Does this argument make sense?

[Dominus Paradoxum]

First of all, I think this presupposes the B theory of time. It can be argued that since real relations only link existing terms, that a cause should be related to an effect of presupposes that an effect be given independently of the cause. And if it is so given, it cannot truly be *caused* by it. In other words, a cause does not bring its effect into existence out of nothing. If the effect mean is not given independently of the cause, there can be no relation since there is no second term, and if it is given, there is nothing to cause.

[excreationist]

Dominus Paradoxum:
Are you saying that it is contradictory for something uncaused to happen (e.g. the universe come out of nothing) in a totally cause-effect reality?
If so, that seems to make sense.

[Dominus Paradoxum]

No, the argument is that causes aren't really related to their effects. If all instants of in with time are really coexistent, as the B theory of time postulates, then how can what happens at one instant determine what happens at any other?

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Dominus Paradoxum
First of all, I think this presupposes the B theory of time. It can be argued that since real relations only link existing terms, that a cause should be related to an effect of presupposes that an effect be given independently of the cause. And if it is so given, it cannot truly be *caused* by it. In other words, a cause does not bring its effect into existence out of nothing. If the effect mean is not given independently of the cause, there can be no relation since there is no second term, and if it is given, there is nothing to cause.

Does this argument make sense? No. The fallacy lies in the assuming, that there is no freedom or no degree of freedom of acting/no acting of beings. Acting’s/No_acting’s of beings corresponding to the order of nature does not corrupt the laws of nature regarding causality; it only does exchange energy states not regarding the effects on the ethical balance. It is ever a being that has the freedom to act causes in the exchange of energy, never a nonbeing. Only a being has the freedom not to act or to act apart of physical causality. But this freedom in acting/noacting is underlying also a hidden causality regarding the ethical (=spiritual 'energy' exchange processes) order/disorder of nature, because only a beeing has this freedom to act/not to act, never a physically causally energy process.

Volker

[excreationist]

Dominus Paradoxum:
Well I looked up what the "B theory" means... I found this good introduction:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/time/chennotes.html

You wrote:
....If all instants of in with time are really coexistent, as the B theory of time postulates, then how can what happens at one instant determine what happens at any other?

This sounds very similar to Julian Barbour's Platonia (http://www.platonia.com/) theory where all the possible histories leading out from the big bang exist as an eternal static entity (called Platonia). Maybe your idea of the B theory of time is that there is only one course of history there....

Anyway, Platonia is like a tree that branches out and it has a consistent relationship between the past areas (near the "trunk") and the resultant future areas (the branches)... I think in the MWI the branches also interact in a horizontal way (quantum interference, and quantum computer stuff).

I guess Platonia is just consistent like that because it just is... since it is an eternally existing entity it is just a brute fact - it didn't pop into existence from anywhere....

BTW, in Platonia (which is a subset of the MWI I think), individual instants in time don't just have one future (the next instant in time), they have many alternate futures that all exist in Platonia. (But "we" only exist in one of these possible futures)

[Dominus Paradoxum]

Most of the reasons he gives against the b theory are fallacious. It's true that the meeting at the symposium is "coming up", it's just not "moving". Anyway, though, I was hoping for an answer to my question. Sorry, Volker, I didn't understand your post.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Dominus Paradoxum
Sorry, Volker, I didn't understand your post. Never mind. Thank you for your feedback.

[Dominus Paradoxum]

Bump.

[sodium]

If we were to look from outside time at a B-theory universe, we would see certain consistencies. This would sometimes allow us to make educated guesses about what one section would look like from seeing another section. In our part of the universe, predictions from future (as we see it) to past would in general be easier than the other way around.

That's just another way of saying that by looking at the current state of the world, we can know more about the past than the future, even though we can't see either directly.

Now, the question is, what do you mean by words like "caused" and "determined"? If you mean simply that X precedes Y, and that you could predict Y from X, then these terms make perfect sense in a block universe. I have a feeling though, that people want these terms to mean something more, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. How would you describe what is lacking from this view of causation?

[Dominus Paradoxum]

The view that a cause actually renders its effect necessary.

[sodium]

Originally posted by Dominus Paradoxum
The view that a cause actually renders its effect necessary.

But what does that actually mean? Necessary to or for who or what?