Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Sarkus]

Seems to me that time is certainly passing for the object in the photo, even as it continues to have same length. The object itself will fade from the photo over time. The entire photo will fade and disintegrate over time.

That is the photo, the physical medium, not what is captured by the photo, not that moment in time.

AFAIK, stasis means not subject to deterioration. Stasis (fiction) - Wikipedia

Well, if you do look up words and pick the meaning specifically noted as referring to its use in fiction, I guess you could look more ridiculous, but it might be difficult in this context. Alternatively, you can look up the word “static” and see that it means lacking in movement, or change etc.

If I ask you what the status of a system was at t=x, presumably from now on every answer you give would have to be: “at a given point in time nothing exists, so the answer is that the system does not exist! The system is always changing!”
If you can otherwise say “the status at X is...” then you are agreeing that at a given point in time, i.e. with moment with delta-t=0, the system can be read, and must therefore exist at that specific time.
Which is it?

Maybe nothing, but in view of the endless and fruitless discussion on this subject over time, perhaps this perspective may shed a new light on the question, not necessarily of FW, but on Determinism, and that would be pertinent, no?

”Maybe nothing”? There are places, then, for such discussions, I would wager. They are called “other threads”. There seems to be no perspective here at all, from either of you, that is in any way relevant to the issue.
But please, show me I’m wrong and at least show, somehow, that it even could be relevant. Don’t just arm wave and say “but it could light from a different perspective...”, but actually show that there is even a possibility of it happening.

 

[Halc]

I never said that change is a function of time.

Q-Q asserted something along those lines actually. You seem to be responding to many of my replies to him. Nevertheless, you said this:

Change merely means another measurement of duration.

where you seem to equate change to measurement of duration, if duration is something distinct from time. I cannot think of any situation where 'change' can be substituted for 'measurement of duration' and still make sense. "The physicist purchased an atomic clock to allow him to get a better change". What???

Are you talking about an existing circle or an idealized abstract non-physical pattern.

Existing yes, in an existential quantification kind of way, which is the same way I consider myself to exist. Physical, no. There are no actual circles in our universe, in the same way that my table doesn't have constant width if measured to 20 digits precision.
The circle example was brought up in illustration of Q-Q's assertion that distance and time are directly related. If you confine your examples only to objects in this temporal universe, then everything is temporal in nature since our physics is temporal, so I necessarily reached out to a non-temporal counterexample.

I can agree that 3D existence or change results in an specific asscociated dimension of time.

That would not be agreeing. 3D space can exist without an additional dimension for time. The eternal inflation model has all kinds of universes (inflation bubbles) being created, each with different numbers of macro spatial dimensions and temporal ones. Some have zero spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Ours has 3+1. Some have multiple time dimensions. Another might have 3+0, which you seem to deny here. A simple sphere is an example of an object existing in 3 dimensional space, and no dimension of time emerges from that, so I have no idea what you're asserting.

And that would include space. Therefore spacetime.

I get that you don't view time as a dimension, and yet you talk about spacetime, which is a 4 dimensional representation of the universe, with time as the 4th dimension. The present view denies time as a dimension, and since that view hasn't been falsified (both sides have tried to falsify the other, to no avail), there is no 'therefore spacetime'. Still, your comment there contradicts your assertion that time is not a dimension. As I said before, you seem to no know what spacetime is. It isn't 3D existence changing in place. That view puts time outside the universe, making the universe a created object within a larger structure.

IMO, Time is an emergent uni-directional quality associated with duration of something physical.

If it isn't a dimension, there really isn't a direction to it then. You can't point which way it is going.

We can measure 1D, we can mesure 2D, we can measure 3 D, we cannot measure time

Now you're being silly. Both our views allow time to be measured.

If delta Energy = 0 then d=0

In words, what do you mean by d=0. Of what is d a measurement?
For instance, my car is going north at 50 km/hr and I take a turn and am now heading east still at 50 km/hr. Delta energy is zero, but what is d that is equal to zero here?

Or if delta Change = 0 then d=o

Similarly, could you give an example of delta change? Preferably one where there is change, but there isn't any delta change. I have no idea what the term means.

 

[Sarkus]

But is that "moment in time", t = 0 ? That doesn't sound right to me. A moment in time is a value, however small, no?

if you’re talking about “give me a few moments” then we use the word to denote a short passage of time, but when talking about a specific moment, we are talking about a duration of t=0. As in “what was that state at that moment?”.

 

[Sarkus]

In words, what do you mean by d=0. Of what is d a measurement?

I believe QQ is using “d” to denote the number of dimensions. I.e. if delta-t=0 then there are no dimensions at all.
Correct me if I’m wrong, QQ, but that is how I have interpreted it, knowing that it is an idea he has expressed many a time on this website, across many threads.

 

[Michael 345]

But is that "moment in time", t = 0 ? That doesn't sound right to me. A moment in time is a value, however small, no?

The moment in time is labelled now

NOW is labelled with whatever the local time keeping system is at that location

It is completely arbitrary marker used to reference WHEN

Since NOW is at the interface between PAST and FUTURE I would contend it has no thickness

So it would fit neatly with t = 0

Other than that the another contender would be Planck time

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae281.cfm

Back to holiday

 

[Halc]

I believe QQ is using “d” to denote the number of dimensions.

Well that doesn't make any sense. For instance, in our universe, energy is conserved, so delta-energy of the universe is zero (no change in total energy)

If delta Energy = 0 then d=0

therefore our universe has zero dimensions?

I had thought that perhaps d was distance, but distance being zero doesn't make sense either, as illustrated by my turning car example.

 

[Write4U]

where you seem to equate change to measurement of duration, if duration is something distinct from time.

No, that's not what I mean. Duration is something we measure as time, not in time.

"The physicist purchased an atomic clock to allow him to get a better change". What???

No, the physicist purchased the clock to get a better measurement of duration of change.

Existing yes, in an existential quantification kind of way, which is the same way I consider myself to exist. Physical, no. There are no actual circles in our universe, in the same way that my table doesn't have constant width if measured to 20 digits precision.

So, you are talking theoretically ?

The circle example was brought up in illustration of Q-Q's assertion that distance and time are directly related.

I agree with QQ that they are directly related (not the same) measurement of distance has a duration, duration is expressed in units of time.

If you confine your examples only to objects in this temporal universe, then everything is temporal in nature since our physics is temporal, so I necessarily reached out to a non-temporal counterexample.

But I do not confine myself to a temporal universe, on the contrary, I confine myself to a spatial universe which has a temporal aspect.

That would not be agreeing. 3D space can exist without an additional dimension for time.

Not acording to mainstream science. 3d + 1t , no?

The eternal inflation model has all kinds of universes (inflation bubbles) being created, each with different numbers of macro spatial dimensions and temporal ones. Some have zero spatial and 1 temporal dimension.

Heaven?

Ours has 3+1. Some have multiple time dimensions. Another might have 3+0, which you seem to deny here.

I certainly do. You cannot have existence without duration of existence.

A simple sphere is an example of an object existing in 3 dimensional space, and no dimension of time emerges from that, so I have no idea what you're asserting.

I disagree, any object that has continued existence has by definition an emergent associated duration of existence, which is symbolized as time.

I get that you don't view time as a dimension, and yet you talk about spacetime, which is a 4 dimensional representation of the universe, with time as the 4th dimension.

Yes, associated only to space.

The present view denies time as a dimension, and since that view hasn't been falsified (both sides have tried to falsify the other, to no avail), there is no 'therefore spacetime'.

What? I thought that Einstein's "spacetime" was a 4 dimensional copnstruct , consisting of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. Has that been refuted?

Still, your comment there contradicts your assertion that time is not a dimension. As I said before, you seem to no know what spacetime is. It isn't 3D existence changing in place. That view puts time outside the universe, making the universe a created object within a larger structure.

No, it does the opposite, it merely means that the temporal dimension of space is emerging with the continued existence of space. It is neither larger nor smaller than space, it is "duration" of space.
Time of duration of existence of space began with the BB and has emerged along with the durable existence and expansion of space. Every part of space has an associated time, the universe as a whole has an associated time frame. The universe does not exist in time the existence of the universe makes time.

If it isn't a dimension, there really isn't a direction to it then. You can't point which way it is going.

On the contrary, an emergent time can only have one "irreversible" direction. An existing dimension of time apart from association with existence or change may be omni-directional, which is the very concept I object to.

Now you're being silly. Both our views allow time to be measured.

Not my view. My view allows duration to be measured as time, not time itself.
I have no clue as to how you would measure your concept of time.

 

[Write4U]

if you’re talking about “give me a few moments” then we use the word to denote a short passage of time, but when talking about a specific moment, we are talking about a duration of t=0. As in “what was that state at that moment?”.

OK, I understand. Thank you.

 

[Write4U]

Garbage. The photo itself changes, sure, I.e. the pixels (if digital) or the medium on which the image resides ages, sure. But the image itself, i.e. not what it is composed of but what it is showing, does not age. That is the purpose of photographs: to capture a moment in time.

W4U said;
Seems to me that time is certainly passing for the object in the photo, even as it continues to have same length. The object itself will fade from the photo over time. The entire photo will fade and disintegrate over time.

Sarkus said;
That is the photo, the physical medium, not what is captured by the photo, not that moment in time.

But what is captured on the photograph is not the physical object, it is the memory of the physical object at a moment in time, and is subject to deterioration as part of the photograph.
Memories are abstractions and have no physical properties subject to change or physically causal to the creation of time. But the memory has duration as part of the photograph, until it has faded along with the photograph.

p.s. The memory of that table may be on that photograph, but the table itself may have been used for firewood the day after the picture was taken and does no longer exist as a physical object at all.

 

[Sarkus]

But what is captured on the photograph is not the physical object, it is the memory of the physical object at a moment in time, and is subject to deterioration as part of the photograph.
Memories are abstractions and have no physical properties subject to change or physically causal to the creation of time. But the memory has duration as part of the photograph, until it has faded along with the photograph.

p.s. The memory of that table may be on that photograph, but the table itself may have been used for firewood the day after the picture was taken and does no longer exist as a physical object at all.

Sure, but the table, as captured in that specific moment, that duration of time of t=0 that is detailed on that photographic medium, has length, width, and height. It can be measured even though there is zero time passing for that table in the photo. The lack of any time passing in the photo does not alter that. The photo is a representation of reality without the passage of time. In just the same way that one can produce a representation of a 3d object on a 2d medium etc.

Then there's the issue that the theory of time known as eternalism deems reality atemporal - i.e. without time - time being an illusion - and considers the past, present, and future all to exist. Then there's the growing block theory that considers the past and present to bothexist... not just "has existed" but actually exists right now. And only presentism of the three theories presented thus far in the thread considers only the present to exist, to be real.

Now, what does this have to do with free will in a deterministic universe? Are you ever going to link this sidetrack back to the main line? Or is it forever going to remain off-topic? If the latter, take it to another thread where people will have the chance to discuss without the sense that it needs to relate to freewill, or determinism.

 

[Sarkus]

Well that doesn't make any sense.

You'll find that for much of what he says.

For instance, in our universe, energy is conserved, so delta-energy of the universe is zero (no change in total energy)

therefore our universe has zero dimensions?

To be fair, he's only talking about delta-t being zero - i.e. no time, I think. Energy, while net zero, undergoes local changes.

I had thought that perhaps d was distance, but distance being zero doesn't make sense either, as illustrated by my turning car example.

Aye.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Now, what does this have to do with free will in a deterministic universe? Are you ever going to link this sidetrack back to the main line? Or is it forever going to remain off-topic? If the latter, take it to another thread where people will have the chance to discuss without the sense that it needs to relate to freewill, or determinism.

The only point that is relevant to this thread is that:
The only thing that exists is the emergent effect which is the SUM of it's causation.

 

[Write4U]

The photo is a representation of reality without the passage of time. In just the same way that one can produce a representation of a 3d object on a 2d medium etc.

Hello, did I recently hear something about "the map is not the territory"?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sure, but the table, as captured in that specific moment, that duration of time of t=0 that is detailed on that photographic medium, has length, width, and height. It can be measured even though there is zero time passing for that table in the photo. The lack of any time passing in the photo does not alter that. The photo is a representation of reality without the passage of time. In just the same way that one can produce a representation of a 3d object on a 2d medium etc.

never heard of the F stop and exposure time?

If the exposure time is zero then where oh where is that table?
You gotta dig deeper when dealing with fundamentals...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well that doesn't make any sense. For instance, in our universe, energy is conserved, so delta-energy of the universe is zero (no change in total energy)

d typically refers to distance unless other wise stated.
d=distance
It is all able to be explained but not in this thread. Given the obvious confusion ie. Sarkus misinterpreting d to mean number of dimensions, I wonder the value of attempting.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I believe QQ is using “d” to denote the number of dimensions. I.e. if delta-t=0 then there are no dimensions at all.
Correct me if I’m wrong, QQ, but that is how I have interpreted it, knowing that it is an idea he has expressed many a time on this website, across many threads

I sure have confused people I must admit...
originally :
delta t=0 then d=0
now
If Time duration = 0 then distance = 0
If distance = 0 then there are no dimensions. leaving us with only a zero dimensional volume. (absolute nothing)
As there is no math short hand for duration I'll have to stick with long hand.

So at exactly any zero duration point in time the universe is actually zero dimensional.
Remember that in Minkowski/Einstein space time there can not be absolute rest.

One of the reasons why this is an important point is that theoretically the Quantum entanglement of half particles is possible because the distance between them is actually zero regardless of 3(4) dimensional distances.

This leads to the staggering proposition (for me in 2006) that all things including humans are universally entangled.
Thus the laws of physics are universal.
That gravitational constancy is available
Universal Objectivity has a mechanism,
That order reigns over chaos
and so on.

 

[Halc]

I had thought that perhaps d was distance,

OK, I remembered better than Sarkus as to what d was.

d typically refers to distance unless other wise stated.
d=distance
It is all able to be explained but not in this thread.

OK, so to my example that for any closed system (like the universe), energy is conserved, so delta-energy = 0
You say that if delta-Energy = 0 then d=0, so what do you mean by distance being zero here? The universe must have zero size? I don't think you mean that, but I don't know how else to take such a comment.

If distance = 0 then there are no dimensions.

That doesn't seem to follow. This rock has traveled zero distance in zero time (which seems to be your example), but that does not mean the rock has no dimensions. There are other rocks, and they are in different locations, which wouldn't be possible if there were no dimensions.
You seem to suggest that this has something to do with Minkowski spacetime, except that model doesn't have zero dimensions. A zero duration moment in time translates to a 3-dimensional volume of simultaneity, a slice 4 dimensional spacetime, defined by the orientation of a coordinate system of one's choice. An absolute interpretation would assert that the coordinate system orientation/3d-volume is not subject to choice, but both interpretations describe 3D space (a slice of spacetime) being identified by a point in time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

being identified by a point in time

and what is the duration of that point in time?
Also see my post to Sarkus #1236 before you respond please.

 

[Sarkus]

OK, I remembered better than Sarkus as to what d was.

Apologies - I was admittedly taking into consideration other threads and discussions with QQ, and this influenced my interpretation. That said, QQ goes on to actually confirm that I wasn't exactly wide of the mark with his thinking:
"If Time duration = 0 then distance = 0
If distance = 0 then there are no dimensions."
So basically whether d is distance or dimensions, he is concluding there to be no dimensions when delta-t = 0. My interpretation just missed out the middle-man.

 

[Sarkus]

The only point that is relevant to this thread is that:
The only thing that exists is the emergent effect which is the SUM of it's causation.

So nothing actually relevant to the thread at all, then. Thanks for confirming that this entire conversation is off-topic.