Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

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.

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

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't say they're exactly equivalent. But there appears to be an assumption of determinism underlying Feser's argument, which seems at odds with what quantum physics tells us.

I don't say they're exactly equivalent. But there appears to be an assumption of determinism underlying Feser's argument, which seems at odds with what quantum physics tells us.

Isn't it the time-loop what makes things deterministic? Or do you think it's more there is a murky future (and possibly murky past) that exist which we detect, and that causes the loop?

If so to me that seems like scanning possibilities than a loop that always exists? Perhaps we are thinking along similar lines but using different words?

p.s. An aside, but Feser isn't a determinist.

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.

Then the particular sort of retro-causation that we are most interested in, the possible introduction of new biological systems and structures into the past, is prevented by the Universe since the new complex specified information would certainly introduce an "inconsistency" or paradox. In fact, any retro-causative information transfer into the past that could make a change that makes a difference in our reality would somehow be prevented because it would inevitably create some sort of paradox. If retro-causative events can happen but only if they don't really make any difference, then they really don't matter.

Anyway, the underlying principle seems to me to be that the essence, of the new complex specified information that corresponds to new biological systems and structures, is mind or the properties of mind. And invoking retro-causation, even if it didn't create impossible contradictions and paradoxes, would just obfuscate the inevitable necessity of there having been, in the origin of this new information, the operation of some sort of mental entities in some time and place.

Isn't it the time-loop what makes things deterministic? Or do you think it's more there is a murky future (and possibly murky past) that exist which we detect, and that causes the loop?

Obviously if retro-causation exists we don't understand the mechanism. I don't see why it needs to be deterministic - though in a world with retro-causation we probably need to think very carefully about what we mean by determinism anyway.

Then the particular sort of retro-causation that we are most interested in, the possible introduction of new biological systems and structures into the past, is prevented by the Universe since the new complex specified information would certainly introduce an "inconsistency" or paradox. In fact, any retro-causative information transfer into the past that could make a change that makes a difference in our reality would somehow be prevented because it would inevitably create some sort of paradox. If retro-causative events can happen but only if they don't really make any difference, then they really don't matter.

The idea is that there can be causal loops that are consistent, and therefore not paradoxical. Consistency doesn't mean that they don't make a difference, though it's not really right to talk about a difference, because if we're talking about time loops there can't be any question of comparing "before" and "after", or "with" and "without" - except in terms of what would have happened in a different universe with no retro-causation. As I understand it, Wargo's argument isn't that retro-causation exists but is insignificant, but that it's fundamental to the way the world works.