Does cause really cause the effect, or does the effect create the cause? Is time truly relevant, or do humans simply bash their heads from the questions of life that are truly over our heads theoretically speaking.
Cause is an effect of another previous effect and causes its own effect. About time I have no idea
Time is from dynamics; there must be continual change for time to exist. If all stopped, frozen absolutely, there would be no time.
Every effect has a cause. This is immutable unless you are talking about a superman movie; to every action there is a reaction.
Quantum theory states that for time to be experienced, it needs an observer to make it a reality and that time honestly is a moment that is continuous in nature. It is neither here nor there, but a series of nows, perpetualy and that the future and the past are but dimensions only perceptible by now.
That cannot be true; if it were C14 dating would not work. It depends on time and radioactive decay over that time, but not on an observer watching either time or the decay.
That is what I understood it to be, for without the observer, none of this be here to observe. Time has to have an observer or else the word time would be meaningless.
Incorrect. Time does not need an observer, and it would not be meaningless without such observer.
The universe existed for millions of years (note the reference to time) without (human) observers.
Certain elements decay over time, with no observer watching them; the rate of decay (note reference to time) is still constant and meaningful.
The planets moved, the galaxy turned and asteroids slammed into the moon are high speed (note reference to time; meters per second) without any observer. Tell the dinosaurs that the speed of the Yucatan asteroid was meaningless.
What if the observer is outside of time and sees all?
That is exactly the reason the Atheistic scienctists in the fielde dispise that theory. It infers a God, or unlitimate observer.
"What if the observer is outside of time and sees all?"
It would interesting to know which "Atheistic scientists" believe that, could you provide a link?
The question can be in answered in two parts.
An observer can't be "outside of time" as this represents a meaningless concept in our universe due to the fact time is one the essential dimensions required for anything to exist. If only three dimensions were present, the universe would essentially be "frozen" with no cause and no effect, nothing would be able to evolve past the first state.
The other issue is the fact that time is not absolute, it is as relative to the observer and the events of cause and effect as are the other dimensions. In order for an observer to observe everything contained within the universe from some other reference point, time would have to be absolute in order for that observer to make measurable and valid observations equally across the entire universe and they would have to be at every point of the universe at the same time in order to do so.
What is time for the observer to be "outside" of it?
Time is an illusion, relative to perception.
A consequence of living within the "system" itself.
You are telling me it is a concept. You can be inside or outside only of an object, not concept. Time is not a "thing" for anybody to be inside or outside of it, but is a concept which needs an intelligent being(with memory) to conceive.
This universe, or demension, is the system... we do not know what is outside of it.
I did not say it was a "concept".
I said it is relative to perspective. All things are relative to perspective.
Well, most things are.
Illusion, perception all denote concepts.
The whole matter and space together we call "universe". Hence there is no outside as there are no boundaries.
Again the post was about time not universe.
Dimension relates to 3D architecture of an object, nothing to do with concepts like time or universe.
I do not know what god(another concept) has got anything to do with any of these.
Do you know if, or that, there is time outside of this universe?
Or that it would be percieved same as in this universe?
Our universe is a system... and yes it has boundries... we have mapped the edges, or are in the process of it.
We also know gravity affects time.
We know traveling at the speed of light affects us inside of time.
I do not see what you have a problem with this for?
you do not have to believe or consider it...
And the god part is as references the, "observer".
Time is a concept based on motion and as long as there is motion and sentient being with memory there will be time, otherwise no time.
What is "universe"?
Edges? Please tell me what is it made of? What will happen if you step out of this boundary?
Gravity affects time? You are joking, aren't you? How can gravity or anything can affect a concept? How does it affect? By changing the brain structure?
Nobody has traveled at the speed of light, so forget it. I didn't understand the "inside of time" part.
So any observer can be called god?? Then any living organism is god!
Believe or consider what?
My whole point is we do not know what is outside of this universe.
Inside of time... Think of Einstiens thought experiment of twins and one travels at the speed of light for some time... they age at different rates... thus they are both within the same time stream or medium, however you call it... but the relative effects of that same time medium is different to both subjects.
And yes we are supposedly mapping the edges of the universe right now... so I guess we will see at some point just what the boundies are.
And God was brought into it way back, or an outside observer, as neccessary for time to exist at all.
So no, not all beings who observe are god.
An I, like you, am just speaking on things we really do not know as of yet, if we ever will.
So... as I said... you do not have to consider this view or accept any view you do not want to.
And as to what the universe, or its edges, are made of?
That is a very good question that many throughout the fields of science are even now trying to answer.
Well it is almost 5am here... so i am going now. if you want to chat about it in the mornig fine.
have a good nite.
I hope you know what "universe" is. This is my question, "What is universe?" As far as I know, the whole space and matter is called universe. Space is our conceptualization of nothing, and as space is included in universe, universe has no boundaries, as space has no boundaries. If we travel in a straight line from earth, we may reach a place where there is no matter, but still there be space.
Aging is a process of all living beings in which the structure of the organism change. It depends on so many factors, and experiment you mentioned is another dumb one from the dumbest/charlatan-Einstein
We can map only objects, not space.
Outside of what? No time exist, only objects exist. Concept like time are conceived, and that is done by everone with memory.
I didn't ask about anything that is not known!
Well you go about your lil world were Einstien is a dumb ass.
I am not gong to argue samantics with you.
If you do not know what I am saying, then you should not bother reading my posts.
Again. Good nite.
And you can talk all you want... we do not understand time. We have many theories about it... but we, not I not you, do not know.
Oh! Einstein is your god? Then I might have offended you.
Just because a fellow has many followers, doesn't make him rational, a charlatan, yes, but no saint.
I do not think Einstien is God.
You are a laugh riot you know.
But I do not consider him a dumb ass, either.
And I am sure you have established yourself in a field of science and progressed the world into a new level of understanding in your own way, eh?
What an ego.
Not your god?
Then why get so emotional?
New science? Quantum? Mug up everything taught to you by authorities and worship them! Don't use your brain, you know, it cost a lot of "energy"!
And "semantics" the word you derided, you know without grammar and meaning no human being can convey his ideas to other, correctly? Where the meanings are vague, religion survives and your priests and gods like Einstein will use you, without you knowing it and make you their flag bearer(that you are doing now, anyway).
You have absolutely no clue what you are tlaking about.
I would laugh at that post is I could actually translate its meaning.
You think you are more that Einstien... well that is quite egotistic... and i somehow doubt very much that you know half of what he knew.
Adn I will say it agin... I am not a worshiper of Eistien... but you keep running that line.
But I am also not so arrogant as to dismiss a man and his work as you are.
You the one getting emotional... because I doubt you are anywhere near as intelligent as Einstien.
When you can over-turn reallity... then you might match up to Einstien.
Without sentient life forms to observe the observable, there would be nothing to observe. It would probably still exist, but there would be no experimentation to test the theory. So that is the purpose of an observer, to observe. Without the observer, there would be no lights, no boats or motorcars, not a single luxury. No observer, nothing to observe. Absolute truth, even I can't deny. So then. How do we even know we're observing anything real, especialy if it's only perceptible right now? The observations of the past led to many great strydes forward, but they all happened in moments. That is the quantifiable universe as we know it, for it happens in quantas (very small fractions) of time.
The earth, sun and stars exist irrespective of the observe. The absence of observer will not cause any of it to change(we may not get novels like quantum and relativity though).
Time is a concept, hence need an observer. Hence there is no time, once the observer goes. Time is the different locations of matter, and it need a sentient being with memory to remember the previous locations. For objects/matter there is only eternal present.
As Jomine says, the absence of an observer does not negate existence.
While you are correct that great strides happen in moments, the very term moment is a very large slice of time. The time it takes one electron to flow from one brain cell to another is trillions upon trillions of time quanta - to declare that our own concept of a short moment somehow makes things unreal doesn't follow.
You seem to be saying that because no one hears a tree fall in the forest it didn't happen - not so. While the presence of an observer can alter the quantum world, it does not bring it into existence.
In a philosophers jargon, time if reversed could be the effect in act making the cause, such as a basketball reversed in time to touch from ground to hand instead of hand to ground. And for carbon dating and radioactive decay, is it not so that particles act in a seemingly random flux, that is there is no set pattern of room to room similarities. So in effect carbon if retested by machine in another room, would it not be off by the slightest amount, and why is that so? I think we as humans perceive what the machine tells us as an interpretation, rather than factual hard evidence.
As I understand it time and motion are connected. The faster you are moving through space, the slower you are moving through time since both have to be in balance. This would indicate that if you could sit completely still in space you would only be moving in time, and it would speed by. Since our planet moves round the sun, our sun moves round the galaxy and our galaxy itself is also moving, we are actually traveling at great speeds at all times and standing completely still would almost be impossible (forces would likely move you, things like gravity). I am not sure what an observer has to do with anything tho? I mean, when we have passed and no longer exist, who will know that there was ever an observer to observe anything anyway? Our *time* will have passed, will that mean we never where? or that time ceases to exist because its not being observed? Is time a celebrity that must be observed in order that it can be what it is? (metaphorically speaking)
" the past are but dimensions only perceptible by now."
I like that. So, what time is it in outer space?
First Watch what Professor Brian Cox has to say about time (he knows his stuff):
And then, watch this funny spoof on previous video for a real good laugh
Man can not observe absolute time; man observes relative time. Absolute time began at the beginning of creation. QM makes a statement regarding the measurement of time which is the observation. QM states that we can not observe reality which doesn't need an observer for it to affect us moment by moment.
"All can not be counted, but all counts.", Einstein
The end is predetermined from beginning...
So what is predetermined is the both the cause and the effect.
The middle work itself out to that one purpose.
Most are in the middle, where it appears to work largely in a cause/effect mode.
Thus giving validation to such a question.
Every middle is also a beginning and an end, every action both a cause and an effect. Which word is chosen is solely dependent on the position in time of the one naming it.
Nor is predestination factual - in the quantum world are many actions that happen apparently purely from random chance. If that is indeed true, those actions will affect the macro world and negate the possibility of predestination.
When you speak from the 'if' position and in at that place all 'facts' are questionable.
That is the middle 'if' position and this is why you question the things I say.
It that position you will also question the things you say...and it is expected that you would put it above mine.
I do not speak from the if position...and you do not understands the things outside of it.
So you question so as to promote your position instead of seeking to understand mine.
If you were interested in understanding, then you cannot help but ask the right questions...
The way I understand it, the reason we don't have a 'unified theory of everything' is because of the problem reconciling the quantum world with the 'macrocosmic' world, which still follows Newtonian science.
Nowhere does it say in quantum physics that an observer must be present for events to happen. What quantum physics says is that subatomic particles exist in a state of 'statistical probablitity' with reference to their position and trajectory. That subatomic particle has a probability quotient for every and anywhere in the universe. But when we observe that particle the 'probability vector' collapses into the reality of either where the particle is, or how fast it is moving, but not both.
The particle would have gone from point a to point b whether there was an observer or not.
But the confusion, I think, arises from the fact that mathematical language can't always be fully interpreted into spoken language, just like some french phrases don't make sense in english.
The atom or electron or whatever is where it is and doing what it is supposed to be doing, it is the experimenters and the math people who are trying to put things together from evidence they don't understand.
I think "humans simply bash their heads from the questions of life that are truly over our heads theoretically speaking" as you said.
Causality is fundamental to all natural sciences and especially physics. It has been well been well researched and there has been one area which questions causality, which is radioactive decay which according to standard quantum models, the decay was random, however new research has led us to believe that decay is caused by vacuum fluctuations otherwise known as virtual particles.
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
on the religion forum I was describing what I thought was quantum physics...that the universe is accelerating and expanding in a spiral. Is that quantum or something else or combination of things...?
by Alice DeWonder6 years ago
To say I read all of Mr. Campbell's works would be inaccurate, but I have consumed multiple texts that bear his name; even one that includes Bill Moyer. Soon after I followed-up with DVDs and VCRs that demonstrated his...
by BakerRambles6 years ago
In quantum theory, an observer is related to an individuals perception of an augmented reality, but what is an observer in respect with the supernatural world?
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
I firmly subscribe to Decarte's formulation: I think therefore I am. Some folks on Hubpages argue against this by saying: I am therefore I think.The idea that objective entities exist outside of the mind, have been...
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
There is no observer independent concept of Reality. Reality must always be interpreted from the vantage point or through the prism of whoever/whatever is observing it. Thus Reality on its own CAN NOT...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
I have heard many times that one reason the "inflation theory" has been challenged is the argument that is if it were true then the expansion would have to happened at a speed faster than light, in violation...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.