Multiple Pasts Theory

Some thoughts on causality and the implications of determinism on the past.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• determinism
• causality
• metaphysics
• past
• empiricism
• knowledge
• epistemology
• ontology

[Individualism101]

As a separate point: it is impossible to define the state of the universe, because the definition would be included in itself. Ie the person trying to determine the state of the universe is part of the universe.

[XOmniverse]

I agree, Individualism101. There is an infinite recursion there because the agent itself would grow more complex as it attempts to understand itself.

[brainpolice2]

In other words, you're suggesting non-linear causality.

[XOmniverse]

To be honest, I'm not sure. I started off thinking of it as an epistemological problem, but it does seem to have metaphysical implications.

[chris3443]

Hmm...in the case of x+y=-2 there can only be one TRUE answer that occured in reality, whereas before it occured, any number of results could have given us -2. So while it is true that the universe might have come about a 100 different ways, only one way DID bring it about, so I would say it is still very important to focus on the single cause that is the causal step...Damn this is so abstract I can hardly think about it clearly hehe

[XOmniverse]

"So while it is true that the universe might have come about a 100 different ways, only one way DID bring it about"

In theory, yes. But if there's no way to know which one is the true one, then from your perspective, they are all equally probable and equally worth consideration.

[Steerpike07]

Isn't the universe more like your bank account rather than the abstract algebra problem? You can go out and find evidence of which past led to it as it is. On the other hand determinism is compatible with free will if there are multiple futures that 'exist' 'now' - every alternative future 'exists' - but we can choose which one we 'will' 'remember'. But - there are still multiple 'pasts' that still 'exist'- but only one apparent 'past' for each of us - the one we remember.

[dbmcmillan]

Quantum Mechanics has disproven determinism/causation though. On a side note, the idea of a "participatory universe" derived from interpreting quantum mechanics is pretty interesting, and may be a basis upon which to claim genuine, libertarian free will.

[HayBailProductions]

I view it as all possible combinations of the past create our current existance, and our limited attention and mental capacity condence all possible options of the present into a single state. Then as we look towards the future we are faced with several possible paths. It's kind of like a bow tie effect.

[WorBlux]

Most languages describe time as being in front on you because it's what is next, but a few describe the past as being in front because you are not blind to it, and the future being what is not able to be seen.

Now that you've told me I'm blind either way, I'm going to start using sonar as a metaphor for life. e.g. Death is just a blip on my screen.

[danielsondanielson]

In my view, if we take the hard version of determinism (that one proposed by Laplace), there is only one possible past and only one possible future of the Universe that you can think about (as the state of universe in the T+dT point is strictly determined by the state in T, the same is true for the relation between the T state and T-dT state). Sure, the quantum mechanics doesn't support the hard determinism. But what is actually determinism as such if it is not hard? I have problems with it.

[Cailwyn]

Stop fragging my mind. Is metaphysics a bullshit error?

[Cailwyn]

It does not make any irrelevance that two universes could hold mirror images of being because the fact of is is not overturned.

As far as we can possibly know; even with the "randomness" of quantum mechanics,; is is.

Is 'is' is? Or is 'is' what could possibly be. My money is on is is is. I have no other basis.

[Cailwyn]

You say irrelevant, but if one of a hundred causal chains lead to the universe in its current state then it cannot be irrelevant.

If it is true that the universe could be deduced to a current state of being points out the severity of of what causality is and why it is important to not negate how it got there or where it's going.

A causal chain, no matter how similar to any setting, only points to a state of is. It cannot show what 'could be'.

[bigsmallconsciousman]

do you think the universe is what it is because chopin's shit was boiled into ink and he wanted to write the Newest Testment? Mexican fingerspeak: economics = negative numbers as a can opener in shakespeare's sister's cleavage? this universe is asphalt children eating doritos while taking a shit in a diet coke can? i was just curious what people's thoughts were on this. are you Fredrich Nietzsche?

[Sepero1]

Yes, I didn't mean to necessarily imply that time was linear. I can fully accept that time is potentially infinitely circular or perhaps even some other way.