How do we know that future states are not pulling on the present or even creating it so that these future states can exist?

Or even that there are a couple of competing causations
1) the usual determinist newtonian billiard ball conception
and
2) a pulling on/creating the past to support guarantee a certain future, and this by the future or entities in it.

A force can pull something (lead the resulting transition of the system being forced to rotate or 'move linearly'), and it can equivalently push, or lag the result.
That's something called a phasor, quite the commonly used model in physics.

I prefer to think of time as a polarity, all events are polarized by a time dimension, at least locally. Since a 'non-local' time dimension is actually a spatial equivalent (Lorentz transform), this can only be proven or demonstrated locally - it isn't provable or knowable globally, i.e. at all distances.

I would imagine that firstly there must be a specific potential that already exists.

To "pull" the future would have to already exist. just like the past would have to exist to "push."

Neither of those can be shown to be the case.

A force can pull something (lead the resulting transition of the system being forced to rotate or 'move linearly'), and it can equivalently push, or lag the result.
That's something called a phasor, quite the commonly used model in physics.

I prefer to think of time as a polarity, all events are polarized by a time dimension, at least locally. Since a 'non-local' time dimension is actually a spatial equivalent (Lorentz transform), this can only be proven or demonstrated locally - it isn't provable or knowable globally, i.e. at all distances.
I had trouble following this. I looked up phasor and still....

Can you reword this somewhat?

I would imagine that firstly there must be a specific potential that already exists. Where or when must this potential reside?

To "pull" the future would have to already exist. just like the past would have to exist to "push."

Neither of those can be shown to be the case.
It sounds possible that you are challenging both notions of causation.

Where or when must this potential reside?
In character. And, I suppose, hereditarily. But although there might be, for example, a potential to excel as, say, a post-modern bustling artist, what are the particulars of such a potential to be such? Drive? Perception? Speculation? Confidence? Defiance—lots of defiance? Sensitivity? Those same traits could have evolved from a bucolic background.

How do we know that future states are not pulling on the present or even creating it so that these future states can exist?

Setting oneself a goal and striving to achieve it has that effect: When setting oneself a goal, one in effect takes for granted that that future state of having achieved that goal exists; and then one acts as if pulled by that future state.

In character. And, I suppose, hereditarily. But although there might be, for example, a potential to excel as, say, a post-modern bustling artist, what are the particulars of such a potential to be such? Drive? Perception? Speculation? Confidence? Defiance—lots of defiance? Sensitivity? Those same traits could have evolved from a bucolic background.
This sounds like

as part of traditional causation
potentials in the present or in the past
being unleashed and creating events in the next now.

What if events at a point in time essentially reach back and create potentials in their pasts so that they can exist?

Setting oneself a goal and striving to achieve it has that effect: When setting oneself a goal, one in effect takes for granted that that future state of having achieved that goal exists; and then one acts as if pulled by that future state. It's that 'as if' I am gnawing on.

What if events at a point in time essentially reach back and create potentials in their pasts so that they can exist?Dark proposition.

I would suppose that there would have to be, somehow, at certain points in the present, past and future, expressive conjunctions of will, whereby the same exact will is currently asking, was formally seeking blindly, and shall be in a position to command, demand, oblige.

A phasor diagram is just a plot of rotating vectors. There are two kinds of phase in a system because of impedance and reactance, and you have displacements of group velocity and phase velocity.

A resonant oscillation is when the reactance is minimal and the system energy scales linearly like through a resistance (but that's an ideal), the force pushing or pulling approaches the resulting output (the lead or lag gets smaller), the system approaches a point of efficiency; 'coz reactance absorbs energy - the vibrations an engine makes, f'rinstance, which are resonant modes appearing in the elements with a reactance which is frequency dependent because of their densities and shapes etc, they all move around and absorb energy.

At some throughput, or power level (usually that's what we're after), these reactant elements are dominated by the characteristic 'efficiency' of the engine - the power band. or flatline up to some rpm limit appears, and you get a more or less linear ramp in the output.
The v-i characteristics of a transistor amp look like that too.

P.S. as far as the universe's power output and efficiency - it's been running at maximum efficiency since it started. Either the expansion is pulling the universe apart or it's pushing. Because they are infinitely close together so we can't tell.

To "pull" the future would have to already exist. just like the past would have to exist to "push."

Neither of those can be shown to be the case.
Actually, the future already exists due to causation. The future can be inferred from the present. :scratchin:

Setting oneself a goal and striving to achieve it has that effect: When setting oneself a goal, one in effect takes for granted that that future state of having achieved that goal exists; and then one acts as if pulled by that future state.
Indeed...

The future can be inferred from the present.How?
There's far too much you need to know about "now", to even be able to accurately predict the next nanosecond.
You could try building a computer that could process all available data, and estimate an output for you, but it would take a while (the universe would probably have expanded to infinity, before you finished building it, say).

Meanwhile, there's a computer already doing it. The universe is predicting its own future - with a very fine tolerance, the Planck limit.

There's a "simple" answer to this thread.

Rather then thinking of time in linear terms, one must think of time as a continuous static eternal entity. There's no past, present or future. Those are only perceptions of what we call time. In reality, time is one entity, which NOW is the only reality.

If that's a bit too weird to imagine, think about it in more concrete terms. Look around you. Our planet is huge. Now, imagine flying away and keep flying away until the entire planet is a single point. The whole planet is a single point. Even though it appears to us that it's huge, in reality, it has no size. The size of the planet is relative to our perception of it.

The same is true for time. If you draw a line and label "past", "present" and "future", and then distance yourself far enough, you will see a point. Like space, time is only a perception. Past, present and future are just perceptions of the Time. The truth is that past, present and future happen simultaneously.

Now, with that in mind, think about the question. :)

How?
There's far too much you need to know about "now", to even be able to accurately predict the next nanosecond.
You could try building a computer that could process all available data, and estimate an output for you, but it would take a while (the universe would probably have expanded to infinity, before you finished building it, say).

Meanwhile, there's a computer already doing it. The universe is predicting its own future - with a very fine tolerance, the Planck limit.
You are thinking too much in physical terms and not enough in philosophical and psychological terms. Let's not forget that we have a mind and that mind DOES affect the universe through our own individual perceptions of it.

There's a "simple" answer to this thread.

Rather then thinking of time in linear terms, one must think of time as a continuous static eternal entity. There's no past, present or future. Those are only perceptions of what we call time. In reality, time is one entity, which NOW is the only reality.

If that's a bit too weird to imagine, think about it in more concrete terms. Look around you. Our planet is huge. Now, imagine flying away and keep flying away until the entire planet is a single point. The whole planet is a single point. Even though it appears to us that it's huge, in reality, it has no size. The size of the planet is relative to our perception of it.

The same is true for time. If you draw a line and label "past", "present" and "future", and then distance yourself far enough, you will see a point. Like space, time is only a perception. Past, present and future are just perceptions of the Time. The truth is that past, present and future happen simultaneously.

Now, with that in mind, think about the question. :)
I have thought of causation in terms of adjacency. Time as fourth dimension and therefore events are simply next to eachother in the 'object'. It is a rather deadening philosophy, true or not, since it is de facto determinist even though there is no causation.

Dark proposition.

I would suppose that there would have to be, somehow, at certain points in the present, past and future, expressive conjunctions of will, whereby the same exact will is currently asking, was formally seeking blindly, and shall be in a position to command, demand, oblige.

Not sure if there is a value judgment in 'dark'.

Can this will retroactively demand?

It's that 'as if' I am gnawing on.

Yes ...

But what exactly seems to be the problem here - detrminism?

Yes ...

But what exactly seems to be the problem here - detrminism?
I am not sure. I am exploring. Somehow it feels right to me: this idea of pulling as also a possible kind of causation. I have no idea what that 'feels right' is about or if it is correct or correct in some way I am not conscious of. I am not worried about determinism. I am pretty sure I am not trying to extricate myself mentally from that model.

Consider that although time appears to be linear as far as we can tell, chaos exists too.
Chaos is unpredictable by definition, but can 'make' something behave linearly for a while.

You are thinking too much in physical terms and not enough in philosophical and psychological terms. Can you explain what the difference is between "physical terms", and "psychological terms"?

Isn't thinking physical? I, er, really thought it was, for a second.

How do we know that future states are not pulling on the present or even creating it so that these future states can exist?


I believe in destiny, and that it is changeable. Is that a contradiction?

:shrug:

"Random" event "X" occurred yesterday. Perhaps no one knew it was going to happen, but it DID happen. And was, without anyone knowing it, guaranteed to happen before it came to being.....

It sounds possible that you are challenging both notions of causation.


Only causation which requires events in a time frame other than the present.

Can you explain what the difference is between "physical terms", and "psychological terms"?

Isn't thinking physical? I, er, really thought it was, for a second.
The brain that thinks is physical. However, you have to think about psychology too! You are so focused on the physical part of things you are forgetting there's a lot more then that!

No there isn't.

If something isn't physical it doesn't exist. So thinking about anything, is a physical process - even if you think about "non-physical" things. Which by definition is actually impossible.

No there isn't.

If something isn't physical it doesn't exist. So thinking about anything, is a physical process - even if you think about "non-physical" things. Which by definition is actually impossible.
If you think about your ego and your other psychological attributes, the brain that does the thinking may be physical, however what you are thinking about is not.

Don't be stubborn. Not everything is physical. Are abstract concepts physical? If you imagine a purple dragon that flies upside down, is that dragon physical? :bugeye:

Not everything is physical. Are abstract concepts physical? If you imagine a purple dragon that flies upside down, is that dragon physical?The imagination of a purple upside-down flying dragon is definitely physical.

Abstractions are physical - they have to be. You're confusing what an idea is with what an idea 'represents'.
My emotions and imagination are real. I imagine things because I have real thoughts, I don't think it's possible to think of something 'non-physical' for the simple reason you can't imagine something that has no possibility of existence. A purple upside-down dragon must be possible because I can imagine one. It may also be highly improbable, which does not imply it is impossible.

I guarantee you can't imagine something that is definitely impossible - it would have to have zero possibility of existing, in which case you can't imagine it.

The imagination of a purple upside-down flying dragon is definitely physical.

Abstractions are physical - they have to be. You're confusing what an idea is with what an idea 'represents'.
My emotions and imagination are real. I imagine things because I have real thoughts, I don't think it's possible to think of something 'non-physical' for the simple reason you can't imagine something that has no possibility of existence. A purple upside-down dragon must be possible because I can imagine one. It may also be highly improbable, which does not imply it is impossible.

I guarantee you can't imagine something that is definitely impossible - it would have to have zero possibility of existing, in which case you can't imagine it.
It's not that it has no possibility of existing, the possibility is there, because your imagination is based on your knowledge alone. For instance, there's this game I'm playing right now that you can create creatures and ALL creatures have parts that we have seen before. Dragons, for instance, may not exist, however they are made of parts of animals that do exist. Therefore, the limitations of your imagination are not physical, but based on your knowledge.



Huumm... how did we start this discussion again? LOL!!! :D

Only causation which requires events in a time frame other than the present.
How can their be causation in the present? Wouldn't things simply be? Causation, it seems to me, implies duration. First this, which led to this. But I'm interested in causation without duration. Do you have an example?

Not sure if there is a value judgment in 'dark'.Dark, as in unconventional, distant, esoteric.Can this will retroactively demand?I thought as much but couldn't figure out how the will could bid itself retroactively, hence regressively, unless it could somehow split itself in two and expect itself to recognize itself from the distant past. —A bit farfetched, I thought.

But perhaps there's another way.

If an aspired state embodies a purposeful personality, a definitive sense of being, then shouldn't it also behold its discrete will? Inotherwords, like a lover, we woo—just as we are also being wooed.

You could imagine that traveling back in time is impossible, but then you can imagine being 'in' the past, your own past in particular.
A situation, though, like meeting someone who died well before you were born, is that possible?

Can you imagine meeting Abe Lincoln or George Washington, say or Julius Caesar?
Probably only to a limited extent, placing the probability well into the "highly improbable" ballpark right there. But does imagining meeting someone who has died, that you knew when they were alive mean that it's possible you can? (think paranormal for a sec)

] Let's not forget that we have a mind and that mind DOES affect the universe through our own individual perceptions of it.

No they don't, you're speaking existential garbage.

What if, let us pretend, the idea of Pushing/Pulling were human inventions/interpretations describing the same thing; a tautology?
Given that as I have used them the pushing is a metaphor for past states/objects/processes causing later ones, if pulling were true it might be a difference.

Pushing - current states determine later ones
Pulling - future states determine current ones (demand them)
Adjacency - the whole damn thing is already laid out and we are just 'seeing' it 'unfold'.

Reread my response.

Both.
Done.

How can their be causation in the present? Wouldn't things simply be? Causation, it seems to me, implies duration. First this, which led to this. But I'm interested in causation without duration. Do you have an example?

Things simply are and part of what they are is already in motion (masses with a certain inertia and velocity moving through space/time). Causation is the interaction of those various vectors in the present.

We create a notion of past and future to make it easier to think about what is happening now, but all there really is, is "now" as each object's inertia/velocity time frame. When objects interact these frames change via accelleration/deaccelleration until equilibrium is re-established so that mass, velocity/energy and time frame are conserved.

At least that is my current understanding. I don't claim to be a guru on this topic.

Things simply are and part of what they are is already in motion (masses with a certain inertia and velocity moving through space/time). Causation is the interaction of those various vectors in the present.But in the present there would be no causation, one thing leading to another. You would simply have a pattern of some kind. You can abstract out causation, by comparing moments in time, but then you need more than the present for this.

We create a notion of past and future to make it easier to think about what is happening now, but all there really is, is "now" as each object's inertia/velocity time frame. Yes, I think I understand you position. I just think causation become something else that makes it easier to think about what is happening now.

You begin this post with 'things simply are'. Causation to me adds to that. They no longer simply are, but are affecting things at other moments in time than now.

At least that is my current understanding. I don't claim to be a guru on this topic. OK. I'll probably drop this soon, if not after reading your response. I think, in any case, you get what I am saying, even if you disagree. But if I can respond without feeling like I am repeating myself, I'll give it a shot.