Religion II

[hcap]

FYI.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Backward Causation

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

Paradoxes

Of all the philosophical problems to which backward causation (and time travel) gives rise, the paradoxes are those that have generated the most heat in both physics and philosophy because, if they are valid, they exclude backward causation from being both metaphysically and logically possible. The paradoxes can grossly be divided into three kinds: (1) Bootstrap paradoxes involve a causal or information loop; (2) Consistency paradoxes involve generating a possible inconsistency; and (3)Newcomb’s paradox seems to foreclose free will. So if backward causation (and time travel) should be logically possible, one has to show that the paradoxes can be resolved and that therefore arguments based on them are invalid.


Is that paradox or parabox?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed-up-car

Yeah...I'm shakin' in my boots. I can barely hold my cup of coffee without spilling it.

You drink too much coffee, but finally you admitted your scared sh*less.

Speaking of sh*less. Get off the pot or dump. Very appropriate for what your irrational claim is.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed-up-car

And since you have made yourself and the "rest of the rational thinking world " the 1/100000 faves, one would think that you would have eagerly accepted my original terms long before now.

Again, I accepted your stupid wager.

What is "the 1/100000 faves"? All of philosophy, science and religion? Not to mention common sense?

Oh, I forgot, you have none


Causality in physics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

In classical physics, an effect cannot occur before its cause. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time. In quantum field theory, observables of events with a spacelike relationship, "elsewhere", have to commute, so the order of observations or measurements of such observables do not impact each other.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Again, I accepted your stupid wager.

What is "the 1/100000 faves"? All of philosophy, science and religion? Not to mention common sense?

Oh, I forgot, you have none


Causality in physics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

In classical physics, an effect cannot occur before its cause. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time. In quantum field theory, observables of events with a spacelike relationship, "elsewhere", have to commute, so the order of observations or measurements of such observables do not impact each other.

That's nice. And remind us again what "physics" is the study of ?

And tells us: Is Physics the Sum Total of all Reality?

[hcap]

Hey box, maybe you should see a shrink.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_p...order_judgment

Effects of clinical disorders
Parkinson's disease,[83] schizophrenia,[84] and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)[85] have been linked to abnormalities in dopamine levels in the brain as well as to noticeable impairments in time perception.

Neuropharmacological research indicates that the internal clock, used to time durations in the seconds-to-minutes range, is linked to dopamine function in the basal ganglia.[84] Studies in which children with ADHD are given time estimation tasks shows that time passes very slowly for them. Children with Tourette’s Syndrome, in contrast, who need to use the pre-frontal cortex to help them control their tics, are better at estimating intervals of time just over a second than other children.


Before it is too late or too early?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey box, maybe you should see a shrink.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_p...order_judgment

Effects of clinical disorders
Parkinson's disease,[83] schizophrenia,[84] and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)[85] have been linked to abnormalities in dopamine levels in the brain as well as to noticeable impairments in time perception.

Neuropharmacological research indicates that the internal clock, used to time durations in the seconds-to-minutes range, is linked to dopamine function in the basal ganglia.[84] Studies in which children with ADHD are given time estimation tasks shows that time passes very slowly for them. Children with Tourette’s Syndrome, in contrast, who need to use the pre-frontal cortex to help them control their tics, are better at estimating intervals of time just over a second than other children.


Before it is too late or too early?

Nice non-answer to the two questions in my last post. You're pathetic.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nice non-answer to the two questions in my last post. You're pathetic.

I am ignoring anything you say about time unless you post your bogus backwards cause and effect example.

Man, speak of a non-aswer. Pages and pages of dancing around your preposterous claim.

Tap dance for a living as well as handicapping?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am ignoring anything you say about time unless you post your bogus backwards cause and effect example.

Man, speak of a non-aswer. Pages and pages of dancing around your preposterous claim.

Tap dance for a living as well as handicapping?

You put me on iggy once. How did that work out for you?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You put me on iggy once. How did that work out for you?

I said I would igmore anything youy babble about time...

Originally Posted by hcap

I am ignoring anything you say about time unless you post your bogus backwards cause and effect example.

To male it crystal clear bunky

1-No bet!
2-No arbitrary conditions imposed by you!

Either post your "proof" that effect precedes its causes
or never bring up your idiotic backwards time theory again.

I can choose not to respond to a liar and trickster, without officially using ignore

You are still good occasionally for the amusing incomprehensible absurdities.
Not much else.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I said I would igmore anything youy babble about time...

To male it crystal clear bunky

1-No bet!
2-No arbitrary conditions imposed by you!

Either post your "proof" that effect precedes its causes
or never bring up your idiotic backwards time theory again.

I can choose not to respond to a liar and trickster, without officially using ignore

You are still good occasionally for the amusing incomprehensible absurdities.
Not much else.

Ahh...see...you do have a soft spot in your heart for me (probably the twin to the marshmallow resting between your shoulders). I'm flattered.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I never claimed the future caused anything. All I have maintained consistently is that the Future logically precedes the Past -- that our Tomorrows become our Todays and our Today's become our Yesterdays.

And by the way, I have never denied that the Past precedes the Future chronologically. So, what is your beef? Oh wait I get it...you think the Past precedes the Future chronologically and logically, right?

So we're on board chronologically.

Your support for "Future precedes Past" is, "that our Tomorrows become our Todays (sic) and our Today's become our Yesterdays."

I fail to see how you've done anything more than arbitrarily capture a description of time (Future), which we are advancing towards chronologically (="logical time") by our agreement, and restate it metaphorically. That is, the perception of time as backwards..."Tomorrow becomes today"... standing for the linear, chronological reality. Perhaps it would help if you reveal your source(s), if any?

By what grounds can I not state, "Today becomes tomorrow", since like your conception, it captures reality linguistically, but unlike yours also captures the linear reality?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then if you truly believe that, the Fountainhead of all Time must be in the Future -- and it was always in the Future from very beginning. If the Past causes the Future, then biblical prophecy is no big deal, is it?

Also, let me ask you this: Can God have effects precede causes? Remember: We are talking about the God of the bible -- the God who knows the end from the beginning -- for those of us who believe scripture.



Very warm, Doc. Very warm. Now, why can't humans, who are made in the image and likeness of God, implement the "principle" of final causality?

"If the Past causes the Future, then biblical prophecy is no big deal, is it?"

So now you're reverting to "the future causes the past"? And we likely differ on the definition of prophecy.

The overview would be, like my previous post, that there is a sense in which B causes A...if the prophecies were the efficient cause of God fulfilling them, it's because generating their fulfillment is the final cause of the prophecies. That is, the fulfillment of the prophecies caused their being stated (B causes A).

"Why can't humans, who are made in the image and likeness of God, implement the "principle" of final causality"?

Since it's you and me, just cut to the theological terms, and if I'm interested, I'll attempt to convert my reply back to the metaphysical terms we've been discussing. But for starters regarding you and me, God is the final cause humans are directed to, and not some end within themselves.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ahh...see...you do have a soft spot in your heart for me (probably the twin to the marshmallow resting between your shoulders). I'm flattered.

In all threads here, the usual tactic by those on opposite sides, is to make a case (logical opr illogical) for their views. Perfectly normal. The rhetoric does become heated. However I only recall one bet as a result of heated words. And it was not a complicated wager.

Bid Mack bet one presidential candidate wining against someone else' other candidate (don't remember who) and lost. A simple yes/no outcome not in question. Big Mack took his medicine like a man, as fae as we know, and quit the board like a stand up guy.

Why do you not support your weird contention in a straightforward way, and prove to us you are not a coward or even worse, a liar? A bet in this case can and should be clearly stated without layers of twisted interpretations and skullduggery and distraction. And more importantly, a bet is not needed for you to make your case. Although you were the one proposing it. Loaded with arbitrary conditions

Why play silly childish games? I would have thought you would be eager to prove you case, and prove I and the rest of the world wrong?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

The so-called "authorship" itself is in question. And remains mysterious. Observation helps peer through the mystery. It may not be your western "religious" way, but it certainly has it's place in the puzzle. The proof is in the pudding, or stop responding on the technological platform you are using.

We know the young earth concept is thousands of magnitudes of order wrong. Inferences drawn by Bishop Usher is a wrong turn, but does not invalidate other directions of investigation.

That may not be the ultimate answer, but is is an honest start. Eastern thought suggests staring with on the quest for some answers to the the inner mystery, before preaching about the outer. IMHO, western Abrahamic traditions also at root suggest the same.

But that is no longer in fashion.

I agree, 'cap.

If you want to expand Actor's hermeneutics beyond the fundamentalist level, it could only be progress.

That's not a personal gibe at Actor, just a fact. There's a saying, perhaps only in my circles. "Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist". Most people don't find it worth their time investigating something they reject outright.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

So we're on board chronologically.

Please explain the difference between logical and chronological time, since you seem to understand it.

Or do you?.

Makes no sense to me