamental part of some ToE (theory of everything).

[@JONSEY101]

It seems almost as if what is being said is that the world ( Universe ) acts the same as the miro world, the world of atoms and particles and that's not the case. Things on a miro scale do seem to sometimes behave in strange ways but in the world of the large, we act in predictable ways. We may be made of subatomic particles but that doesn't mean that just because they can quantum entangle, for example, we humans can also be in the same kind of state too, just as cause comes before effect in the universe that we see. To do so would mean that every atom that makes us who we are would need to be entangled to other atoms that make up another us when it's more likely that they are entangled to other atoms that make up the one version of me or you.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Would you say weird stuff averages out to the phenomena of experience?

[@itsnoteasy5339]

Dude I used to love this channel but seriously all they do is go in circles it's literally never any closer to truth.

[@SandipChitale]

Worldlines of objects have direction. Proper time of world line have direction.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

how might gravity fit into causation?

[@Littleprinceleon]

In Theory: Gravitational collapse of the wavefunction

[@tac6044]

All possibilities exist simultaneously.

[@Scott777]

But who or what distinguishes what is possible?

[@tomjackson7755]

@@Scott777 Your question makes no sense. There is no distinguishes with possible. It either is or isn't.

[@Scott777]

@@tomjackson7755 No, you know what is possible because you can imagine something in your mind and say “okay this is possible, or that’s possible..” etc. But now lets take your mind out of the picture: how does reality determine what is possible?

[@tomjackson7755]

@@Scott777 No you are wrong yet again what you think has no barring on whether or not something is possible. Reality has no decision making abilities. There is nothing that determines what is possible, it either is or isn't possible.

[@Scott777]

@@tomjackson7755 I’m not wrong actually, I’ve thought about this carefully. If something is possible it remains a possibility but for it to be actually existing it needs to have first been constructed to exist somehow. All possibilities only exist in creative minds like you and I, they can’t exist anywhere else. So in response to the OP, no all possibilities CANT be existing simultaneously.

[@SandipChitale]

Tim Maudlin refutes this notion that time has no direction very well.

[@Littleprinceleon]

On the most fundamental level of QM?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does the human give a sense of the future? how would do so?

[@showponyexpressify]

Top ten 👍

[@profskmehta]

I don’t get it at all. Are you saying that there is no natural direction of time in micro world but in large systems entropy is defined and time flows in the direction of increasing entropy. If this is the case, then it is inherently absurd.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

The temporal absurdities and paradoxes all disappear as soon as it is realized that time is a concept only.

[@SandipChitale]

Does the so-called block universe has big-bang at one end and not the other? So does that not imply direction?

[@israel9760]

It seems it should be in the center upon layers of the physical realm, since time doesn’t exist, and everything has already ‘happening.’

[@haydenwalton2766]

I think maybe you're thinking of "the block' as a 3D model - if it exists this way - it most certainly isn't like that. these are very difficult concepts for the human mind to understand

[@SandipChitale]

@Hayden Walton I do understand it is 4d concept. My point was if the big bang is at one end of the time axis. Sure. But I agree these are hard concepts. Tim Maudlin has a great take on this. He suggests that even if time is talked about as the 4th dimension, it is not a space like dimension i.e. it has direction built into it in its intrinsic nature.

[@haydenwalton2766]

@@SandipChitale 👍

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Accept time as a concept only and see what effect that has on Einstein's theory.

[@markpmar0356]

In this case, when one half of the entangled pair that is one light-second apart is measured as spin up, it sends that information one half of a light second back in time to the point of the splitting of the photon, encodes the information about itself right at the point the photon is split, which would cause a state of an entire photon at spin zero existing with half of itself as spin up. In the end, it seems that this would defeat quantum uncertainty since it isn't "a photon" that's being split, it's a single waveform being sent in opposite directions.

[@ptgannon1]

Intriguing. I'm struggling with "...cause a state of an entire photon at spin zero existing with half of itself as spin up." How can a photon exist in half a state spin up and half spin down - or is that your point?

[@markpmar0356]

@@ptgannon1 Yes, that is my point because in the logic of the order of events, if one half is measured before the other half, the only way for "reverse causality" to work would be if the photon existed in a split and unsplit state at the same instant, the instant when it was split. Physics can't quite explain entanglement over large distances without postulating either superluminal communication or backwards causality. This individual is going with backwards causality and I prefer the superluminal explanation. Question: is information a "thing" and, if so" what kind of "thing" is it?

[@ptgannon1]

@@markpmar0356 thanks for the clarification. I see where you're going with this. As for "information," it's a noun, so I guess that makes it a thing, but what kind of thing is beyond my pay grade!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@ptgannon1 Lot's of nouns refer to abstract entities. It's tricky distinguishing between material and abstract entities. I suspect it is impossible.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I have joined others in concluding that time is a pure abstraction. If it's true, I'm certain it is, then I'm forced to rethink space. What we call far apart may in actuality not be.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

backward causation linked to quantum uncertainty of future?

[@booJay]

If backward causation is a feature of QM, wouldn't that support the idea of a deterministic block universe rather than the idea of indeterminism that QM normally advocates?

[@haydenwalton2766]

superdeterminism my friend get on board ! there's room for everyone :-)

[@booJay]

@@haydenwalton2766 So I've heard! I've been following Sabine too!

[@haydenwalton2766]

@@booJay don't know sabine

[@booJay]

@@haydenwalton2766 kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6Xcm5p_rsqaeqs

[@haydenwalton2766]

ah yes, der super charismatic german lady person already. I do know her

[@emanueol]

maybe time is simply side effect and related to sentient being keeping some sort of memory

[@Littleprinceleon]

How would you describe the simplest chemical reaction without time?

[@peweegangloku6428]

Is there a logic in any of the guest's answers?

[@haydenwalton2766]

I suppose that's what we are all trying to determine, including 'the guest'

[@quantumkath]

Huw Price. I am attracted to your proposal. I like to think that our future dictates our present...we just cannot see the future. I like to think!

[@Littleprinceleon]

Retro-causality may explain "spooky" action on a distance, but that still would apply maximally on the "complexity" level of a few coherently entangled quantum states: meaning a few particles... To maintain the coherency of even a few biologically relevant molecules (notorious example: the chlorophyll pigments) is such an arduous task given the biological conditions (temperature, wetness...) that even if it shows to be true, such a quantum state lasts for a minuscule duration of time. Such a timescale may be enough for the more effective transfer of energy originally carried by the light photon, but to allow for direct effects on the decision making processes of the cell in any meaningful way, is more than just a far stretch... The quantum energy transfer could be interpreted by popularizers of science as if the photon had gone through all the possible paths, which of course wouldn't be manageable even at the "meager" speed of light. However, I haven't heard even from any of the more serious popularizers, that retro-causality could play a role on macroscopic scales. You also tend to forget that if the so called past and future coexist in one time continuum than the so called present ("now") would be most likely an illusion. This line of thought leads to all kinds of deterministic views...and then it would be much harder to explain why/how the living creatures have any special privilege to consciously affect the happenings!

[@marcomarcon5802]

How about that, as it turns up Kant was right. Relativistic physics and quantum mechanics tackle what he called the noumenon, the knowledge of which cannot become an object of human experience, be it actual or imagined.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

There's something about the way we think that forces the noumenal into existence. There can by definition be no evidence so it must be our logic. If Gödel's idea applies to logic then we are truly adrift.

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL perhaps, logic is just one set of the rules.... Surely doesn't seem to me, that we humans are purely logical beings. 🤔😉

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@Littleprinceleon Seems to me we cannot avoid being logical. We make mistakes in logic but we always try not to (unless we don't, to make a point, but there's a logic in that too). (I theorize our logical nature derives directly from the way synapses work. Synapses are organic logic gates (if you ever played with logic chips on a breadboard you'd know better what I'm saying)).

[@PaulHoward108]

Causation is the act of making a choice, the interaction of desire, ability, and opportunity.

[@CesarClouds]

That's agent causation which still falls under the rules of physics.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@CesarClouds I don't believe any rules of physics actually exist, what to speak of being true, because of the apparent impossibility of unifying physics. Since there are three scales of physics trying to describe the same world, but in incompatible ways, physics can't explain what determines how matter behaves. My teacher explains that actually "Nature is Governed by Persons, Not Laws," at Shabda Blog.

[@CesarClouds]

@Paul Howard So, you don't believe in physics but you believe your teacher's platitude?

[@PaulHoward108]

@@CesarClouds It's primarily based on the Vedas, which I've also studied for almost thirty years, not his original ideas. The Vedas provide a holistic qualitative theory, incredibly beautiful, in technically perfect language. I'm following this teacher because of finding his explanations compelling. He's like a Śrīnivāsa Rāmānujan, except for reality as a whole instead of just mathematics. To believe physics, I would at least need to understand how nature is supposed to follow physics when physics has multiple overlapping theories that don't fit together.

[@CesarClouds]

@Paul Howard Interesting. You might be interested in Schopenhauer's philosophy as he was influenced by the Upanishads and Indian thought.

[@MrOP66]

I got an uncomfortable feeling that they were not talking about the same thing.

[@Littleprinceleon]

Causation on the level of QM or cosmology may have lot less complex rules as on the level of living beings... But the physicist (?) is basically arguing that our notion of causality doesn't apply to the physics. We tend to interpret the phenomena as processes that have a start and an ending and a direction between. Biochemistry that makes us alive is cyclical, but I never met a biologist who would think about the steps of evolution for example as reversible 🙃 Even if on shorter timescale it's not that linear either. I would be curious how physicists interpret causative relations (eg. the origin of the Moon) on cosmological scale without a linear storytelling

[@lolroflmaoization]

Oh my id love to see Tim Maudlin react to this, he disagrees with pretty much everything said here almost.

[@williamburts5495]

Is not our observation of nature the cause of our having knowledge of it? Knowledge has observation as it's cause so consciousness itself is the cause of something. We could say something causing something else to come into being is " cause " and that effect can be the cause of something else coming into being so the chain of cause and effect could be limitless.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

By "come into being" do you mean the formation of another pattern?

[@williamburts5495]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Our acts of manipulating nature has our observation of it ultimately as it's cause. So science, philosophy, mysticism, are all just different avenues we use to achieve sense gratification and consciousness is foundational for that activity to happen. So while consciousness performs no action in itself it is the cause of the desire and action that gives us the impetus to be the enjoyers of life.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@williamburts5495 I think I agree. If I put it succinctly like this... There is only one event and its name is 'existence', would you agree?

[@williamburts5495]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL yes.

[@drbuckley1]

Physicists need a different word for event intervals to distinguish them from peoples' naïve understanding of "time."

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

It's almost or entirely impossible to form a sentence to which the concept of tense cannot be applied. How then to think about things free of temporal bias? Me, I think 'time' is a concept only, a useful and convenient way to think about the complexities of all things' relative movements. (And even 'things' are interpretations of sense input).

[@drbuckley1]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Special relativity eliminates the past/present/future distinction from physical models of space time.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@drbuckley1 How so?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Speed, as in the speed of light, is a conceptual combination of distance and time.

[@drbuckley1]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Because the math works backwards and forward. The theory unifies time and space, but it is not "tensed." There is no past/present/future in spacetime itself.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

quantum fields in future time?

[@SandipChitale]

What does it then mean to say that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years AGO in the past? Doesn't AGO imply the past and more importantly not the present or the future?

[@r2c3]

can time really flow in the opposite direction 🤔

[@farhadtowfiq6767]

Regardless, you will feel time going forward, as you only have the memory of the past as a reference.

[@r2c3]

@@farhadtowfiq6767 there's many reactions inside cells that happen at that level... one of them is when your eyes interact with light...

[@djgroopz4952]

It can only flow forwards regardless of how you look at it.

[@Janman81]

He's arguing that flowing backwards or forwards is completely indistinguishable at a small enough scale. The flow is an illusion that arises from statistical effects (entropy) at larger scales.

[@r2c3]

@@Janman81 it doesn't really matter what we say... the prediction is what matters... complex activity doesn't necessarily have to equate to backward time flow...

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

why might human evolution develop mistaken sense of time?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Time is not sensed. Time is conceptualized. The concept is immensely useful and convenient for running civilizations.

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

Get rid of causality, and what justifies existing science?

[@yucao8]

中国有句话说一阵风吹过去了，小和尚说，风动了。老和尚说，是心动了。 That kind of explained the causation could be backwards in quantum world

[@Littleprinceleon]

Movement is relative, but if you want to compare two or more systems (weather, the body of the monk...) you have choose a point of view. Even if there was no privileged standpoint (the planet Earth) in that example with the wind, there are in general more or less useful views. Once you have a reference frame, you can't arbitrarily change your views. Philosophies tend to make claims about interchangeability of viewpoints even in areas they know very little about...

[@S3RAVA3LM]

After the 1000's of interviews, the books, the questioning, the thinking.... is Robert still an athiest who wishes their were a God? What ever there is, which there is something, and more properly put is 'nothing', because God is non dual and 'not a thing' which would be defined thus dual.... I kind of want to just hear Robert talk about what he's gathered -- no matter what it is, it would be appreciated.

[@kos-mos1127]

From what I gathered God is a label that we give to the Cosmos when we have a spiritual experience. It happens to people that go to outer space and see the solar system for 8 days.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@kos-mos1127 I don't know this game that you play, nor will I have any part in it. God isn't a label, it's an appelation; a title. Regarding nasa, I will not consider them as a reliable source, they lied to us about the 1968 moon fantasy, and obscure much. Likely those you think are in space are truly at Hollywood -- underwater. Although what you do say may not entirely be manipulation, as many are Spiritually inept and deprived; foolishly believing in the veil.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@S3RAVA3LM God is a myth that ancient people created to describe their world. There has never been or never will be evidence of God. Spirituality and God are two different things. God is mythic character that embodies masculinity. Spirituality means a profound sense of belonging. People can have spirituality without God.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I think his purpose is to stimulate thinking in the KZbin viewer. The more people think the less likely they are to vote for Nazis. Theoretically speaking.

[@JungleJargon]

Power

[@tomjackson7755]

Do you not know what power is either?

[@JungleJargon]

@@tomjackson7755 Power is energy plus ability.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@JungleJargon You mean that is what you need power to be for the lie that you want to tell.

[@JungleJargon]

@@tomjackson7755 It’s what the evidence shows, power and ability. Open your blinders.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@JungleJargon Didn't you already lie that power was already ability, so how could that be what the evidence shows? You need to quit making up lies about things you have no idea what you are talking about.

[@observer7418]

*Quantum levels are affected by what HAS happened in the future

[@davidtate166]

Is cause and effect a basic law of nature. Buddhism deals with cause and effect. 🤔

[@kos-mos1127]

Cause and effect are not basic laws of nature. In physics events are either casually connected or a casually connected.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

There is no boundary between cause and effect except in one's imagination where one has set the boundary arbitrarily.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@kos-mos1127 "casually connected or a casually" Causally?

[@richardmooney383]

You might be able to convince me that "backward causation" means the future can change the past, but nothing will ever convince me that West Ham Utd. F.C. did not win the F.A. Cup in 1980!

[@syedaleemuddin6804]

Roberto I am understanding that you 2 gents are already in an spaceship..

[@tedgrant2]

What is causation ? God knows

[@JungleJargon]

The universe isn’t expanding. The distance between galaxies is expanded, not expanding.

[@suatustel746]

Yeah we know that..... What's new...

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Sometimes Robert's Science Topics Contain too Much of Nothing. Robert Please Push these Scientists a Little Harder for Examples, Evidence etc.

[@mar-z1452]

Robert the world 🌎 expanding But I think the world is get much bigger then normal I mean that we about too hop into the new world Earth 2.0 the earth is get larger not smaller tiny are normalcy we our about shift into 21 century no more 19 century Real quick the earth is exchanges gas and other planets

[@BradHolkesvig]

Our Creator caused everything that we experience called life.

[@suatustel746]

No we call it misery!!!!!!!!!!!

[@tomjackson7755]

Brad you are off your meds. Please get the help that you desperately need.

[@haydenwalton2766]

look out, someone with a skyfriend ! you always get at least one

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@tomjackson7755 Repeat Tom, Repeat Tom, Repeat Tom, etc.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@BradHolkesvig Get back on your meds Brad, Get back on your meds Brad, Get back on your meds Brad, etc

[@davidtate166]

Is it not a fundamental law of nature cause-and-effect the Buddhist follow it.

[@bobvanwijk9600]

THIRD L

[@aryanknowledgeseeker9945]

As Einschtein said Allahu Akbar

[@allauddin732]

Heavenly father's will so it cause

[@suatustel746]

You mean mass murderer...... Malignant spirit....

[@tomrobingray]

Never heard so much rubbish in my life. The Block Universe and Past-Future symmetry is apparent in the NEWTONIAN picture. It doesn't work in Eisenstein picture because there is no universal present. It was Hume that said cause and effect doesn't exist in the 18th Century! When he said you need to careful about extrapolating experiments on earth out to the cosmos I laughed out loud !- You mean like Red Shift, and Gravity, and Particle Reactions. Entropy was used as argument for The Big Bang now they want to dump it because it doesn't tie in with their loony tunes. Causality exist. They want you to doubt REALITY so you will follow their Mystical Nonsense.

[@haydenwalton2766]

'They' ??

[@tomrobingray]

@@haydenwalton2766 Well Yes. In many branches of Science now there is a standard narrative maintained by an establishment with its media clustering, and the you scratch my back circus of peer review. Anybody who doesn't follow the narrative will be defunded and deplatformed. So yes 'They' and more Ill say 'They Live!'

[@mark.J6708]

Bertrand Russell and any current physics that says causation is irrelevant or that front to back everything already exists are and were and continue to be wrong. Time, in our universe is linear and has a beginning and an end. Everything in-between, everywhere is affected by what is there. Space and time can be bent, and mucked about with but time flows only in one direction and free-will and what sentient beings do with it is what our universe is all about. Humanistic desires to define and box out things will not get us off our rock and out into the wonders of the Universe, it will beget the opposite just as removing morals and spirituality and humility from science will guarantee we never get beyond our Solar System and most likely barely beyond our rock. This continued debate over causation and free will is nothing more than very intelligent people wasting their gifts on mental masturbation and not things relevant to saving our species, our rock, and becoming acceptable beings for real space travel. When a scientists does 42 studies on a thing, and every time is consumes itself, does said scientist restart with another idea, particularly if their said probability exercise already has more petri dishes than can be counted? The red apple is red, regardless of hue, can we worry more about it's toxicity and growth practices than doing a circular firing squad exercise on redness and accomplish nothing with our brilliant minds for the greater good? Hmmmmmm.

[@kos-mos1127]

Time does not flow. What we see as time is really the changing of events and the motion of objects. Causation does not exists evens are strongly or weakly correlated. Time can not have a beginning because a beginning implies time already exists.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@kos-mos1127 - Very good and in short, time is a concept only.

[@robertmiller2367]

This is getting old...

[@Tom_Quixote]

Or maybe it's getting young, if time can flow in both directions

[@robertmiller2367]

@@Tom_Quixote touche my friend touche