Psience Quest

(2018-12-30, 11:46 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I'll dig up the argument over field effects later.

Here you go Steve, just one more thread with potential for good discussion ruined by your crass entrance.

(2018-12-27, 08:24 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Not wanting to butt in, but it seems to me that if we were open to the possibility of the laws of physics allowing retro-causation, in principle that would open the door to an alternative evolutionary mechanism that wouldn't necessarily involve intelligence - and might not even involve anything non-material.

It's a little late for a reply, but it occurred to me that this idea of retro-causation could invoke what looks like a science fictional irrational non-causal sequence where complex specified information exists  without any origin mechanism whatsoever, neither sentient designers or even RM + NS or some other mechanism. The design information would just exist with no cause whatsoever.   

Suppose that in the year 2500 a time machine is invented that allows information to be transferred to humans in the past. Retro-causation of a sort. Then the time machine inventors decide to interfere with the past by sending the design information for Edison's carbon filament light bulb (and the necessary electrical generator and power transmission technology) back to individuals who could do something with the information in the year 1830. 

What could be the result? A world line in which the complex specified information for the design of the light bulb (which required much effort on the part of Edison) and the necessary electrical power technology appeared out of nowhere and simply exists as a complex electromechanical design. Which though it requires a sentient inventor had no inventor (or even any other origin mechanism). Of course, there would also be the grandfather and other paradoxes. 

It looks to me like this little thought experiment pretty much shows that the idea of retro-causation is purely science fantasy and absolutely could not happen.

(2018-12-27, 09:56 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that you have to prove yourself to get your ideas accepted, rather than ‘anything which goes with the status quo gets accepted without question’, is one of the strengths of the practice of science.

Linda

Linda,

I am of a very different mind.  Science is not about the "image" and character of the the scientist.  Not at all.  Sure....there is a lot of public interest writing about the part of the discovery story where the personalities interact and the "story" of the politics is detailed.

In fact, the working science is the reductive equations, test methods and careful observation.  The lab tech notebook kept over a decade, is the raw meat of science.  The proving of the work and the response to it -- is not in the style of the conclusions -- but on the quality of the data and statistical analysis of the theory.

The foundational changes to Bio-Evolutionary Theory did not come from some consensus based in the 1980's.  It came from people who were excluded and rejected -- even when the data was presented to back the ideas.  In each case, it took years to be acknowledged.  I am not talking about glittering generalities.  I am citing the actual words of those who emerged as the giants of the times.

Quote: The Tangled Tree traces the full arc of Woese’s life and career. We see the fiercely determined young scientist struggling to collect the data that he intuited would be important, and the brooding, combative mid-career professor fighting to have his beloved archaea and three-domains tree accepted by the scientific community. Finally, there is the jaded, curmudgeonly legend wracked by a Darwin complex. None of the accolades showered on Woese seemed to matter (he and many others clearly felt he deserved a Nobel prize, but he never got one). Around 2010, Woese and Canadian science historian Jan Sapp began to collaborate on a book tentatively entitled Beyond God and Darwin. The project never moved beyond Sapp’s draft introduction, on which Woese wrote: “Jan, you accord Darwin so much more substance than the bastard deserves.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05827-1

Does that sound like someone who was comfortable in academic circles with being the man who changed the theory?  Why is he not more acknowledged today?

Is there still a neoDarwinian theory of evolution?  What does it claim?  Take a look at Panda's Thumb.  He (PZ Meyers) is pushing Climate Change Science.
https://pandasthumb.org/

(2019-01-01, 11:05 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]It's a little late for a reply, but it occurred to me that this idea of retro-causation could invoke what looks like a science fictional irrational non-causal sequence where complex specified information exists  without any origin mechanism whatsoever, neither sentient designers or even RM + NS or some other mechanism. The design information would just exist with no cause whatsoever.   

Suppose that in the year 2500 a time machine is invented that allows information to be transferred to humans in the past. Retro-causation of a sort. Then the time machine inventors decide to interfere with the past by sending the design information for Edison's carbon filament light bulb (and the necessary electrical generator and power transmission technology) back to individuals who could do something with the information in the year 1830. 

What could be the result? A world line in which the complex specified information for the design of the light bulb (which required much effort on the part of Edison) and the necessary electrical power technology appeared out of nowhere and simply exists as a complex electromechanical design. Which though it requires a sentient inventor had no inventor (or even any other origin mechanism). Of course, there would also be the grandfather and other paradoxes. 

It looks to me like this little thought experiment pretty much shows that the idea of retro-causation is purely science fantasy and absolutely could not happen.

This idea of a self-consistent causal closed path is central to the ideas Eric Wargo puts forward in his book "Time Loops". He argues that self-consistent loops pose no problem, but loops involving inconsistency - such as the one involved in the "grandfather paradox" - would be impossible.

I agree that the idea of such time loops is rather mind-boggling, and defies "common sense". But if we allow for the possibility of retrocausation I don't think we can say they are impossible. Indeed, if retrocausation existed, this kind of thing would be commonplace, unless there were some special mechanism to prevent it.

(2019-01-01, 05:47 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]This idea of a self-consistent causal closed path is central to the ideas Eric Wargo puts forward in his book "Time Loops". He argues that self-consistent loops pose no problem, but loops involving inconsistency - such as the one involved in the "grandfather paradox" - would be impossible.

I agree that the idea of such time loops is rather mind-boggling, and defies "common sense". But if we allow for the possibility of retrocausation I don't think we can say they are impossible. Indeed, if retrocausation existed, this kind of thing would be commonplace, unless there were some special mechanism to prevent it.

That's interesting. However, it seems to me that any retro-causative time loop that actually introduced new complex specified information into the past (that must have had a sentient creative origin or at least some creative origin process), would invoke paradox. And the grandfather paradox would happen if any change is introduced that changes or deletes the origin process of a human being, and that would seem to be inevitable for any significant evolutionary innovation introduced far enough in the past by retro-causation. I would like to know how Wargo's ideas somehow get around this. 

How does a "self-consistent" retro-causative time loop differ from my suggested thought experiment, or to pose it in another way, does a "self-consistent" time loop permit introduction of truly new complex specified information (such as a new design in the area of human invention) into the past? It would seem to me that the only type of retro-causative time loop of interest here would be one that can introduce new information that required a designer or a design process of some kind, and that type would inevitably be "inconsistent".

(2019-01-01, 06:17 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]That's interesting. However, it seems to me that any retro-causative time loop that actually introduced new complex specified information into the past (that must have had a sentient creative origin or at least some creative origin process), would invoke paradox. And the grandfather paradox would happen if any change is introduced that changes or deletes the origin process of a human being, and that would seem to be inevitable for any significant evolutionary innovation introduced far enough in the past by retro-causation. I would like to know how Wargo's ideas somehow get around this. 

How does a "self-consistent" retro-causative time loop differ from my suggested thought experiment, or to pose it in another way, does a "self-consistent" time loop permit introduction of truly new complex specified information (such as a new design in the area of human invention) into the past?

I haven't finished Wargo's book yet, but I think he is allowing for the kind of situation you've described, in which information is reaching the past from the future through retro-causation, and getting from the past to the future in the conventional way.

With regard to paradoxes, I think the idea is essentially that they just don't happen because the universe has to remain consistent. So circumstances that involve inconsistency occur with zero probability. If people really could go back in time to try to kill their grandfathers, something would always happen to prevent their doing so.

(2019-01-01, 06:17 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]That's interesting. However, it seems to me that any retro-causative time loop that actually introduced new complex specified information into the past (that must have had a sentient creative origin or at least some creative origin process), would invoke paradox. And the grandfather paradox would happen if any change is introduced that changes or deletes the origin process of a human being, and that would seem to be inevitable for any significant evolutionary innovation introduced far enough in the past by retro-causation. I would like to know how Wargo's ideas somehow get around this. 

How does a "self-consistent" retro-causative time loop differ from my suggested thought experiment, or to pose it in another way, does a "self-consistent" time loop permit introduction of truly new complex specified information (such as a new design in the area of human invention) into the past? It would seem to me that the only type of retro-causative time loop of interest here would be one that can introduce new information that required a designer or a design process of some kind, and that type would inevitably be "inconsistent".

Yeah, I feel like Feser essentially disproves time loops in this blog post:

Edward Feser: Causal loops, infinite regresses, and information

(2019-01-01, 06:27 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't finished Wargo's book yet, but I think he is allowing for the kind of situation you've described, in which information is reaching the past from the future through retro-causation, and getting from the past to the future in the conventional way.

With regard to paradoxes, I think the idea is essentially that they just don't happen because the universe has to remain consistent. So circumstances that involve inconsistency occur with zero probability. If people really could go back in time to try to kill their grandfathers, something would always happen to prevent their doing so.

But even if you don't go back and kill your grandfather, it seems to me there are enough changes to chaotic systems that these perturbations always lead to large shifts in history?

Even particles continually going back would have this issue, but beyond that we'd need to understand why only small bits of relevant information is being sent back. It'd seem more likely that, if we allow for something akin to time travel, that natural selection exploited the hypothesized quantum realm of the Possibles. Basically scanning future timelines for the better case scenarios.


It seems like if there temporal entanglement, and this can be a first step to showing potential FTL communication, that would be a good starting point for quantum biology to investigate. But everything in that last sentence is speculative so we'll have to wait & see...

(2019-01-01, 07:06 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I feel like Feser essentially disproves time loops in this blog post:

Edward Feser: Causal loops, infinite regresses, and information

I'm afraid I don't see that. He seems to be saying that this kind of time loop can't exist because there would be nothing to determine what information was being transmitted around the loop. But why does it need to be determined? Isn't it like saying there can't be such things as random number generators, because there would be nothing to determine what numbers they generated?

(2019-01-01, 04:57 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Linda,

I am of a very different mind.  Science is not about the "image" and character of the the scientist.

I don't think it's about the image and character of the scientist. When I said "prove", I wasn't referring to combat in some sort of opinion arena. "Prove" is about doing the research and getting the evidence which proves your idea.

Quote:The foundational changes to Bio-Evolutionary Theory did not come from some consensus based in the 1980's.  It came from people who were excluded and rejected -- even when the data was presented to back the ideas.

Like that. 

I get that it makes a good story to focus on those who had an idea which encountered some resistance, performed research which happened to prove they were right, and whose ideas were eventually incorporated into the larger body of knowledge. However, the story could also be told, a thousand times over, of those who had an idea which encountered some resistance, performed research which didn't prove they were right, whose ideas were not incorporated into the larger body of knowledge. Out of all the people with a novel idea who encounter resistance, how are we meant to pick out the handful who happen to be right beforehand, so as not to give them any resistance and forego the "evidence" requirement?

Linda

(2019-01-01, 08:06 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid I don't see that. He seems to be saying that this kind of time loop can't exist because there would be nothing to determine what information was being transmitted around the loop. But why does it need to be determined? Isn't it like saying there can't be such things as random number generators, because there would be nothing to determine what numbers they generated?

I don't think those two things are equivalent though? The "randomness" is causal power within the particle, this seems different than a structured loop made in time.

The randomness is happening in the normal expected flow of time (and arguably requires it), the time loop assumes a spatial dimension to time and that the loop is somehow also within this spatial structure. (I'd say the block universe hypothesis, like MWI, shows the limits of mathematical tools regardless of math/logic being Platonic).

But time loops also ask there be a limit to the backward causal arrow consisting of isolated incidents. Someone, or at least some force, has to stand outside of time to set the structure.


All that said, if temporal entangelment is a thing then perhaps retrocausation is the answer in some way. I'm still skeptical of a loop structure, but perhaps our understanding of time is just fundamentally flawed thanks to our biology.