One can say that footprints are caused by feet, or that they are caused by gravity, or both. Or one could talk about the relative hardness and resilience of feet and wet sand... But physicists talk more about interaction and the limits of interaction being the light cone. An interaction changes two things at once - an atom absorbs a photon and its energy is increased. one does not wish to say that the photon caused the increase in energy more so than the atom caused the absorption of the photon - it is a single event - a single interaction, and the observation thereof is another interaction. — unenlightened

In this conversation two schools of thought are present: a) temporal cause and effect; b) atemporal cause and effect

And then there is the matter of origins: we extrapolate the expanding observable universe backwards in time and come to a singularity, that we call the Big Bang - the beginning of space, time, and energy. And because of the physicists demand that cause must precede effect in time, there can be no cause of the beginning. The story has to stop at the limits of the equations. To speak of a cause of time and space in this sense is to reject the physicists meaning such as it is, and resort to Prime Mover type talk. — unenlightened

I'm getting the impression post-Newtonian physics is moving away from temporal cause and effect towards atemporal cause and effect.

Not really, because acceleration can be caused by things other than gravity. So for example, a rocket blasts off and it accelerates in breaking away from gravity, as a sort of reverse relation to gravity. There is still a relation with gravity involved here, but since it is a reversal, we see that it is not a direct relation because there must be something else involved. Since there is something else involve we can't restrict the domain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Likewise, with your example of the parachutist. You refer to the effects after jumping, as "acceleration". But what is required prior to this, and is a necessary condition, is that the person takes off in a plane (gravity reversal), and then jumps from the plane. That particular prior condition is the one required for your specific description, but it could be replaced with all sorts of others. So even the prior condition is not in the strict sense "necessary", but there is a whole class of possible prior conditions. But since one of these many possible conditions is necessary, for the acceleration described, we cannot restrict the domain in the way you propose. — Metaphysician Undercover

The restriction stipulates causes of acceleration of a material object. This set contains gravity-caused acceleration scenarios, but the domain of this set need not exclude other scenarios, such as rocket-propulsion caused acceleration as a unified concept. However, a legitimate sub-set includes the set of gravity-caused acceleration: a one member set.

Are you guys telling me time and cause and effect are either: a) separable; b) separate? — ucarr

With respect to contemporary fundamental physics, I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even in Kant, these concepts are not directly related. — 180 Proof

As I understand you, you're telling me cause and effect is not a temporal phenomenon. Am I reading you correctly?

dV/dh=A is not abstract. If you measure a change in depth, then dV=Adh gives the corresponding change in volume. — jgill

So d = depth? A variable is not abstract?

I don't see what "time" and "cause & effect" have to do with one another. IIRC, the equations of QFT lack time variables — 180 Proof

A good point. However, much of Q-theory presupposes spacetime in one or another metric framework. When you see d^4 in a formula that probably indicates space and time. — jgill

Are you guys telling me time and cause and effect are either: a) separable; b) separate?

A causal change in V is the result of draining the liquid to a lower value of h. dV/dh =A, which gives a change of V corresponding to a change of h. No time is involved in the equation, only change. But if h=h(t), then dV/dt=(dh/dt)A, and we have change associated with a passage of time. — jgill

No time is involved in the equation, only change. — jgill

Is this an example of the difference between an abstract idea (equation) and its everyday expression as a physical event?

...in that series of events that's referenced in the O.P., neither cause nor effect is demonstrable, but only temporal predecessors & successors. — ItIsWhatItIs

The parachutist has jumped out of a plane airborne at ten thousand feet. What happens next and why?

A mere series of events can never constitute a causal relationship. The frames within a film strip precede & succeed each but aren't either the causes or effects of one another. — ItIsWhatItIs

A film script is also known as a continuity. Characters behave and their behavior causes reactions in other characters. Action with emotional impact drives the story forward. As the story moves forward, characters change. This is the arc of the story. As we watch a film continuity, we feel and know the middle of the story is not the same as the beginning of the story because things have happened that have brought us to a new place in the story of people's lives. What Joey did to Cathy last night has made her become a more confident woman next morning.

What's going on inside of Cathy?

Here's another thing to add to what jgill said. I think that jumping, or more correctly pushing off, in a gravity-free space, actually would cause acceleration. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're right about this.

Gravity and acceleration-due-to-gravity are, in a certain sense, as one. They are conjoined as a unified concept: gravity-and-acceleration. Thus cause and effect are, in the same sense, as one, save one stipulation: temporal sequencing. — ucarr

Do you buy the notion gravity-and-acceleration are a unified concept within a restricted domain:

Acceleration only occurs from the effects of gravitation when whatever is preventing acceleration is removed, or if an object is suddenly exposed to gravitation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see what "time" and "cause & effect" have to do with one another. — 180 Proof

Is it your understanding cause and effect is not a temporal phenomenon?

The falling parachutist does not fall at a rate determined purely by gravity - air resistance must be taken into account and this slows the fall. Such an effect is frequently calculated as proportional to the square of the velocity when close to the ground... — jgill

You're right, of course. I stand corrected for neglecting to mention air resistance.

We see how cause and effect the logical conjunction evolves: $a⇒b⇒$
$a⇒b−t ⇒{a⇔b}^n$ — ucarr

My symbolic logic statement is supposed to say: a leads to b (causal relationship) evolves into a leads to b minus time (abstraction) evolves into a and b are interwoven as a unified concept. The bi-directional a and b at the end needs to have a bracket so that the bi-directional is raised to the power of n. This final piece is supposed to represent all cause-and-effect relationships. I'm just learning mathjax and don't yet know how to get a polynomial raised to a power.

Well, at least you get a minimum of one reply this time around. :cool: — jgill

Yes! And I'm much obliged to you for supplying it. Thanks

Thanks for the notification.

Y= The town is entirely flooded by the river. X=River Drive is flooded. Go figure. — jgill

So, the part is part of the whole, except when its not.

revised

Do you understand that if X is a necessary condition for Y, the occurrence of X still does not necessitate Y? — Metaphysician Undercover

The necessitation of Y requires multiple necessary conditions?

The first statement means the person is causing the falling. — ucarr

No it does not. Anytime something is caused to do something by a separate force, the thing doing whatever it is caused to do is not the cause of the action. A rock is doing the falling but not causing the falling. A cannon ball, or baseball flying through the air is doing the flying, but not causing the flying. Etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

I acknowledge that my interpretation of my gravitation example, with respect to your claim cause and effect is essentially temporal, is wrong.

I also acknowledge that your interpretation of my gravitation example, with respect to your claim cause and effect is essentially temporal, is correct.

The rest of your discussion of "doing" is therefore not relevant to how I was using "doing". — Metaphysician Undercover

My interpretation of what the jumper is doing in free fall, as previously stated by me, is wrong. The jumper is not doing falling at accelerating speed -- gravity is doing that by causing it.

What the jumper is doing is reacting to what gravity is causing the jumper to do.

Causation

Cause – an agent of change that transforms the state of being of its object

Effect – a transformation of the state of being of the object of a causal power


Temporal Sequence

Yes, before and after is an order by position, temporal position. — Metaphysician Undercover

Before and After – Interpretive Claim (With respect to above claim) – this type of temporal sequence may contain a causal component, but it isn’t necessary.

Supporting Examples

Example A – Causal Component

• Temporal position – before
• No water drunk
  
• Temporal position – after
• Contaminated water drunk
• Low white cell count
• Bacteria proliferates
• Lung cell metabolism transformed – stops producing new lung cells; starts producing new viruses

• Example B – No Causal Component

• Temporal position – before
• No water drunk
  
• Temporal position -- after
• Contaminated water drunk
• High white cell count
• Bacteria wiped out
• Lung cell metabolism unchanged; continues producing new lung cells as it had been doing before contaminated water drunk

In Example B we see that before and after retain their meanings in the absence of a causal relationship that connects them (with respect to lung cell metabolism).

How do you assess the truth content of the above interpretation of your claim?

Do you deny that gravity holding a person down to earth in one situation and accelerating the descent of a person in free fall in another situation exemplifies gravity doing two different things in two different situations? — ucarr

Yes I deny that...It is the person who is doing two different things, walking on the earth in one case, and falling in the other, gravity is doing the same thing in both cases. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's my inference from your above quote (especially the bold_italic part): the person in free fall is doing the falling. This is distinct from saying: The person is experiencing the falling. The first statement means the person is causing the falling. The overall statement says gravity is also causing the falling (just as it is also causing the walking person to be pinned to the ground).

From Space Shuttle missions many humans have seen astronauts spinning and somersaulting mid-air within zero-gravity chambers whilst the rocket is outside earth's gravitational field. In the absence of a gravitational field, we see that humans do not cause their own falling through space. Back to our situation: regarding when a suicide jumps from a cliff, in our example here, we have two proffered explanations: 1) the person falls to earth at increasing speed due to acceleration due to gravity; 2) the person falls to earth at increasing speed due to both their own rare and generally unknown ability to use their own power to reflexively cause him_her_self to fall earth at increasing speed due to acceleration due to gravity and due to the power of gravity to do same.

Let's apply Occam's Razor in our evaluation of the two proffered explanations; after all, we know that when you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not unicorns, right? So, when we look for best explanation why suicide falls to earth at increasing speed due to acceleration due to gravity, do we want an explanation that has a human doing something we have reason to doubt the possibility of as witnessed in the zero-gravity chamber, or do we want an explanation that has a human experiencing something seen too many times to count over the millennia spanning human history?

ince [sic], when we look at integers 6 and 8 and understand there is no temporal relationship connecting them, as per the definition of ordinality, and that therefore, if we replace 6 and 8 with before and after, and if we maintain our understanding of the context to be ordinal, then claiming before and after have a temporal relationship amounts to conflating two distinct categories (contexts). — ucarr

I'm afraid not ucarr, you are being ridiculous again. Before and after have completely different meaning from six and eight. By analogy, would you say let's switch green and red, in the context of colour, and see that green is the same thing as red. Come on. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you not see that in my argument two contexts: temporal_sequential and ordinal are involved and, moreover, that my argument depends upon taking before and after out of their default temporal_sequential context and placing them in the ordinal context, and that doing so strips away temporal antecedence? Also, do you not see changing their context thus violates no rules of inference? Sixth and eighth have different ranks, but there's no temporal relationship in ordinality, as there is in cardinality. By analogy, before and after denote different times, but as with all ordinals, there's no temporal relationship between beforth and aftereth.

Do you not agree your attempted analogy equating red and green fails because contextualizing before and after as beforth and aftereth does not equalize them. Instead, it de-temporalizes them? Do you not see, more generally: contextualizing ≠ equalizing?

Ordinal" is not restricted to numbers. It can mean a position in any type of series, or concerning any order. So contrary to what you say, the temporal order of cause and effect is an ordinality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. So, beforth and aftereth can constitute an ordinality either temporal or non-temporal. This true because ordinal specifies order by position; it says nothing about temporal order. Since non-temporal is included and temporal is not excluded, both types are valid.

Do you agree this?

Might this be a motivation for projecting artificial temporal antecedence onto observed phenomena? — ucarr

The motivation is usefulness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Due you suppose the pursuit of usefulness always leads to truth?

Since they don't appear during the incubation period, can we claim bacterial infection before high-volume is an antecedent cause of symptoms? — ucarr

Sorry, I don't follow the question. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's the root of my argument: antecedence ≠ coincidence.

Since coincidence parallels co-functionality, coincidence can sometimes example causation.

Do you agree with this?

Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded — Gnomon

Information is both physical (info=energy=matter) and metaphysical (meaning ; ideas ; math). — Gnomon

EnFormAction is my coinage for the Generic Information responsible for the formation of every objective Thing and every subjective Form that evolved from the initial Singularity. — Gnomon

So, attempting an analogy here, is it that enformaction is like computer code, and information is like the GUI we see on the computer screen?

So, from what I conjecture from your two above quotes, physicality extends all the way into the metaphysical ground of existence; this one can claim since both information and enformaction interface the physical_cognitive? Does this possibility suggest semi-metaphysicality instead of metaphysicality?

I use that term primarily for its original meaning "adjunct to physics". — Gnomon

I'm a bit puzzled by your use of "adjunct" because it usually means supplemental rather than essential. Given your emphasis on the essential role of metaphysics to existence -- and therefore to physics -- a conventional position, construing it as supplemental seems contradictory.

...mine [worldview] is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). — Gnomon

You count yourself a logician primarily? — ucarr

No. I'm just an amateur philosopher presenting a non-academic thesis... — Gnomon

Well, you say your worldview is fundamentally inferential so... your conclusions are not reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning?

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions — Gnomon

Is it correct to say the essence of your enformaction theorem is Wheeler's It-From-Bit idea?

I see that Wheeler reduces reality down to the binary code of the computer. This suggests to me the
bits processed in computer circuitry embody your above definitions of information_enformaction.

Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source? — ucarr

No. My Singularity is a meta-physical philosophical concept, not a scientific conjecture. — Gnomon

Is it correct to say your Singularity has components both physical and cognitive?

Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries. — ucarr

The boundaries I referred to are Space & Time, which are not physical fences. — Gnomon

Spacetime within the context of Relativity is most assuredly physical. General relativity, being the geometric theory of gravitation -- including warpage of spacetime -- makes the case for this.

How can you justify your above claim in light of this?

Einstein described the universe as "finite, but unbounded..." its assumed that he was talking about the physical shape of the universe as a sphere, not as extending into infinity. — Gnomon

I'm thinking the above statements contain a thicket of issues: a sphere, by definition, has boundaries (every point on its surface is equidistant from its center). More generally, a shape, by definition, has boundaries. Finally, if a physical object doesn't extend indefinitely, it has a shape. Do you think otherwise?

The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr

Funny, but I don’t see that as scary. I see that as a destiny fulfilled. Yes, all the species that were our ancestors but are now extinct have effected their own obsolescence by breeding something more fit. Superior as you put it. I suppose it sucked in a way for the species now extinct, but I see it as a success. — noAxioms

I admire your big-hearted generosity: you look at evolution writ large and applaud its progress, inevitable extinction events notwithstanding. Henceforth, I'll use it as a guide for my own speculations about the future. I see from my readings here that my thinking needs modulation by your robust brand of optimism.

I like your optimism for a future cooperative between homo sapiens and homo nova.

What's your thinking about the problem of good and evil as conceptualized into a future, interstellar society?

• I need to encounter a persuasive argument why good can hold its own before the onslaughts of homo nova self-interest.

• By the way, I think self-interest pushed to the extreme of infinity is a useful definition of evil.

Perhaps a good exercise has you elaborating some essentials of future evil; has me elaborating some essentials of future good.

With respect to what the gravity is doing in the two scenarios, there is no difference. In other words, the cause is the same in the two, but the effect is different due to the same type of cause acting in different situations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you deny that gravity holding a person down to earth in one situation and accelerating the descent of a person in free fall in another situation exemplifies gravity doing two different things in two different situations?

Do you deny that cause and effect relationship with outcome 1 in situation 1 and cause and effect relationship with outcome 2 in situation 2 exemplify two different cause and effect relationsips?

Cause and effect are contextualized by ordinality, but the ordinality in this case is defined as atemporal ordinality. That eight is a greater quantity than six is a different type of ordinality, which does not imply temporality. But causation is a different type of ordinality from quantity because the terms of that specific form of ordinality are defined by temporality, before and after, rather than by quantity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since, when we look at integers 6 and 8 and understand there is no temporal relationship connecting them, as per the definition of ordinality, and that therefore, if we replace 6 and 8 with before and after, and if we maintain our understanding of the context to be ordinal, then claimingbefore and after have a temporal relationship amounts to conflating two distinct categories (contexts). When placed within the context of ordinality, before and after either get stripped of their conventional meaning, temporal, thus becoming undefined placeholders, or they become oxymorons, i.e., temporal-atemporal terms. In short, ordinal (rank) and cardinal (quantity) are distinct categories.

Causation is not a type of ordinality. In the context of ordinality (rank) there's no causal link between 6 and 8, or between any of the other ordinals.

Causation and temporal antecedence are closer to -- but not coincidental with -- cardinality. Cardinality can be applied to temporal antecedence in the sense that an event temporally antecedent to another event has a time quantity measurement different from the later event.

Do you deny this?

Okay. So, you think cause and effect – even when manifesting simultaneously – must always be understood in terms of temporal antecedence in order to have coherence? — ucarr

Yes. if cause and effect manifested simultaneously we would not be able to distinguish which is the cause, and which is the effect because the temporal relationship of cause/effect, by which we would determine one is the cause, and the other the effect would not exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you acknowledge that your above affirmation raises the possibility that humans, in making the effort to understand phenomena causally, might be projecting a rational conceptualization of the mind onto the world?

Do you acknowledge such a possibility suggests the existence of evidence supporting David Hume's attack on rationality_causality?

The high volume of bacteria is observed to be temporally prior to the reaction (symptoms) therefore affirmed to be the cause. If the two suddenly occurred in a truly simultaneous way, we could not say that one caused the other, the occurrences would be said to be coincidental. And if we try to assign cause and effect to two coincidental occurrences we have no way of knowing which is the cause and which is the effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Might this be a motivation for projecting artificial temporal antecedence onto observed phenomena?

In our examination of this bacterial infection, it should be noted no symptoms appear before the bacterial content is high-volume. This time lag, known as the incubation period, holds standard to medical diagnosis and treatment of sickness.

Since they don't appear during the incubation period, can we claim bacterial infection before high-volume is an antecedent cause of symptoms?

Addendum:

If you do not believe me that causation is a temporal concept then do your own research, and find out how the term is used. Then get back to me with what you find. — Metaphysician Undercover

Kant reacted to the Enlightenment, to the Age of Reason, and to Newtonian mechanics (which he probably understood better than any other philosopher), by accepting determinism as a fact in the physical world, which he calls the phenomenal world. Kant's goal was to rescue the physical sciences from the devastating and unanswerable skepticism of David Hume, especially Hume's assertion that no number of "constant conjunctions" of cause and effect could logically prove causality.

Kant called this assertion the "crux metaphysicorum." "If Hume is right," he said, "metaphysics is impossible. Perhaps even knowledge is impossible?" Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was to prove that Hume was wrong.

Neither Hume’s Idea of “natural belief” nor Kant’s “concepts of the understanding” are the apodictic and necessary truths sought by metaphysicians. They are abstract theories about the world, whose information content is validated by experiments. — The Information Philosopher

Have you examined the atemporal conjunction of qubit (superposition) quantum computing within "Osprey," Google's quantum computer?

the "action-at-a-distance" of gravity is understood to not be instantaneous. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're right. The speed of gravity waves equals the speed of visible light waves. The action-at-a-distance of gravity is not instantaneous.

Why would you think that gravity would only avt [sic] after the person steps ove [sic] the edge? — Metaphysician Undercover *1

The gravitational field doesn't predate the ocean. So, at all times, the ocean currents are under influence of both earth and moon gravitational fields. — ucarr

*1 Why do you think I don't know this?

Obviously gravity is acting on the person prior to falling over the edge. — Metaphysician Undercover

...when a suicide jumps from the bridge, they would hover in the air for a positive interval of time before accelerating towards the ground. — ucarr

Do you see a difference between being held to the ground by gravity and accelerating-due-to-gravity to the ground while free-falling through space?

Note -- If there's a time lag in acceleration due to gravity -- at sea level it's $9.8m/s ^2$ -- then an atomic clock will be needed to measure such a minute interval of time.

I do not deny that one might define causality such that it is not necessary for the cause to be prior in time to the effect. What I've said is that this would render causation as incoherent and unintelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already agreed that ordinal relations are not necessarily temporal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. So, you think cause and effect -- even when contextualized by ordinality instead of by temporal antecedence -- only has coherence when cause is prior in time to effect?

...some might allow for simultaneity, but as I said this renders causation as unintelligible because then there is no true principle to distinguish cause from effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

At scout camp a boy, out on a hike, getting thirsty, fills his empty canteen with water from a stream and drinks. Back home and twenty-four hours later the boy starts feeling sick. His doctor informs him of the bacterial infection he imbibed from the stream. He learns that symptoms have appeared that day because after twenty-four hours of rapid multiplication, the bacteria has attained high volume. The symptoms were not caused by bacterial infection; they were caused by high volume of bacterial infection.

Okay. So, you think cause and effect – even when manifesting simultaneously – must always be understood in terms of temporal antecedence in order to have coherence?

Causality is not inherently implied in equations of motion, but postulated as an additional constraint that needs to be satisfied (i.e. a cause always precedes its effect)." — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. So, you think postulation is sufficient ground for concluding: (...a cause always precedes its effect)?

Post-quantum physics has equated Information (power to enform) with physical Energy. In which case the future unleashed-singularity could indeed be an explosion of Information. — Gnomon

So, information, in this context, is physical and thus "the future unleashed-singularity" of information would likewise be a physical explosion?

Are you aware of something similar to an "information singularity" in recorded history (a la Gutenberg)? — Gnomon

Is this a reference to early book printing?

The transition from Theological Science to Empirical Science was a significant change of direction, but the Age of Enlightenment took centuries to take full effect. Hardly an explosion. — Gnomon

Good correction. However, I have two slight howevers. Like you say:

...the Information Age that began in the early 20th century has rapidly expanded... — Gnomon

Acceleration of change can start slowly, eventually picking up great speed:

making radical changes in socio-cultural phenomena. — Gnomon

Categorical advances, although not examples of something-from-nothing, do a pretty fair job of simulation.

...mine [worldview] is fundamentally Philosophical (inference). — Gnomon

You count yourself a logician primarily?

I was inferring from current knowledge back to unknown possible initial conditions... — Gnomon

At the time of the singularity preceding the Big Bang?

...his [universeness] empirical stance labels questions of Origins as Religious, whereas I view such explorations as Philosophical. — Gnomon

Perhaps some sort of richly complex and debatable premise can be spun out of this.

I came to an Information Singularity of my own, where space-time faded away into infinities. — Gnomon

Are you conceptualizing Information Singularity as a type of black hole compressing the universe down to a point-source?

I assume that Plato followed a similar line of reasoning, and concluded that Reality is bounded by space-time. — Gnomon

Your use of spacetime as a boundary flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the phenomenal universe such that it has no boundaries.

But then, whence space-time & energy-laws. So, he postulated a transcendent (eternal ; infinite) Source of Enforming power (Logos - in Ideality) as an answer to the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". But that kind of pioneering reverse-reasoning (into the a priori unknown) is not allowed by Empirical doctrine (from known to knowable). — Gnomon

I would expect you to contest any doctrine characterizing reverse-inference as a journey into the unknowable.

Sidebar -- Regarding,

the Open Question of "why something instead of nothing". — Gnomon

Here's my short answer to this classic question: "It's because you ask the question."

This seems to be the most popular viewpoint regarding the 'pivotal' moment of the development of an ASI. Folks like myself and I think 180 Proof, think that it's just as possible, that a developing/growing ASI that achieves self-awareness, would be benevolent towards all lifeforms, especially lifeforms with the sentience level of humans. — universeness

My initial reaction, which tends towards melodrama (and is therefore suspect) impels me to speculate the above hope is more fever-dream than rational speculation. Remember Independence Day when the human optimists look up towards the hovering alien mothership with hopeful expectation of an imminent, cosmic love-fest? This occurs just before they get vaporized into oblivion.

I'm being melodramatic -- forgive me. However, consider our best evidence available for rational speculation about how homo superior -- whether biological or cyborg -- will likely behave towards homo sapiens. This evidence, as you are well aware, comprises the wretched history of homo sapiens treatment of the rest of earth's animal kingdom. All the expletives in the English language aren't enough to articulate fully how badly we've treated earth's animal kingdom.

As there are homo sapiens kindly to animals, we can expect likewise homo superior individuals. Will such individuals be of sufficient volume to counterbalance the collective treatment of homo sapiens by homo superior the species? By the evidence of homo sapiens' treatment of earth's animal kingdom, this seems hardly likely.

On the other hand, it seems likely to me homo superior will be empowered to enact forms of benevolence beyond our present ability to imagine. Will this be enough of an offset to stand as a protection? I doubt it seriously.

The new, higher-order species, by definition, will have needs and desires that consume resources of creation beyond what homo sapiens can conceptualize. This will mean abrogation of vast resources now essential to the self-determination and well being of homo sapiens. Just the other day I happened to be around some horses. As I started thinking about them, I realized something horrible with stark clarity: Horses are large animals. What they do best, according to their innate power, is run fast and far each day of their lives. Well, humans, pursuing their own dreams, have partitioned off nearly all of the open land on earth. The possibility for horse happiness, with few exceptions, has been destroyed by humans.

Humans will benefit greatly from the benevolent actions of homo superior. We know, however, true happiness in its highest manifestation depends upon species sovereignty. That is lost with the advent of the new sovereign species.

No, if the gravitational field is the cause of the tides, it predate the tides, not necessarily the oceans. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. The gravitational field doesn't predate the ocean. So, at all times, the ocean currents are under influence of both earth and moon gravitational fields.

Does the strengthening gravitational field predate the rising tide?

The ocean tide rises with the progressively closing approach of moon to earth. As strengthening field intensifies, ocean tide heightens simultaneously. There is no time lag in the action-at-a-distance of the gravitational field. Were that the case, when a suicide jumps from the bridge, they would hover in the air for a positive interval of time before accelerating towards the ground.

We see this in a Warner Bros. cartoon featuring Wiley Cayote going over the edge of a cliff in pursuit of Roadrunner.

Have you seen this hover-in-the-air hesitation first-hand in your own experience?

Do you instead acknowledge that before creation of the material universe, cause and effect were temporally sequential whereas, in the wake of said material creation, cause and effect are not always sequential? — ucarr

...cause and effect are always sequential by definition... — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above clause is analytical. Is it also tautological? Also, remember having said:

I've already agreed that ordinal relations are not necessarily temporal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you cite a definition of cause and effect that explicitly incorporates temporal antecedence?

For me, the term 'information singularity' or 'technological singularity,' is more about a 'moment of very significant change.' The terminator movies 'might' be a respectable example. From the moment 'skynet' was switched on, human existence was utterly changed. ASI,(artificial super intelligence), is the main candidate for such a significant moment. — universeness

Ah, yes. Terminator. The great Harlan Ellison, author of Demon With a Glass Hand_The Outer Limits, subsequently ripped off by James Cameron for his Terminator franchise. (Ellison won a lawsuit against Cameron).

In my original post to you I included the following passage. I took it out, fearing it might be perceived as woo. Now, after reading your post, I'm feeling more bold (I include the first paragraph to help establish the context):

I will describe my statement as an historical conjecture: the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients.

The scary part is the possibility homo sapiens will effect its own obsolescence in accordance with evolution by causing an information singularity necessitating appearance of homo superior in order to understand and utilize the higher cognition. — ucarr

The second paragraph goes a long way with few words towards answering your main question:

Here, I am discussing, what YOU think is emergent due to all human actions, based on their varied manifestations of intent and purpose... — universeness

I don't consider myself being negative, but rather being realistic as I believe every top species eventually generates its destroyer, and that's progress!

'Information reaching critical mass,' seems to me to be a fair connection to the popular concept of an 'information singularity' or a 'moment of very significant change,' so If that's the imagery you are invoking, then I understand it. — universeness

Your are correct in your above speculation.

I don't think a parallel between the moment 'elementary particle formation' occurred and when gnostic radiation (I assume, you mean something like 'the moment when knowledge was first exchanged between hominid or any species of life), offers much, as one happened way way way before the other. — universeness

I am strongly inclined towards exaggeration and drama. Because of this inclination, I cannot forget my first viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm referring to the opening scenes depicting the tribal ape wars. When, finally, one ape weaponizes bone into club that trounces the opposition, well... that wasn't an information singularity moment, but it sure as heck was a turning point!

Okay. Time predates God. And God created the material universe.

So, time before God was metaphysical and there were no material things?

Okay. God can only act within time.

So, outside of time God cannot exist? — ucarr

I think my answer to all this is generally yes. But I don't know what you mean by saying time is "metaphysical". If you mean that it's an object of study in metaphysics, then I agree. — Metaphysician Undercover

3. As an actual cause, it is impossible that God is outside of time.
4. Therefore time as well as God must be prior to material (physical) things, and is not material (physical). — Metaphysician Undercover

We know through observation and induction that each and every material thing has a cause. The cause of a material thing is prior in time to the existence of that material thing. Therefore there is a cause prior in time to all material things. — Metaphysician Undercover

The gravitational field of earth's moon causes the rising and falling of ocean tides. Do you say that the moon's gravitational field predates the oceans covering the earth? Do you instead acknowledge that before creation of the material universe, cause and effect were temporally sequential whereas, in the wake of said material creation, cause and effect are not always sequential? Another way of saying this is saying ordinal relationships are not always temporally sequential.

Can you accept the following formulation: God existing and acting in time causes the material universe?

So God exists and acts within time is your main premise? — ucarr

For that part of the argument. However that God exists and acts within time are conclusions drawn from the preceding part, which we already discussed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's take a look at a list of your essential premises:

• Time predates God.

• God can only exist and act within time.

• Causation occurs within time.

• God caused (created) the material universe in time.

How do you respond to the following summary?

Upon consideration of the above essentials, your thesis gives highest priority to time. It is the principle essential, ranking above even God. This must be so since God cannot exist or take action without the sanctioning empowerment of time, a principle essential that predates God.

:up: :100:

Did ↪universeness actually refer to an "information singularity", or is that your interpretation of his intention? — Gnomon

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

From the evidence of the above quote, I say universeness actually refers to an information singularity. Do you think I'm misreading the quote?

...your description of a "cognitive explosion of information..."sounds like a creation event... — Gnomon

Were you making a religious statement, or a philosophical conjecture, or merely referring to an empirical scientific fact? — Gnomon

I will describe my statement as an historical conjecture: the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients.

I was not postulating existence of a transcendent enformactional entity who causes the phenomenal universe.

Where did you get the idea of an "information big bang" and "cognitive explosion"? I googled those terms and came-up empty. I'm not familiar with such "common big bang language" — Gnomon

I'm guilty of a lack of clarity. "Common big bang language refers to singularity, not information singularity.. The latter term came to me from the above quote of universeness.

I got nothing about an original Big Bang burst of Information or a "cognitive explosion", that resulted in the creation of a physical universe from pre-existing rational causal power-to-enform (LOGOS?). — Gnomon

What you say is part and parcel of your theory of enformaction.

I was only postulating, per the language of universeness, the historical evolution of human consciousness towards a cosmic culmination. Imagine, if you will, a cognitive "explosion" of categorically new concepts and scientific methodology.


Does your enformaction theory, as I've been wondering, have Plato's Theory of (Ideal) Forms as an ancient forebear?

You're doing a Socrates, eh? — Tom Storm

I don't know anything!

...trying to parse what god can and cannot do, or where God resides and in what form is pointless and subject to the paucity of human understanding. If the laws of physics get in the way of a person's understanding God then they're not doing it right... — Tom Storm

I recognize your point of view and, moreover, I respect the facts and conventions that source the content of your query. However, in my dialogue with Metaphysician Undercover, I want to examine his thinking non-judgmentally. My purpose is to hopefully discover some ramifications of his thinking not already known to him. Should this happen, it might present him with an opportunity to delve deeper into his thinking, thereby increasing the chance of it becoming richer and deeper.

An important part of the technique, as I understand it, entails asking basic questions the world thinks already answered. Sometimes, in dialogue, simple questions trigger subtle, lucrative questions. When this happens, thought adventurers like ourselves are off to the races along a new line of inquiry not previously seen. Haven't we seen this in the movies? Folks put their heads together on a tough question. Suddenly, someone asks a simple question in a new context or POV and bingo! The answer pops out of the birthday cake.

This is why non-judgmental interviewing can be useful to the philosophical theoretician, a characterization I apply to Metaphysician Undercover.

You would need to clarify further, what you mean by 'parallels the big bang.' — universeness

Since you refer to an information singularity, a term I know from the common Big Bang language, and since your question about history headed towards a possibly human-directed information singularity strikes me as a question of some considerable importance to you, I thought perhaps you were linking cosmic Big Bang singularity to information "Big Bang" singularity. According to my guess about this, I've been assuming the linkage is metaphorical. In other words, while the cosmic Big Bang singularity is a literal explosion of the universe into existence, the information "Big Bang" is a cognitive explosion of information into some type of existentially new universe.

The intriguing part, according to my speculation, concerns the parallel of matter reaching critical mass just prior to radioactivity with elementary particle formation and likewise information reaching critical mass just prior to gnostic "radioactivity" with elementary knowledge formation.

I suppose I'm really only talking about a renaissance like the one Da Vinci is credited with sparking, except at a universal scale.

It seems to me that an objective truth about all humans is that we seek new information. — universeness

We have altered the Earth in many significant ways. Can we do the same to the solar system and far beyond it? Is that an objective truth about what is fundamental in our nature to do? — universeness

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

Our ability to memorialise and pass on new knowledge from generation to generation seems to have 'the potential' to affect the 'structure and purpose of the contents of the universe.' — universeness

In the future we will...Act as a single connected intellect and as separate intellects. — universeness

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

You are asking about the practical reality of one possible essential attribute of humans: information processors?

Your are asking about the possible primary role of human existence: collection, storage and dissemination of information?

You are asking about humans playing an important part in the transformation of our presently known universe to another, radically different state of being via a dynamic process that parallels the Big Bang?

A cause... cannot be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So causation implies passing of time.

Since you say,

1. Logic produces the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

can we assume someone can speak or write a logical statement that necessarily leads to:

the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. (?) — Metaphysician Undercover

1. (Continued) This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. Regarding the ordering of reality, if something is logically prior to time, then its priority over time is by a standard of measure not temporal?

This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the above quote priority is temporal? In the time prior to the physical-material universe, history was nonetheless unfolding, with some events occurring before other events? An example would be whatever event was happening in the immaterial world just before the big event of God causing the existence of the physical-material world?

1. (Continued) Theologians call this "God" — Metaphysician Undercover

So God causing the physical-material universe out of time does not cohere with the axiom: causation cannot occur outside time? Theological God is thus incoherent with causation?

2. If time is the product of physical activity then God must be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So time is the product of physical activity is a false premise?

3. As an actual cause, it is impossible that God is outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So God exists and acts within time is your main premise?

4. Therefore time as well as God must be prior to material (physical) things, and is not material (physical). — Metaphysician Undercover

God’s existence in time is non-physical whereas human existence in time is physical?

If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since, by your declaration, logical priority ≠ temporal causality, it seems to follow that a realm of ideal forms exemplifies your statement that:

...we have an inductive principle that there is a cause prior to every material thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm of ideal forms, being outside time because it timelessly causes material objects to exist, holds possession of a metaphysical identity in the sense that it is beyond both the temporal and the physical.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm, per the above named attributes, empowers God to exist in time whereupon God creates the material universe. Under this construction, God is a physical being. Moreover, God, being physical, exists as a natural part of this physical universe of material things. All of this entails a denial of God as supernatural, a radical departure from establishment theism.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Embedded within your declarations is the mystery of the status of time.

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical. — ucarr

No, that's backwards, you need to reverse it. We have the physical world first, as our source of evidence. We see that something preexists each and every material thing as the cause of existence of that thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, you seem to be implying time is physical.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

...I can't imagine the possibility of anything uncaused... — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this incline you to think time has a cause?

But I don't know what you mean by saying time is "metaphysical". — Metaphysician Undercover

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical.

I would say "God is self-caused" is incoherent because it would mean that God is prior to Himself in time, and that seems to be contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. God is not self-caused. Does God have a cause?

If God is actual, time must predate God, because any act requires time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. Time predates God. And God created the material universe.

So, time before God was metaphysical and there were no material things?

Okay. God can only act within time.

So, outside of time God cannot exist?

Why have you replaced my word, "matter" with "substance"? — Metaphysician Undercover

No important reason. I'm accustomed to form and substance as a set. I perceive form and matter as being interchangeable.

It's true substance has a meaning other than matter. It can mean quality.

Do you think quality has form? More generally, do you think abstractions have form?

Any act requires time to occur. — Metaphysician Undercover

Self-creation of God took time to occur?

that God is prior to time... is inconsistent with the idea of God having actual existence... — Metaphysician Undercover

Time predates God?

Are you perhaps talking about, say, an interaction between two hypercubes? — ucarr

No, definitely not, that kinda stuff is above me pay grade mate, but look at the underlined term in your sentence. — Agent Smith

So far I've gotta wild speculation about what you're suggesting here. Could it be you're suggesting cardinality in 4-space is categorically different from what it is in 3-space? Are we looking at a difference such that hypercubes don't proliferate in the same way cubes proliferate?

:up: You seem to be on the right track given what I know. — Agent Smith

Thank-you. I need your scrutiny. May it continue.

I'm afraid I don't understand where the paradox is in 4D hypercubes. — PhilosophyRunner

There's no paradox in 4D hypercubes, 3D cubes, 2D parallelograms, 1D lines, 0D points.

Paradox appears when, for example, a 3D configuration tries to contain a 4D configuration. Frege did this conceptually when he conceived of the set of all sets not members of themselves.

One of the cruxes of my claim is that paradox appears as a symptom of a border crossing by a higher dimensional configuration into the realm of a lower dimensional configuration.

• Another way to say this is to say a paradox is a higher-order dimensional configuration in collapsed state within a matrix lower than itself.

That such boundaries exist between levels of dimensional configurations is evidence that our universe is metaphysically configured in ascending steps of upwardly dimensional configurations.

Note - Meta, as in metaphysical, doesn't mean immaterial_spiritual. It just means higher-order. For example, a meta-narrative, being higher-order than narrative, contains narrative as a subset plus more. So metaphysics herein means a bigger set that contains physics as a subset.