Time is an illusion

[SelfSim]

Sorry sjastro, but I have to question that statement. If determinism is true, then doesn't all the information about the future exist right now?

The information can be either testable, (in principle), but not yet tested, or untestable .. regardless of beliefs in determinism.

 

[SelfSim]

But determinism doesn't require everything to be causally connected, just that every event is the consequence of prior events.

Which still requires testing .. (In order to be true).

 

[partinobodycular]

Our universe is expanding where the recessional velocity of an object is proportional to its distance from the observer.
Very distant objects exceed the speed of light.
Beyond the universe's particle horizon photons emitted from the object can no longer reach the observer and the object becomes causally disconnected from the observer.
If a photon is emitted now, it will travel a certain (comoving) distance before it reaches a particle horizon of the future universe.
This distance is known as the event horizon beyond which the observer is casually disconnected from any event beyond this horizon.
The determinism argument doesn't work as it is based on cause and effect which disappears beyond the event horizon.

I'm aware that from my own relative perspective only the information about the past and the present "exists", but that I lack all the necessary information about the future because that information hasn't reached me yet. Nonetheless that information does exist. Therefore reality as a whole contains all the information necessary to create not just the past and the present, but also the future.

In such a scenario the present would simply be the sum total of what can be known by an observer in spacetime given the available information. But unless one is arguing for an observer created realty then reality isn't limited to what can be known by any individual observer but must in fact contain all the information necessary not only to create the past and the present, but also the future as well. So it would seem that unless one is endowing the observer with some preferential status, that the available information is sufficient to create everything...past, present, and future. And that that distinction, (allowing for spatial displacement) is determined by the order in which that information reaches the observer.

 

[partinobodycular]

The information can be either testable, (in principle), but not yet tested, or untestable .. regardless of beliefs in determinism.

When discussing any topic, an epistemological solipsist such as myself is always aware that certain assumptions cannot be avoided, but can nonetheless be granted for the sake of a rational discussion. Otherwise I'm just a loonie who's seemingly out of touch with reality. And we certainly don't need any more of those.

 

[SelfSim]

When discussing any topic, an epistemological solipsist such as myself is always aware that certain assumptions cannot be avoided, but can nonetheless be granted for the sake of a rational discussion. Otherwise I'm just a loonie who's seemingly out of touch with reality. And we certainly don't need any more of those.

.. and being a mostly scientific thinker, for me, all assumptions about what reality means there, are either testable or untestable before I decide whether they're true or not.
It appears you believe that your 'certain assumptions' are true without testing them(?)

 

[partinobodycular]

It appears you believe that your 'certain assumptions' are true without testing them(?)

Yes, for the sake of a thoughtful discussion I will allow for "certain assumptions" unless those assumptions are demonstrably false, or its proponent refuses to accept the fact that they're only assumptions. But for the most part reasonable people will agree on what things are and aren't assumptions without having to explicitly specify them as such.

Otherwise discussions tend to get bogged down in minutiae.

 

[sjastro]

What about locally?

At local (quantum scales) it ultimately depends on what interpretation is being used.
In the many worlds interpretation it is deterministic whereas in the Copenhagen interpretation it is indeterministic.

 

[sjastro]

But determinism doesn't require everything to be causally connected, just that every event is the consequence of prior events.

Physicists believe in causal determinism which is based on temporal ordering of events.
This is different from the classical view of determinism from a Newtonian perspective which attempts to describe nature from a set of fixed laws.
Clearly the classical view hasn't worked as demonstrated through statistical and quantum mechanics as well as the observation of the evolution of chaos in various physical systems .

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event is completely determined by prior states.

Causal determinism is necessary in Minkowski diagrams to demonstrate why the world line of objects travelling in the time-like region will not effect temporal ordering, whereas in the space-like region the opposite occurs.
It is required to show why cause and effect is violated for objects travelling faster than light.

At cosmological scales an object beyond the event horizon is causally disconnected from the observer and causal determinism is violated.

 

[sjastro]

I'm aware that from my own relative perspective only the information about the past and the present "exists", but that I lack all the necessary information about the future because that information hasn't reached me yet. Nonetheless that information does exist. Therefore reality as a whole contains all the information necessary to create not just the past and the present, but also the future.

In such a scenario the present would simply be the sum total of what can be known by an observer in spacetime given the available information. But unless one is arguing for an observer created realty then reality isn't limited to what can be known by any individual observer but must in fact contain all the information necessary not only to create the past and the present, but also the future as well. So it would seem that unless one is endowing the observer with some preferential status, that the available information is sufficient to create everything...past, present, and future. And that that distinction, (allowing for spatial displacement) is determined by the order in which that information reaches the observer.

As mentioned in a previous post if there is no limitation as to how far into the future one can consider going, the universe's event horizon ultimately prevents information from the future to reach the observer.

If there is a limitation imposed there is another issue, a rather bizarre mechanism involving antimatter.
The difference between an electron and positron is that a position is an electron with a positive charge.
In QFT (quantum field theory) interactions between electrons and positrons can be described by considering a positron as an electron travelling backwards in time, from the future to the present.
While this is not considered to be a physical reality, it is based on the physical principle the future is not determined from the past.
Q: Does anti-matter really move backward through time?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which still requires testing .. (In order to be true).

Yes, but I suspect it's one of those things that can only be tested by testing a theory that requires it...

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, but I suspect it's one of those things that can only be tested by testing a theory that requires it...

A working hypothesis then .. with no need for its subject(s) to necessarily truly exist before test verification.

 

[sjastro]

A
In QFT (quantum field theory) interactions between electrons and positrons can be described by considering a positron as an electron travelling backwards in time, from the future to the present.
While this is not considered to be a physical reality, it is based on the physical principle the future is not determined from the past.

A more detailed explanation of what is happening here........

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Physicists believe in causal determinism which is based on temporal ordering of events.
This is different from the classical view of determinism from a Newtonian perspective which attempts to describe nature from a set of fixed laws.
Clearly the classical view hasn't worked as demonstrated through statistical and quantum mechanics as well as the observation of the evolution of chaos in various physical systems .

Causal determinism is necessary in Minkowski diagrams to demonstrate why the world line of objects travelling in the time-like region will not effect temporal ordering, whereas in the space-like region the opposite occurs.
It is required to show why cause and effect is violated for objects travelling faster than light.

At cosmological scales an object beyond the event horizon is causally disconnected from the observer and causal determinism is violated.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that not all events are determinsitic, it just means that not all areas can contribute to determining the future of other areas.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A working hypothesis then .. with no need for its subject(s) to necessarily truly exist before test verification.

Well, support for a theory/hypothesis that is dependent on determinism 'existing' is also support for determinism, but falsification of such a theory doesn't falsify determinism.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, support for a theory/hypothesis that is dependent on determinism 'existing' is also support for determinism, but falsification of such a theory doesn't falsify determinism.

Yes that's how beliefs work .. nothing can falsify 'em.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes that's how beliefs work .. nothing can falsify 'em.

I don't agree - I had many false beliefs as a child that have been falsified, and I've heard of many other people having beliefs falsified.