(2019-01-02, 02:56 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Was this your effort to contribute to the retro-causality discussion?
Lol.
Quote:My understanding of the history of the recent conversion of a failed theory of evolution, to one that is tractable, is not in synch with yours.
I don't see why it would be. You seem to be devoted to the idea of "information" and fit everything to that, and I still don't understand what it is that you think is different about it.
Linda
(2019-01-02, 07:01 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]The idea is not that the past is "changed" by the retrocausal influence, but that it's shaped by it - and always has been. And because the universe must remain consistent, there are constraints on the effect of that influence, which necessarily prevent paradoxes from arising.
Why does the universe have to remain consistent? It seems to me retrocausation is a bigger argument for a top-down creator than ID?
(2019-01-02, 07:26 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Why does the universe have to remain consistent? It seems to me retrocausation is a bigger argument for a top-down creator than ID?
Do you mean what forces the universe to remain consistent? If so, I think consistency is supposed to be a fundamental property of the universe, rather than something enforced by a particular mechanism.
Isn't the assumption of consistency viewed by quantum foundations people as the alternative to multiple universes? I suppose it's possible to believe in retro-causation without imposing a consistency requirement, if there are multiple universes that branch both forwards
and backwards in time ...
(2019-01-02, 07:44 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Do you mean what forces the universe to remain consistent? If so, I think consistency is supposed to be a fundamental property of the universe, rather than something enforced by a particular mechanism.
Isn't the assumption of consistency viewed by quantum foundations people as the alternative to multiple universes? I suppose it's possible to believe in retro-causation without imposing a consistency requirement, if there are multiple universes that branch both forwards and backwards in time ...
I honestly would need to dig deeper into the interpretations allowing for retrocausation to say more, but it does seem to me consistency is a human desire - the very concept of "natural laws" points to that as well.
Not directly related (AFAIK) to retrocausation is an idea that the physicist Lee Smolin proposed, that the "Present" is a bubble in some sense rather than a singular point on a (supposed) temporal 4th dimensional axis. (I don't think Time is, in any way, akin to the other 3 axes of space)
(2019-01-02, 09:59 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Without reference to the classic space-time retro-causation ideas you Chris and nbtruthman seem to be discussing here. I think your idea that time as we experience it, not being in any way related to our experience of space is... distasteful :-(
You can dump the three axis of space and one of time.... and instead think about yourself as existing as the center point inside a large sphere... turn to any vector, and you will see a different part of the two dimensional inner surface of the sphere where two dimensions of information are stored (which is the everyday world you experience)... but our experience of time is intimately linked to that perception, because there is a perception of distance between you and the inner walls of the sphere, and that perception of distance is intimately bound together with the perception of time. The time taken to travel that distance, which is just a fact of life for us, and is sort of a way of processing information into spacetime and into the everyday concept of stuff near, and far away. You can think about your 4 dimensions that way just the same I'm sure, instead of thinking about cubes with 3 dimensions of space + 1 dimensional time.
Yeah I was a bit remiss to say time is not like space in any way.
But it seems to me space is defined by time to a certain extent. As Eric Weiss put it, if you could teleport to different places and teleport things to you instantly the idea of space would be altered.
I even suspect we might be in agreement that space is defined by time, not vice versa...or do you think even that is inaccurate, that space and time have a co-dependence if not via Einstein's works then even by attempts at defining either?
(2019-01-02, 07:44 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Do you mean what forces the universe to remain consistent? If so, I think consistency is supposed to be a fundamental property of the universe, rather than something enforced by a particular mechanism.
With reference to time travel, it's known as the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle, and it has its own Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_se..._principle
(2019-01-02, 07:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why it would be. You seem to be devoted to the idea of "information" and fit everything to that, and I still don't understand what it is that you think is different about it.
Linda
Informational activity operating in an informational environment is measured differently than physical activity in a physical environment.
Chemical analysis is a fabulous tool in understanding biological systems.
Analysis of communication, regulatory functions and intentional mental output are tools in understanding biological systems.
In practice, this methodology leads me to see the research into the chemical precursor to life as secondary; to research into how the first biological codes developed.
(2019-01-02, 06:48 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Is the apologist you mention, Stephen Myers, the intelligent design guy?
I meant PZ Myers.
Yeah, sure. The Discovery folks and Stephen Meyer are similar on the other side. I would be following the books and authors recommended by the Third Way of Evolution.
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/pe...no-anolles
(2019-01-02, 11:02 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Informational activity operating in an informational environment is measured differently than physical activity in a physical environment.
Chemical analysis is a fabulous tool in understanding biological systems.
Analysis of communication, regulatory functions and intentional mental output are tools in understanding biological systems.
In practice, this methodology leads me to see the research into the chemical precursor to life as secondary; to research into how the first biological codes developed.
Personally, rather than confining oneself to one perspective, I prefer the way evolutionary biologists seem to be working on it, which includes chemical analysis in conjunction with how the biological codes may have developed (e.g.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0072225).
You've never really clarified why you consider chemical analysis vs. information two different and competing perspectives, rather than the way scientists in the field seem to use them (as one of many tools used to understand the larger picture).
Linda
The Paul Davies paper where he suggests post-selection being incorporated into natural selection is entitled, “Directionality Principles from Cancer to Cosmology.”
Can't seem to find a free link, if anyone else has some luck or can provide some bullet points would be much appreciated.
thanks!
Sci