Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

You need to read closer. I never asserted that time only associated with space. As you confirmed with your example of "change over a duration of years"

You need to read closer. The statement is self-explanatory. Chronological emergence of time (duration) is always uni-directional, because it is an emergent result, never a prior cause.

I never assertred that. My claim is that time cannot exist without space.......difference!

Who's posts are you reading? My claim is that the duration of change is measurable as time. Time is never causal to change, it is an emergent result of any duration of change.

Right, you can never begin with time as an a priori measurable quality, it is an "emergent" quantity of duration;

No. time does not conclude change, conclusion of change allows for a final measurent of duration in units of time.

Makes no difference, measurement of emergent duration of change in any dimensional direction is alway uni-directional . Time (duration) is a always a result of change, never a cause.

I don't think you are correct in assuming time is a pre-existing condition which is independent from association to continued existenc or change of something. Wthout space, time does not exist in any form or measuable quantity.

You don't get to decide that the duration of existence of a thing is not confined to this universe. If you want to cite miracles, anything goes, no?

Distance and time are related in that the measurement of distance creates a duration of time. As to the circle, the duration of measurement depends on the size of the circle and the speed of measurement. ( I believe that in physics, measurement and observation are interchangeable)

OK

AFAIK, a mathematical universe must be deterministic and a deterministic universe is by definition mathematical. A mathematical (deterministic) universe is not subject to will.
A universe that is subject to will is described in Theism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except for the word 'only' (which you just now added), you did assert that, and it was the above comment to which I was replying.

My income in 2015 is not caused by my income in 2014. That my income is different in different years does not show which way the chronology goes. If I just put out the numbers and not the years, you'd not be able to correctly order them.

Well, you need to read closer. I was replying to Quantum Quack, who asserted it. But then you put out that comment about CDT, and I was wondering how it fit in.

OK, but that's by definition, a pretty cheap claim.

By calling it duration, it seems you're beginning with time. You're assuming it to conclude it. I mean, I conclude it as well, but not that way. Duration is as much emergent as is time, since they're practically synonyms.

OK, the table is wider in the middle than at either end. Its width changes along its length. Given that conclusion of change, how much duration is the table? See what I'm getting at?

I never suggested time being pre-existing anything. That doesn't even make syntactic sense. I did demonstrate its independence from change using examples of change without involving time. On the other hand, I don't have an example of meaningful time without without change. A square, enduring without change in property or relation, is not distinct from a square without the enduring.

That's relating measurement and time. Measurement seems to be a process, and yes, process requires time. I didn't mention measurement in my examples. Distance? No, I don't see it.

Agree, but that doesn't counter my statement.
1) You don't know that the universe is such a mathematical thing.
2) A mathematical universe doesn't involve a deterministic future for myself.
3) This universe is very much subject to will, else evolution would not have been able to select for a more optimal will. Under the mathematical view, that will simply isn't free by said typical definition which typically requires the will to come from outside the structure. I've never really figured out how that setup is more free, but it's not my term.

Yes, but theism is only one interpretation that essentially posits a virtual reality for an external non-epiphenomenal will. Such a setup requires time separate from space (no spacetime). The dualistic view (any VR is dualistic) does not require a god of any kind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't believe you're serious.
A table is a static thing? A table undergoes a trillion changes every second of existence. It is only held together by 4 fundamental forces, or else it would fly apart and completely cease to exist. But it isn't time that holds it together, the duration of the continuation of the table as a unified object is measurable. How old is your table? See, a measurement of duration of existence!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Discussion is not possible if people are at cross purposes.

Mixing fundamentals with less fundamental abstractions never works out.

So i am not going to get into it too much.

I'll just leave you with the fundamental claim:

Nothing can exist unless there is time for it to do so.

To exist it must have dimension >0 and delta t >0
Therefore
If delta t =0 then d = 0
As to the table, clock and material question, the entire reference frame has traveled at c is my solution.
Therefore the RF has travelled 186000 miles in a second.
Now your question will be how can I claim that?
Hint: travel distance does not have to be in a straight line (think vibration)
Even an abstraction like a visualized circle requires time to exist as does the imaginer.
To me time, change and energy are the same thing at this level of inquiry. Think E=mc^2
Again another thread perhaps...

 

The qualifier "only" was your implied interpretation. I implied or said no such thing. This is why I advised you to read closer.

I'm not going to waste my time cleaning up this mess. Perhaps the fault lies with me, for not being clear enough. But you seem to be scrambling everything I said into an incomprehensible word salad.

This is what I have been saying in my inimitable way....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My only claim is that time does not exist as an independent dimension without the existence of space. I propose that what we call the dimension (storehouse) of time is no more than a timeless permittive abstract condition which allows for change at which point time emerges as a measurable quantity of duration.
Does that clarify things?

 

IMO, that assumes a pre-existing dimension of time. I see only "Nothing can exist unless there is a mathematically permittive timeless condition which allows for it to do so and the quality of measurable "time" only emerges as a result of duration of the (mathematically) permitted change.
It's really a minor distinction, because both claims yield the same result and neither can be falsified.

 

I would never have said that. I said its width has not been a function of time. It has moved from place to place, and changed temperature and whatnot. It is hardly static.

Technically true. So let's stick with the example of the circle with radius 2. That defines space, and is not a temporal thing.

I have disagreed with that, and have tried to show counterexamples. Time might exist as a dimension (a one-dimensional structure) without additional spatial dimensions. There still needs to be change, and regular change for said time to be represented as a dimension.

I second that one.

 

I never said that change is a function of time.

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

i never claimed that and I disagree with that viewpoint.

I can agree that 3D existence or change results in an specific asscociated dimension of time. And that would include space. Therefore spacetime.
But I do not see a dimension of non-associated time as an omni-directional dimension. IMO, Time is an emergent uni-directional quality associated with duration of something physical.

That's where we differ. I do not see time as an existing independent dimension. Can we measure the duration of existence of time itself?
AFAIK, time itself has no measurable properties of any kind.

We can measure 1D, we can mesure 2D, we can measure 3 D, we cannot measure time
Time is itself is always an emergent measurement of duration of something else.

 

I agree!

I disagree, due to the uni-directional property of emergent time the equation is not reversable as you are doing.
IOW, d = 0 then t = 0 and d>0 then t>0 . But never t>0 then d>0. Time never precedes (physical) Dimension .
If it did that would solve the BB. i.e. 3d>0 is a result of time t>0, and I'm sure it is not that simple, even as I like simplicity.
As you say ;

I agree.

 

I see that the word time is causing all sorts of drama. Forget about time except as a measurement tool.
say this:
If delta Energy = 0 then d=0

How's that?

Or if delta Change = 0 then d=o

 

That is what I have been doing all along. Time (increments of time) is a measurement of duration.

OK, I need to consult the definition of that;

Instead of delta-v you use delta-E, thus "simple change in energy", with a measurable duration which can be symbolized as increments of time.

If I understand, the term "delta" refers to physical change with the duration of that change being measurable in increments of time. Which is what I have steadily maintained.

If I understand, "if no physical change, then no dimensional (spatial) change". Sure, that's self-referential. And if the zero means absence of a physical change, then there would be no measurable duration of change, therefore; if delta-c, -d, -e, -v = 0 then delta-t = 0. No change, no existence of any physical patterns or properties = no associated time.

However it must be noted that "delta Change = 0" maybe a theoretical term, I doubt if it can be used to describe a RW physical event. AFAIK, there are no physical objects or patterns which display "delta Change = 0, in (and including) the entire universe, are there?
Example?

 

yeah since about 2006 I have been attempting to find the correct mathematical symbols to show what I want. Some one said delta = duration so I went with that.
In long hand what I actually mean is :

If the duration of change is zero then Distance dimensions must be zero.
or
If the duration of time is zero then Distance dimensions must be zero.

It is premised on the notion that every thing is in constant change aka no absolute rest.

It is really quite simple but seemingly hard to express in math. ( I've never studied math beyond business math)
Is there a better way than using delta?

It may seem trivial but I can assure you it isn't.

 

I’m sure you’d agree that an object has length, right? Okay. Take a photo of it. The object in the photo still has that length, even though you have captured a single moment in time on the photo. No time is passing for the object in the photo. It is static. Yet it continues to have the same length.

If time is a dimension, along with the 3 spatial dimensions, then just as we can talk of 2-dimensional objects (such as a square, or a circle), we can talk of objects being static. Such as a square of length 2cm, or a circle with radius 4cm. Both of these are static objects, and 2-dimensional.
So i find your assertion to be lacking support, especially in the face of counter-examples.

Further, what does any of this have to do with whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe???

 

I agree, mathematically

I agree, mathematically.

I agree.

I was a full-charge bookkeper for a multi-million dollar non-profit company........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I understand completely what you are saying and mathematically I agree with everything you stated. It is theoretically correct when viewed as a two way mathematical equation. But, and here is where we differ, in reality it is not a two way equation. And this is due to the fact that time is an emergent but irreversible uni-directional result.

Let me try express what I mean. In post #1205 I quoted Wiki

Note the observation that Time is an irreversible succession from past to present, into future. keyword; "irreversible".

If I express this mathematically:
a) (value) 2 + (value) 2 = (value) 4 + (function) 1 second,
of which the duration of the function is the irreversible part of the result in the equation. i.e. ;
b) (value) 4 + (function) 1 sec = (value 2 + value 2) + ?,
which is no longer valid as the reverse of (a).

But oddly, if we change the equation to;
c) (value) 4 = (value) 2 + (value) 2 + (function) 1 sec,
the equation fits mathematically, but again is no longer the reverse of the original equation.

The difference being that the emergent time element is always a result of the duration from start to finish of the function and not of the values themselves.
Hence the inclusion of "apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, etc." in the Wiki definition

I can see no flaw in this logic, can you? If so, can you cite an example where the measurement of time comes before the function and the duration of change?

btw. You're making me think, I love it..........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you wish to discuss at a "casual depth" sure... the image in the photo is static.
But if you wish to discuss at the depth required you will find that the image is also changing as you look at it just as you are changing simultaneously. You the observer and the image are an inertial reference frame and are changing at the same rate so of course it appears that there is no change. ( of course everything is aging any how)

Surely you can agree that if there is no time duration there can be no object to display nor an observer to witness it?

It all started a long long time ago in the land of Cause and Effect...perhaps you were not born then, I am not sure I was either...but I do hope they exist happily ever after ( or was it before ). lol

 

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.
AFAIK, stasis means not subject to deterioration.

Stasis (fiction) - Wikipedia
Question: is a photo a stasis field?

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?

 

I am glad that we agree on most of it...
Quoting wiki unfortunately isn't much help. There is no mathematical symbol for duration that I can find so this is really out there beyond most contemporary thinkers.
I guess I will just have to create my own symbol for duration...lol

The word Apparently is important in knowing that they apparently don't know whether it is reversible or not....

As to reversibility, in this case there needs not be.
The phenomena of change is always observed as it is...
Just because current mathematics fails to deal with it doesn't alter the observation that change is ireversible.

 

Required for what? There is nothing “casual” about a photo capturing a moment of time as seen from a certain vantage point. The duration of time being displayed by that photo is zero, and that, regardless of what you say, is indisputable.
Yet, despite zero time passing for the object in that photo, its length is measurable. Thus should prove quite conclusively that if t=0 then other dimensions do not become 0 as well. I.e. the other dimensions can exist in the absence of time.

Further, harking back to the theories of time that were being discussed (relevantly to the issue of free will or not), the theory of eternalism is in essence an atemporal theory. That is, time is but an illusion. To experience things, sure, time needs to be perceived to be passing, but that does not speak to existence, only to experience.

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.

No, we can not agree. I agree wholly that change can not exist without the perception of time passing, but that is very different.

Being flippant just comes across as you not really having a clue what you’re talking about. So perhaps you can actually explain what relevance this has to the issue of free will in a deterministic universe?

 

I also could not find a scientific symbol for "duration", but I did find a host of applications associated with the term:
Duration as a temporal property

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/temporal property

 

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?