Causal Reality (Philosophy off-topic)

I believe it important that we, as a complex entities with complex minds, seriously contemplate the nature of reality at all times, and allow this contemplation to guide our everyday actions.

To begin this contemplation, let's consider the following observations:

There is no limit to the smallest unit of space or time. We can zoom in and out of space and time indefinitely. For example, we can divide a "second" by half an infinite amount of times. This property of reality seems to indicate that there is nothing truly fundamental about space or time; instead, there are only approximations of space and time (e.g., Planck length). I will use this as evidence that we, at least, cannot invalidate the notion of the block universe.

There is no such thing as a "real" definition of an object in the universe. For example, let's try to define "human." It's a entity like you, right? Well, that's not exactly clear. For a moment, let's treat "you," plus a small amount of space around you, as a closed system. Then, let's take each "atom" in the system and observe the number of arrangements of them that are possible in the closed, three-dimensional space. This number is so large that it appears infinite, but it is in fact finite. One of the arrangements includes you with a detached arm, one of them includes you with a chunk of your brain attached to your foot, etc. Which among these arrangements is human? Thus, this experiment presents to us an additional property of reality, which is that all objects are "fuzzy" and undefined. No definition established by a human describes the true nature of reality (space or time), they are just fuzzy approximations.

To support the point above, let's also consider the notion of a certain child predator who, upon the removal of a brain tumor, lost his urge to behave as a pedophile. This indicates that the brain is in fact just as mundane as any other material in the universe. Thus, re-arranging atoms in the brain to other parts of the closed system do not invalidate our attempt at defining the human; there is no divine essence which the atoms in the brain do not by themselves account for.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pedophile-lost-urge-after-surgery-flna1c9478663
https://www.smh.com.au/world/nightmare-experience-for-man-whose-cancer-turned-him-into-a-pedophile-20021231-gdg1iz.html

All humans look like ape-like creatures. This is particularly true with respect to females. I notice in my day-to-day life that females share a very similar facial structure. Some humans appear to share facial characteristics similar to that of an orangutan, and this is especially common in western societies, which is the society that I've engaged the most with. Search "female" and then closely observe the characteristics of their faces, and you'll quickly notice a pattern that is difficult to observe in our own species, but is unmistakably true across all species, including our own. This is something that I've noticed in recent years, as I've become more cognizant of my environment.

One thought always leads to another. Try this experiment out for yourself. There is no such thing as randomness. All thoughts are stimulated by casual reality. Try to think of something that you did last year (2021). What day do you think of? What do you think you did on that day? What do you remember, specifically, about that day? These thoughts are all causally linked. One thought leads to another. There is no randomness to your thoughts. Your initial thought was prompted by the fact that that day was particularly memorable for whatever reason. It was a "core" memory, so to speak, which lodged itself in a specific set up relationships between the neurons in your head. It might be hard to explain, exactly, what that specific day became a core memory—a pattern that I've noticed with many of my own core memories.

The impulse, which some of us have, to eat, lash out at others, defecate, or even the impulse to refrain from eating and instead fast, or even the impulse to meditate and, accordingly, refrain from engaging in activities that induce dopamine, are all prompted by causal reality. Causal reality is impossible to compute in all its complexity for the average human mind. Like the rings that develop on a tree that indicate its age, our minds store memory through an causal organic process, but in a far more complex way. However, despite the relative complexity we have in contrast to other species, our memory is no where near enough to compute the complexity of causal reality, which is why we do not realize its existence in our day-to-day lives.

Rome and Spain. Human society, all human behavior, and all human motivation can be thought of as analogous to my idea of "Rome and Spain"; furthermore, all human behavior and motivation can be predicted by this analogy. What do I mean by this analogy? Well, let's consider the late Roman republic. Then, let's consider the province of Espana, or "Spain." Let's consider a family that lives on the coast, near the border of Gaul. Then, let's consider an individual who is part of the family. Let's consider a man who we will name Paulinus. This man is a function of causal reality and, accordingly, will develop relationships with other entities bound by causal reality. Some of these entities he considers part of his family, community, and the broader causal network which binds all humans. Thus, this brings us to an important point: human society is bound by a predictable causal network. The human entity, which arises from complex arrangement of chemical reactions, interacts with other human entities, forming what one might consider a macroscopic causal network which binds each entity not unlike the less complex, but nevertheless causal arrangements which give rise to a human entity like Paulinus.

Referring back to the example: Paulinus has an abstract, casual link with other humans that include his mother, father, and friends. As Einstein pointed out, space and time are not absolute, but rather relative; so, with respect to Paulinus, these links are strong. He is the center of the sapien causal network. He may position himself within the causal network according to the stimuli which his parents impart on him; to brush his teeth in a specific way, to eat certain types of foods, to talk with a certain accent. Other stimuli may be derived from evolutionary structures from within him—the urges and whatnot that the typical human will have. Combined, these stimuli position each human within the network. If we observe each human in the broader network, then we will notice that there are epicenters where causality seems more complex and where the stimuli which occur in smaller communities may be extrapolated to much larger communities, and even segments of the entire network itself (i.e., western civilization, eastern civilization, Africa, etc.). These thoughts are extremely abstract, but let's try to visualize them:

I share with you in the image below, a crude representation of the causal network which binds all humans:


Interestingly, this representation also corresponds to what Earth looks like from outer-space at night. I did not realize this until after-the-fact, but this is certainly an even better representation of the causal link which binds human society:


Furthermore, this representation shares similar characteristics to a neural network as well as the broader cosmic web, identified by astonomers; "The Quantitative Comparison Between the Neuronal Network and the Cosmic Web": https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.525731/full


My vague understanding of the universe combined with this data indicates that there is substance behind the view of the block universe.

The panhandler who lives outside of my apartment complex. His mind functions at a much slower pace than the typical human; accordingly, his actions are highly predictable and I would suspect entirely pre-determined.

If the block universe is true, then my contemplation of it or knowledge that it is in fact true would not imply that I have any special authority over the nature of the block universe. I am, like anyone else, simply responding to external stimuli.

The enormity of "time" which lies ahead of us.

The small amount of "time" which lies before us.

The mystery surrounding the origin of all things.

Time is not simply the thing which prevents everything from happening all at once, for it has all already happened. Time is, in the words of Einstein, an "illusion." Causal reality can be thought of as a 4-dimensional field that consists of the causal assortment of space where causality simply innervates the system for whatever reason; accordingly, the system is simply a predictable block (block universe).

I think it quite strange that, even when presented with these serious questions that concern the nature of reality, which we seem to be on the cusp of understanding, we do not consider these things at all times and allow them to guide our everyday actions. As I've contemplated these ideas over the years, I've slowly grown less concerned with political systems and more concerned with establishing "order" in a broader sense. Our purpose should be to establish order in the network and provide for ourselves as much time and resources as possible to allow for a higher number of reactions to the stimuli that concern these thoughts, so that we may validate or invalidate them. I think that we should all aim for this: collect resources, allow for as much time in life as possible, and establish public order so that we may discover such things in an efficient manner in an era of peace and stability.

Wr1tt3n by Tribune Aquila, 31.07.2022 at 21:58

I believe it important that we, as a complex entities with complex minds, seriously contemplate the nature of reality at all times, and allow this contemplation to guide our everyday actions.
...

Not sure if this is troll bait... but i liked your opening, and agree with it, so will respond on philosophical grounds. However i only got to the first bullet point before realizing you either were trolling or haven't done much contemplation, so i'll just address your first bullet before reading further:

You claim:

"There is no limit to the smallest unit of space or time. We can zoom in and out of space and time indefinitely. For example, we can divide a "second" by half an infinite amount of times. This property of reality seems to indicate that there is nothing truly fundamental about space or time; instead, there are only approximations of space and time. I will use this as evidence that we, at least, cannot invalidate the notion of the block universe."

Of course this has been known to be false for over a century now... both for planck length and planck time. You mentioned time. Planck time constant was determined around 1900 according to most credible sources. Since time can be quantized, it is consistent with the 'simulation hypothesis' (i.e. that we are living in a video game) and these quantized units represent the limits of the processor running our particular game (in much the same way video games have quantized pixels for length, and frame rates for time.)

What's really amazing about this, is that because time can't be divided indefinitely, the system is REAL. (An infinite system can't be real, since infinity doesn't exist in reality.) So because the system is finite, it can be defined, and is therefor real... chew on that for a moment of existential contemplation, as once you do a bit more research to fact check, you'll likely have a major shift in your world view.

♥

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 01.08.2022 at 22:55

Wr1tt3n by Tribune Aquila, 31.07.2022 at 21:58

I believe it important that we, as a complex entities with complex minds, seriously contemplate the nature of reality at all times, and allow this contemplation to guide our everyday actions.
...

Not sure if this is troll bait... but i liked your opening, and agree with it, so will respond on philosophical grounds. However i only got to the first bullet point before realizing you either were trolling or haven't done much contemplation, so i'll just address your first bullet before reading further:

You claim:

"There is no limit to the smallest unit of space or time. We can zoom in and out of space and time indefinitely. For example, we can divide a "second" by half an infinite amount of times. This property of reality seems to indicate that there is nothing truly fundamental about space or time; instead, there are only approximations of space and time. I will use this as evidence that we, at least, cannot invalidate the notion of the block universe."

Of course this has been known to be false for over a century now... both for planck length and planck time. You mentioned time. Planck time constant was determined around 1900 according to most credible sources. Since time can be quantized, it is consistent with the 'simulation hypothesis' (i.e. that we are living in a video game) and these quantized units represent the limits of the processor running our particular game (in much the same way video games have quantized pixels for length, and frame rates for time.)

What's really amazing about this, is that because time can't be divided indefinitely, the system is REAL. (An infinite system can't be real, since infinity doesn't exist in reality.) So because the system is finite, it can be defined, and is therefor real... chew on that for a moment of existential contemplation, as once you do a bit more research to fact check, you'll likely have a major shift in your world view.

♥

That has not been proven at all, I would like the idea that there is a fundamental minimum length and time that cannot be divided further but that's contrary to what science has thus far proven and to basic intuition. Our efforts at probing an even smaller length or unit of time just become infinitely more difficult, it's not that it's not possible. It's just a coincidence that it is the length beyond which any determination is both not useful to humans and unable to be seriously determined without an enormous amount of energy.

Interestingly, if the same equation to find the Planck length is used to find the "Planck mass", then you will find that the equation returns micrograms. The Planck length is completely arbitrary but useful

There's a difference between the hypothesis of a minimum measurable length which seems reasonable, and the hypothesis of a minimum length, period. The point that we can zoom in and out infinitely is highly relevant, and I think it is compatible with the notion of a simulation hypothesis. Beyond my first point, my second point addresses the notion of frame rates and why they aren't exact. They're "fuzzy", as I put it. I think it's really tempting to try to fit constants into one's world view, but when everything becomes fuzzy, that's what I found interesting in my contemplation

Fake news

Wr1tt3n by Tribune Aquila, 02.08.2022 at 04:47

That has not been proven at all, I would like the idea that there is a fundamental minimum length and time that cannot be divided further but that's contrary to what science has thus far proven and to basic intuition....

You used the word 'proven' which is problematic in science. Proofs can be used in math and legal fields, but science is evidence based. (i.e. nothing can be "proven" in science.)


1. Nothing in science is 'proven' until all possible observations have been made.
2. Not all possible observations have been made.
3. Therefore, general accepted principle in science is nothing can be proven.
4. You claim "that's contrary to what science has thus far proven".

3 and 4 are incompatible.

Have you ever contemplated the definition of a troll?

I'll reconsider if you can show any evidence to the contrary, but after a brief search, i can confirm every attempt at finding a length less than a planck length has failed... if you know something scientists don't, let it be published!

♥

Wr1tt3n by brianwl, 02.08.2022 at 21:45

Wr1tt3n by Tribune Aquila, 02.08.2022 at 04:47

That has not been proven at all, I would like the idea that there is a fundamental minimum length and time that cannot be divided further but that's contrary to what science has thus far proven and to basic intuition....

You used the word 'proven' which is problematic in science. Proofs can be used in math and legal fields, but science is evidence based. (i.e. nothing can be "proven" in science.)


1. Nothing in science is 'proven' until all possible observations have been made.
2. Not all possible observations have been made.
3. Therefore, general accepted principle in science is nothing can be proven.
4. You claim "that's contrary to what science has thus far proven".

3 and 4 are incompatible.

Have you ever contemplated the definition of a troll?

I'll reconsider if you can show any evidence to the contrary, but after a brief search, i can confirm every attempt at finding a length less than a planck length has failed... if you know something scientists don't, let it be published!

♥

Brian, between you and me (and everyone), no this is not a troll post. But I'm glad that there is some activity usually no one even reads the first sentence. I wrote this all down in a stream of consciousness after I was talking to someone in discord the other day. I have no expectation of being taken seriously, I just would rather post my thoughts on here rather than a notepad no one will ever read.

With a completely sober review of my understanding of the matter vs yours, I still side with myself simply because there is not sufficient reason to believe (in my eyes) that the Planck length is the smallest possible length (or any other Planck unit). Instead, the notion seems to be to be the byproduct of the much more common understanding that the Planck length is the smallest possible unit that is 1. useful to humans and 2. able to be investigated by humans.

Interestingly, here seems to be the science behind the notion of the Planck length:
1. It is not empirically derived or verified by experiments.
2. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is meaningless to try to distinguish two points apart at the scale beyond the Planck length
3. If we try to investigate any distance smaller than one Planck length (i.e., sending photon through it), a black hole would form due to the energy of the photon and the limitedness of the space we try to confine the photon in. The relative measurements would be so extreme at that scale that it would form a black hole, in theory.
All from this. Doesn't seem like a highly sophisticated paper but it contains a sufficient review of the literature (cntrl + F https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A642619938&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=e2abb2f0)



If space-time was treated as flat at the scale of the Planck length, then that would imply that there is clearly the other side of this triangle has a value lower than 1 Planck in length. Space-time, however, at this level is not treated as flat. Instead, it's fuzzy zone of quantum mechanical gobbidy goo that nobody understands. It is simply not useful to humans to investigate a smaller possible length and the Planck length coincides with a number of limits to the ability for humans to investigate any further. Of course, intuitively it seems that when contemplating quantum mechanics, it still seem as though there is no real limit to the smallest length, but is instead an asymptote with a few investigative limits.

Instead of asserting that the Planck length is not the smallest possible length, I should instead assert that no one on Earth knows (but it is probably the case that she ain't the smallest). Instead, we know that the Planck length is useful to treat as a base unit. And because we simply do not know, and because the possibility fits so well with my other bullet points, I've decided to include it simply as an observation. Again, the original post was a stream of consciousness where I just list a series of observations that seem to bother me. I think it's important to be cognizant of these really profound philosophical questions, and the implications of one being the case over the other, in our everyday lives. Mankind is still so early in its existence and I'm so excited to see where this century takes us in terms of addressing some of these super basic questions. I like to try and question these frameworks because, in all likelihood Brian, the frameworks that we've established thus far are wrong. Mankind has only been truly cognizant about the stars and the physics around us for a few hundred years. Every year that goes by is one year before the next million or more (assuming no self-annihilation inter alia).

Wr1tt3n by Tribune Aquila, 03.08.2022 at 07:56

...because we simply do not know, and because the possibility fits so well with my other bullet points, I've decided to include it simply as an observation. Again, the original post was a stream of consciousness where I just list a series of observations that seem to bother me. ....


... I like to try and question these frameworks because, in all likelihood Brian, the frameworks that we've established thus far are wrong. Mankind has only been truly cognizant about the stars and the physics around us for a few hundred years. Every year that goes by is one year before the next million or more (assuming no self-annihilation inter alia).

You mentioned you had a stream of consciousness... not sure if you intended that to connect to your original opening line, but to me, it's strongly connected. If 'consciousness' is fundamental, then the nature of reality is a subset of consciousness. Therefor, it is logical and consistent, to contemplate the nature of reality, as we are blessed with this ability. This is what you initially said that caught my interest: that we ought to be contemplating the nature of reality at all times.

So if you are sincere, and not trolling, then please accept my error was not intentional, but the product of an evolving consciousness with a lot more evolution to go. ♥

However, even if 'consciousness' is not fundamental, it still seems a fairly enticing and reasonable action, to contemplate the nature of reality.

The second part, about established frameworks being questioned, and likely being wrong... respect for that. It is not easy to swim against the current - far easier to turn off the critical thinking and stop asking questions.

Idk if it's funny or sad that Brian is seriously replying to Sean's trolls..

Wr1tt3n by Pavle, 04.08.2022 at 20:39

Idk if it's funny or sad that Brian is seriously replying to Sean's trolls..

Sad... definitely sad.