Eric Wargo on retrocausation

Courtesy of the Daily Grail, here's Eric Wargo's latest blog post, entitled "Where Was It Before the Dream? — Time Loops and Creativity," expressing the conviction that time loops really can produce new information out of nowhere:
http://thenightshirt.com/?p=4468

Courtesy of the Daily Grail, here's Eric Wargo's latest blog post, entitled "Where Was It Before the Dream? — Time Loops and Creativity," expressing the conviction that time loops really can produce new information out of nowhere:
http://thenightshirt.com/?p=4468

Heh, I appreciate the conviction with which someone can be determined to accept the illogical/impossible.

A much better explanation would be something like time is multidimensional.

[Laird]

Heh, I appreciate the conviction with which someone can be determined to accept the illogical/impossible.

Don't you think, though, Sci, that whatever your explanation for the origin of novel information/ideas/etc, it is going to seem illogical/impossible? Isn't that the essence of that fundamental ontological question: "Why something rather than nothing?" We seem to have the existence of a bunch of "stuff", defined in some inclusive way, which we have no explanation for under any explanatory paradigm, right? Why single out Eric's explanation as uniquely illogical?

Don't you think, though, Sci, that whatever your explanation for the origin of novel information/ideas/etc, it is going to seem illogical/impossible? Isn't that the essence of that fundamental ontological question: "Why something rather than nothing?" We seem to have the existence of a bunch of "stuff", defined in some inclusive way, which we have no explanation for under any explanatory paradigm, right? Why single out Eric's explanation as uniquely illogical?

Because he believes in time loops and retrocausation.

edit -> See the following essay by Feser:

Causal loops, infinite regresses, and information

[Laird]

edit -> See the following essay by Feser:

Causal loops, infinite regresses, and information

Thanks. I don't think that it answers my question though. The key relevant quote from that essay is this:

Even if time-travel-generated causal loops were possible in principle, we would still need to appeal to something outside them in order to account for the specific information content that is passed from link to link in the loop.

But, as was my point in that which I wrote above, this sort of reasoning applies to novel information under any causal scheme. Edward refers to infinite regresses, and these, too, do seem, as he asserts, to require "something outside them in order to account for the specific information content" which is somehow present throughout the regress without ever being grounded. I'm suggesting, though, that the problem also applies to grounded causal chains, that, rather than looping or regressing infinitely, have a starting point: because, again, we seem to require "something outside" the initiated chain to explain the information that is present at the very start of the chain.

So, ultimately, I don't see why inexplicable novel information in a time loop is any more illogical than the unexplained novel information under any other category of causal structure.

Does that make sense? Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Thanks. I don't think that it answers my question though. The key relevant quote from that essay is this:


But, as was my point in that which I wrote above, this sort of reasoning applies to novel information under any causal scheme. Edward refers to infinite regresses, and these, too, do seem, as he asserts, to require "something outside them in order to account for the specific information content" which is somehow present throughout the regress without ever being grounded. I'm suggesting, though, that the problem also applies to grounded causal chains, that, rather than looping or regressing infinitely, have a starting point: because, again, we seem to require "something outside" the initiated chain to explain the information that is present at the very start of the chain.

So, ultimately, I don't see why inexplicable novel information in a time loop is any more illogical than the unexplained novel information under any other category of causal structure.

Does that make sense? Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I think I see - but I think we can acknowledge a Mystery while also noting there are answers that are just bad.

Wargo's explanation is bad because he invokes time loops that simply exist. I also am wary of retrocausation but I could see possibly that working in particular views of time. However Wargo really doesn't have a coherent view of time, so much as he is fanatical about his belief in time loops.

Look at his book - he hand waves objections by citing how strong his supposed evidence is.

I think I see - but I think we can acknowledge a Mystery while also noting there are answers that are just bad.

Wargo's explanation is bad because he invokes time loops that simply exist. I also am wary of retrocausation but I could see possibly that working in particular views of time. However Wargo really doesn't have a coherent view of time, so much as he is fanatical about his belief in time loops.

Look at his book - he hand waves objections by citing how strong his supposed evidence is.

I'm surprised by this view. It seems a very thoughtful book to me - and to others. I'm not convinced his ideas are correct, but I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand.

I'm surprised by this view. It seems a very thoughtful book to me - and to others. I'm not convinced his ideas are correct, but I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand.

The collection of evidence that something weird seems to be happening, and that it should cause us to reflect on our understanding of time/consciousness, is fine.

The argument that he presents to explain this stuff - time loops -just  isn't very good as he mentions some of the criticism people have made - akin to the ones Feser makes in the linked essay - and then just refers back to the strength of his evidence. But the evidence isn't the point of contention, it's the issue with time loops requiring Something from Nothing information generation.

The collection of evidence that something weird seems to be happening, and that it should cause us to reflect on our understanding of time/consciousness, is fine.

The argument that he presents to explain this stuff - time loops -just  isn't very good as he mentions some of the criticism people have made - akin to the ones Feser makes in the linked essay - and then just refers back to the strength of his evidence. But the evidence isn't the point of contention, it's the issue with time loops requiring Something from Nothing information generation.

But is the objection to that anything more than a matter of taste?