Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 2936510" data-attributes="member: 29746">Yes, quite true. Clearly, events in another spacetime are meaningless from our perspective, and not properly definable as &quot;events&quot; in the strictest sense of the term. Quite fun to think about though, at least for me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I do love pushing my brain into the higher dimensions, and dealing with concepts like orthagonal time.IMHO the whole concept of 'causality' as such is flawed, because the modern theories don't have an embedded 'arrow of time.' They're time-symmetric, and as you must be well aware (given where you work) there are a lot of experiments going on recently which are looking for some sort of symmetry violation to try to explain the arrow, none of which have given more than vague hints as yet (and certainly not enough to base broad statements on).Time, to put it bluntly, doesn't move; it's a direction in its own right. So the notion that one 'event' (however you define that) can force another one to happen later in time seems just... wrong. It seems to imply a movement that isn't actually there, and even if that's the way our brains are constructed to think about the universe we live in, nothing says our brains are preceiving the whole truth (in fact, quite a few experiments have demonstrated that they don't). Causality as a notion has yet to come to grips with the lack of an arrow in the basic laws of physics- and that, to me, means that it needs to adapt.The difficulty, of course, is trying to envision what a science without causality could be like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="paradox42, post: 2936510, member: 29746"] Yes, quite true. Clearly, events in another spacetime are meaningless from our perspective, and not properly definable as "events" in the strictest sense of the term. Quite fun to think about though, at least for me. :D I do love pushing my brain into the higher dimensions, and dealing with concepts like orthagonal time. IMHO the whole concept of 'causality' as such is flawed, because the modern theories don't have an embedded 'arrow of time.' They're time-symmetric, and as you must be well aware (given where you work) there are a lot of experiments going on recently which are looking for some sort of symmetry violation to try to explain the arrow, none of which have given more than vague hints as yet (and certainly not enough to base broad statements on). Time, to put it bluntly, doesn't move; it's a direction in its own right. So the notion that one 'event' (however you define that) can force another one to happen later in time seems just... wrong. It seems to imply a movement that isn't actually there, and even if that's the way our brains are constructed to think about the universe we live in, nothing says our brains are preceiving the whole truth (in fact, quite a few experiments have demonstrated that they don't). Causality as a notion has yet to come to grips with the lack of an arrow in the basic laws of physics- and that, to me, means that it needs to adapt. The difficulty, of course, is trying to envision what a science without causality could be like. [/QUOTE]

Verification