<I think your analogy is starting to fall apart here. <I don't think you can infer causality from the existence of two states.
In the example with the excel spreadsheet, you can infer causality if it is one of those spreadsheets in which you start with numbers in the first column, and in all of the following columns you use a formula that figures out its information based on the information in the preceding column. Causality would, in fact, be inferred almost by definition in that circumstance. Clearly, this analogy would make no sense if each column just contained random numbers. <You're implying a relationship between the two <states based on causality, and then <attempting to prove causality based <on the implied relationship. I meant for the two states to have assumed causality - I should have made that more clear. Column 1 causes column 2. Column 2 causes Column 3, etc... Past events cause future events - just as we see in our reality. One could describe a set of circumstances in which future events caused past events. But to describe these events, you would inevitably have to resort to multiple dimensions of time in order to complete the description. For example: 1st, particle A began at time = 0 seconds 2nd, particle A bumped into particle B at time = 1 second 3rd, particle B vibrated at time = 2 seconds 3rd, this caused particle B to go backwards in time to time = 0 seconds 4th, particle B interacted with particle A at time = 0 seconds And so on... This description has two dimensions of time (or causal chains, if you prefer) The inner dimension is described with "time = 0 seconds, time = 1 second, and time = 2 seconds." The outer dimension is described with "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th." <but without a flow of time these causalities wouldn't exist. Exactly! If every condition has a cause, then there must be an associated flow of time to allow that condition to have happened. The starting conditions of the big bang either had a cause, or they did not. If we believe the starting conditions did not have a cause, then we are assuming A-causality. If we believe the starting conditions did have a cause, even though time in our universe was at value 0 at that moment, then we must assume more than one dimension of time (or chain of causality, if you prefer). Every single description of possible scenarios of the beginning of time that I have read either stated or implied A-causality, or stated or implied multiple dimensions of time. The big bang/big crunch cyclic model, for example, would imply multiple dimensions of time, if time begins anew at every big bang. <If there is no entropy then there is no time flow, and there is no causality. Entropy is an axiom of physics, a starting assumption. In all observations of the real-world, it appears to hold true. However, this does not mean or even imply that entropy holds true across multiple dimensions of time, or across any outer realities in which this reality is defined (if such realities were to exist). I think it is dangerous to assume that the laws that apply this 4-D space must apply anything that might exist outside of this space. Quite the contrary, if one believes in an infinitely regressing chain of cause and effect rather than in A-causality, then you cannot help but conclude that entropy for the total system should be zero. Without that, all of existence would already be in a state of maximum entropy. Equally - the fact that time in our universe correlates with the progress of entropy does not, in any way, mean or imply that an outer dimension of time that is not part of our spacetime must also correlate with entropy. The inner and outer dimensions of time could be of two entirely different natures, just as in my spreadsheet example, in which time on the inner dimension (the months laid out in the spreadsheet) is very different from time in the real-world in which we are observing the spreadsheet. <...and this discussion is getting *really* off-track now. <I'd better duck out before the listmom gets upset... it's been fun. Ya - I expect that I have just annoyed the total caca out of everyone who is not into philosophy on this list - um, sorry guys. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
