Time is an illusion

[partinobodycular]

It's not that there are two different spacetime locations in the same spacetime location (usually called an 'event'), it's that the traveller has experienced less elapsed time than the observers on Earth, i.e. his journey between the two events was subjectively quicker, so he will have aged less and his clock will show that less time has passed for him.

Is there a constant for the speed of time?

In other words, one person's clock can tick faster or slower relative to another person's clock. But is there a fixed speed at which each person's own clock ticks? A speed that never changes?

And will everything experience time as ticking at that exact same rate?

If not, why not? Otherwise, what determines what that rate is?

 

[Occams Barber]

I want to be an emergent entity with the "rules" of my operation not entirely deducible from antecedent components.

I think we all see ourselves as operating freed from the straightjacket of physical cause and effect. The problem is that this independence means that we are operating independent of the rules of physics. If we can operate independent of the rules of physics we then have the problem of working out what is determining why and when (and how) we do what we do. As mentioned by @FrumiousBandersnatch (#51) this leads us into the concept of dualism.

The brain/body is a physical entity and like all physical entities, it operates based on the rules of physics. If free will is real we need to be able to operate in a way not wholly determined by physical rules. If we are able to operate independent of the rules of physics who or what determines how we should act in a given situation? This inevitably leads to the concept of dualism - a separate 'driver' which has the ability to cause us to act contrary to physics.

If there's a separate 'driver' then we have the problem of how it decides what we should do. There is also no evidence that we do actually operate in contravention of physical rules.

OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I want to be a project built from genetics, development, and life experiences, but which is more than the sum of those parts. I want to be an emergent entity with the "rules" of my operation not entirely deducible from antecedent components.

A key characteristic of emergent systems, even simple ones like Conway's Game of Life is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to predict how they will behave just from the properties of the components without running a simulation of their interaction. For complex emergent systems, that itself is effectively impossible.

Emergent systems follow different rules from their components and require a different descriptive language. For example, the static grid of on-off cells and simple rules of Game of Life produce dynamic patterns that move and interact in characteristic ways, which can be described entirely independently of the static substrate they play out on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is there a constant for the speed of time?

In other words, one person's clock can tick faster or slower relative to another person's clock. But is there a fixed speed at which each person's own clock ticks? A speed that never changes?

And will everything experience time as ticking at that exact same rate?

Yep; proper time (e.g. an observer's clock time) ticks at one second per second for all observers.

But there is no absolute reference time.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is there a constant for the speed of time?

In other words, one person's clock can tick faster or slower relative to another person's clock. But is there a fixed speed at which each person's own clock ticks? A speed that never changes?

And will everything experience time as ticking at that exact same rate?

If not, why not? Otherwise, what determines what that rate is?

I have a battery operated wall clock which I use as my main reference point for the passage of time. Every few months it slows down and time stretches out and eventually stands still. The reason of course is the battery going flat

I have come to the inevitable conclusion that I can actually live forever providing I never, ever, replace the battery.

OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have a battery operated wall clock which I use as my main reference point for the passage of time. Every few months it slows down and time stretches out and eventually stands still. The reason of course is the battery going flat

I have come to the inevitable conclusion that I can actually live forever providing I never, ever, replace the battery.

Ironically, that's not what happens when your own battery goes flat... (except for believers, who get either eternal bliss or torment).

 

[partinobodycular]

Yep; proper time (e.g. an observer's clock time) ticks at one second per second for all observers.

But where is "MY" clock?

If a clock ticks slower at my feet than it does at my head, then what's the specific reference point for "MY" clock?

Or is "MY" clock a mental construct?

Bear with me, I'm thinking.

 

[Bradskii]

But where is "MY" clock?

If a clock ticks slower at my feet than it does at my head, then what's the specific reference point for "MY" clock?

Or is "MY" clock a mental construct?

Bear with me, I'm thinking.

Your clock is your perception of the flow of time. You have no way of dividing it up into discrete periods. You need an external source for that (clock, orbit of the earth around the sun etc). So it may seem to flow more slowly if you are bored and faster if you are engaged with something. Or if your team is 1-0 up with 5 minutes to play, that 5 mins will seem a lot longer than if you are losing 1-0.

 

[SelfSim]

But where is "MY" clock?

If a clock ticks slower at my feet than it does at my head, then what's the specific reference point for "MY" clock?

Or is "MY" clock a mental construct?

Bear with me, I'm thinking.

Time is a concept conceived by human minds to explain its capability of recalling perceptions.
Clocks are mechanisms invented for logical sequencing of those perceptions.

Your clock is your way of sequencing your perceptions.
It is a product of both your mind and its innate logic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But where is "MY" clock?

If a clock ticks slower at my feet than it does at my head, then what's the specific reference point for "MY" clock?

Or is "MY" clock a mental construct?

Bear with me, I'm thinking.

For the purposes of physics, I guess an observer is represented by a notional dimensionless point, so real-world macro-scale observers need to coarse-grain. The difference between your heads and feet isn't generally significant for most thought-experiments and practical relativistic experiments. But in principle, your clock is any clock moving along the same worldline as you over the relevant period, e.g. on your wrist, in your pocket, on the same bus, train, ship, or aircraft as you, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

....And if they thought it through, they'd realise that their mental state, e.g. mood, preference, recent experience, etc., couldn't be different unless prior circumstances had also been different.

Thats the part I want to disagree with, tho I havent figured out just yet how to justify my disagreement. I want to think that the human self is in some way capable of generating its own mood, even in the face of environment and physiology.

I should note that even ardent determinists seem to persist in using the language of free will. Perhaps its just too hard to re-orient mass-deluded human culture that way and so they just go along to get along. But I also suspect that they prefer a self-image that includes at least a kernel of proper self-direction.

 

[durangodawood]

...Emergent systems follow different rules from their components and require a different descriptive language.....

Is that only because its too difficult to describe emergent behavior in terms of vastly many component interactions? Or are the new rues in some way actually untethered from component behavior rules?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thats the part I want to disagree with, tho I havent figured out just yet how to justify my disagreement. I want to think that the human self is in some way capable of generating its own mood, even in the face of environment and physiology.

You generate your moods as a result of the influences of environment, physiology, and your ongoing mental state (itself a product of the influences of environment and physiology). What other source of moods do you think there could be?

I should note that even ardent determinists seem to persist in using the language of free will. Perhaps its just too hard to re-orient mass-deluded human culture that way and so they just go along to get along. But I also suspect that they prefer a self-image that includes at least a kernel of proper self-direction.

Yes, indeed. Subjectively, we have the experience of free will because we act according to our desires, motivations, moods, etc., and we have very little insight into their origins - except for obvious cases like being grumpy because of some problem, anxious because of some upcoming difficulty, happy because of some positive event...

If our thoughts are deterministic but unpredictable, they will not, subjectively, seem deterministic. People worry that not having free will means we're helpless passengers in robotic bodies, but that's dualism raising its ugly head again - our thinking selves are part and parcel of the deterministic process.

Even my philosophy prof. found it hard to grasp, suggesting that it would make sincere emotions like love meaningless so that hugging his mother would be an empty gesture. I had to try and convince him that was far too simplistic, that nature, nurture, and life experiences had made him the kind of person that finds giving and receiving emotional hugs with loved ones deeply satisfying and rewarding - and meaningful.

The sense that we have free will is much like our other biases and heuristics - a convenient and intuitive view of our interactions with the world, but being aware of, and accepting this, does provide a path to a more enlightened view of the behaviour of our fellow humans.

We can then see that, for example, seriously anti-social behaviour (violence, etc,) is a result of a life-long interplay between nature and nurture that, in a deterministic sense, the individual has no control over... The rational view is sympathy for their misfortune in becoming that kind of person. Punishment and/or retribution are not rational responses unless they are likely to reform the offender; they are emotional responses grounded in the free will heuristic. The rational solution is rehabilitation, if possible; if not, then humane separation from society.

We can also see that great the achievers have, in a deterministic sense, no more control over their path to success than the criminal over theirs; but because they represent goals or aspirations that we feel are beneficial to society, we can encourage those positive goals and aspirations in society by applauding them, so tilting the balance in receptive minds by the anticipation of positive reinforcement.

Some Scandinavian countries have moved a considerable way along this path, but it requires the acceptance (understanding, buy-in) of society as a whole, and it's hard to see how most other societies could even start to make that change.

Well, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that only because its too difficult to describe emergent behavior in terms of vastly many component interactions? Or are the new rues in some way actually untethered from component behavior rules?

It's not just that it's too difficult, but that emergent behaviour rules are untethered from the component behaviour rules in a way that represents a novel ontology.

For example, nothing in the static grid of binary cells, or the rules of Game of Life bears any relation to the dynamic interacting patterns that result by iterating those rules over the grid. Those patterns have higher-level behaviour rules that can be harnessed to perform logical operations. Some very clever people have used those patterns to construct functioning counters, calculators, and even a universal Turing machine (i.e. a computer). An interesting example is an emulation of Game of Life built with Game of Life.

The grid becomes a computational substrate on which the patterns supervene, but the results are entirely dependent on 'external' input, i.e. the initial arrangement of the 'live' grid cells.

 

[partinobodycular]

You generate your moods as a result of the influences of environment, physiology, and your ongoing mental state (itself a product of the influences of environment and physiology). What other source of moods do you think there could be?

Yes, indeed. Subjectively, we have the experience of free will because we act according to our desires, motivations, moods, etc., and we have very little insight into their origins - except for obvious cases like being grumpy because of some problem, anxious because of some upcoming difficulty, happy because of some positive event...

If our thoughts are deterministic but unpredictable, they will not, subjectively, seem deterministic. People worry that not having free will means we're helpless passengers in robotic bodies, but that's dualism raising its ugly head again - our thinking selves are part and parcel of the deterministic process.

Even my philosophy prof. found it hard to grasp, suggesting that it would make sincere emotions like love meaningless so that hugging his mother would be an empty gesture. I had to try and convince him that was far too simplistic, that nature, nurture, and life experiences had made him the kind of person that finds giving and receiving emotional hugs with loved ones deeply satisfying and rewarding - and meaningful.

The sense that we have free will is much like our other biases and heuristics - a convenient and intuitive view of our interactions with the world, but being aware of, and accepting this, does provide a path to a more enlightened view of the behaviour of our fellow humans.

We can then see that, for example, seriously anti-social behaviour (violence, etc,) is a result of a life-long interplay between nature and nurture that, in a deterministic sense, the individual has no control over... The rational view is sympathy for their misfortune in becoming that kind of person. Punishment and/or retribution are not rational responses unless they are likely to reform the offender; they are emotional responses grounded in the free will heuristic. The rational solution is rehabilitation, if possible; if not, then humane separation from society.

We can also see that great the achievers have, in a deterministic sense, no more control over their path to success than the criminal over theirs; but because they represent goals or aspirations that we feel are beneficial to society, we can encourage those positive goals and aspirations in society by applauding them, so tilting the balance in receptive minds by the anticipation of positive reinforcement.

Some Scandinavian countries have moved a considerable way along this path, but it requires the acceptance (understanding, buy-in) of society as a whole, and it's hard to see how most other societies could even start to make that change.

Well, I would say that, wouldn't I?

I like this answer, it's very articulate, and very reasonable, but...doesn't it assume a certain overarching worldview?

Specifically, that cause and effect are linear. "A" causes "B" causes "C". But what if that's not the case, but instead all time, effects all time, all the time. Such that there's a collective "cause" which operates over and above what we perceive of as simply linear causes?

I know, there's a certain irrationality about the concept of all time, effecting all time, all the time. It's like the epitome of teleology, wherein the result is also the cause. Except that in this case "everything"...and "every thing"...are in fact the cause...and the effect. With seemingly the only requirement being that they're internally consistent...maybe.

This is where I tend to find myself falling down the rabbit hole. What happens when all time, effects all time, all the time? And what does it mean for determinism?

 

[durangodawood]

....Specifically, that cause and effect are linear. "A" causes "B" causes "C". But what if that's not the case, but instead all time, effects all time, all the time. Such that there's a collective "cause" which operates over and above what we perceive of as simply linear causes?....

I dont understand what this means. Could you describe an example of this in operation?

 

[partinobodycular]

I dont understand what this means. Could you describe an example of this in operation?

It's neither an easy concept to grasp, nor an easy concept to explain, which is why I tend to end up somewhere down a rabbit hole.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that we exist in a block universe, in which past present and future all exist at once. In such a universe all that we can really say for sure about "A", "B", and "C" is that they're consistent with each other. It might seem reasonable to assume that "A" caused "B", since that's the way we experience them, but since "A" can't really be said to have preceded "B", how is it possible for "A" to have caused "B", at least in the sense that we understand the concept of causation?

In a block universe the state of "B" is just as much of a constraint on the state of "A", as the other way around. And this holds true for every other point in time as well.

Of course the very concept of a block universe is counterintuitive, but if you're in one, then linear causality becomes something of an illusion.

 

[Bradskii]

If our thoughts are deterministic but unpredictable, they will not, subjectively, seem deterministic. People worry that not having free will means we're helpless passengers in robotic bodies, but that's dualism raising its ugly head again - our thinking selves are part and parcel of the deterministic process.

That appears to make sense as it stands. Surely it could be said that we internally interpret the incoming information - which is deterministic, and then self determine our actions. That would make us responsible agents. So one could argue that we're not automatons and that we do have free will in that sense. But...

We can then see that, for example, seriously anti-social behaviour (violence, etc,) is a result of a life-long interplay between nature and nurture that, in a deterministic sense, the individual has no control over... The rational view is sympathy for their misfortune in becoming that kind of person.

And I tend to agree with this. There but for the grace of God..etc. And Charles Whitman (Texas clock tower massacre) is the classic example. His actions were quite possibly caused by a medical condition for which he could not possible have been blamed. And we can extrapolate from that situation to include where and when you were born, your parent's health (physical and mental), your upbringing, education, peer pressure etc - over which you have no real control. It's all deterministic.

But that doesn't tie in with what we agree with above. That we do operate separately from the environment in some way. At least, it appears that we do. So there is some degree of personal responsibility if you approach the problem from one direction but none from the other.

It's a straightforward argument as I see it that we should allow that anti social actions are, in some sense, deterministic. And that should prompt a reappraisal of the justice system. But...if we allow for the fact that the perpetrator isn't entirely responsible for the anger that he feels, then your prof must equally not be entirely responsible for the love he feels for his mother.

The degree of responsibility that we have is something I've struggled with for a long time. I had hopes that Sam Harris would finally solve it in his book on free will, but every time he came close to making a determination, he left the question hanging.

I can't get past the problem that our internal deliberations as to what path we should follow in response to deterministic inputs are themselves the result of deterministic inputs over which we had no control.

 

[TheWhat?]

It's not that there are two different spacetime locations in the same spacetime location (usually called an 'event'), it's that the traveller has experienced less elapsed time than the observers on Earth, i.e. his journey between the two events was subjectively quicker, so he will have aged less and his clock will show that less time has passed for him.

It may be counterintuitive that the longest route between two events has the shortest subjective elapsed time, but it's not a paradox.

Obviously, it's not two locations in space-time we're dealing with in the hypothetical, but it does mean that one location in space-time will have at least two distinct time coordinates, neither being more correct than the other, and that's inherently problematic.

 

[Bradskii]

I like this answer, it's very articulate, and very reasonable, but...doesn't it assume a certain overarching worldview?

Specifically, that cause and effect are linear. "A" causes "B" causes "C". But what if that's not the case, but instead all time, effects all time, all the time. Such that there's a collective "cause" which operates over and above what we perceive of as simply linear causes?

I know, there's a certain irrationality about the concept of all time, effecting all time, all the time. It's like the epitome of teleology, wherein the result is also the cause. Except that in this case "everything"...and "every thing"...are in fact the cause...and the effect. With seemingly the only requirement being that they're internally consistent...maybe.

This is where I tend to find myself falling down the rabbit hole. What happens when all time, effects all time, all the time? And what does it mean for determinism?

I think that it means that we can work backward to determine one of the causes why something happened, but as there is an infinite number of inputs into any given system, it is impossible to make specific forecasts.

So the empire was lost because the war was lost. Which happened because the battle was lost - because a skirmish was lost - because a fight was lost - because a horse was lost...because a nail in the horse's shoe was lost. That would make logical sense. But if the horse loses a shoe, then you can't extrapolate from that to an empire falling.