well one can alter what the past WAS but just not what it is, it is the past, not the present. so, its hard to explain but, effects of retrocausation have already happened, they're in the past, but the cause of those things in the past is yet to happen. if I was ever going to make it retrocausally that I have never posted the stuff about you being a conctrete head, then I would already never have done so.
anyway, retro causation isnt required for free will I just found out, so it no longer matters to me. because, I only thought retrocausation was required for free will because I thought that everything about everyone was caused by something in the past, as I was told, but the person who told me that never actually justified it I now see. so, continue your talk about it if you are interested in it for whatever reason but I no longer care.
Well, QM and speculative fiction aside, it doesn't seem to be case as far as the experienced (conscious) representation of the world goes. Which is based on a presentism template of time (or the latter, at least, as long as you leave out a scientific investigation of that commonsense manifestation and resulting theories/models). Conventional causation wouldn't even literally apply in the eternalism view of time, since nothing "happens". All so-called developing states of the universe co-exist, rather than (again) that rival presentism view where they replace each other in succession (with coherence throughout the latter's process being either magically maintained or possibly managed by a some hidden Platonic level [hah]). In eternalism, you could label a position-based relationship between specific contents of two different states of the cosmos as cause and effect -- kind of like pragmatically asserting that a broken window in one frame of a movie was caused by the thrown ball appearing in the frames located "prior" in position to the frames where the window is shattered. But it wouldn't seem to make much sense to implement in the first place if minus that "directional flow" and limited manner of be-ing exhibited by events in conscious experience (that is, its representation of the world as global, ephemeral changes devoid of substantive or enduring existence).
however... time jump or dual time correlational relationships may have potential merit 2 points in time both co-existing as a shared occurrence 1 point in the past occurring simultaneously with 1 point in the present. while some concept of perception may define this as retro, it is not retro. i wonder if this person you were chatting to is a pro-AI evangelical christian there is a trend of modern evangelical Christianity that uses science to fill the gaps in belief to give a sense of self comfort to counter fear of the unknown. such people tend to mix words in poor context and associate the wrong words to aspects of incorrect science(mostly in a non malicious manner). complex concepts around time & quantum physics tends to lose their meaning when incorrect words are inserted to assign some aspect of pre defined meaning that is non scientific & instead faith based. confounding thoughts that have attachments & associations to non verbal aspects keep in mind this is very common amongst adults and is normalized inside culture and morality models. children tend to allow this as being a more acceptable non judgmental state of required social gravity[i will not get any more specific]. maintain your energy in your drive to discover. a small tiny step in the right direction is far more important than a massive leap off to the side, just to make yourself feel you are moving somewhere. baiting ? only religious people need to justify concepts of quantum physics(as aspects of reality's self awareness) because it relates to the pre definition of gods will being organized and intended. you had several different conversations going on with them. 1 what they were saying 2 what you were feeling 3 what you wanted to know 4 what they wanted to imply 5 what they wanted to feel & do ... now you are left holding the baby[ which you have realised and decided to now throw out] what was the conversation/their intent your desired outcome ? baiting ? manipulation ? scam ? Narcissist ? Ego Maniac ? power trip ?
Unless of course those initial conditions required freewill to evolve... which they certainly appear to do.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fate (i ponder this may be a little too complicated for justme to understand as a relative concept to their initial inquiry to define an outcome). conflicting causation no initial pre-determined causative modality = ? free will ? Retro-causality = ? Free will ? i think someone has put head in quite a spin. Linear cause & effect = singular time line functionality of a probabilistic frequency of event potential which is probably far more quantum physics than you really want what your looking for is ? the answer to if fate is real and or if there is such a thing as free will ?
A truly insightful post CC... Thanks... It is interesting that we often fail to acknowledge that we are only arbitrarily determining the distinction between cause and effect IMO. To reinforce our collective need for order and the direction of time perhaps?
How about both? Try: The more you learn how to self determine your future the less fated you are. example: "The person was fated to walk until they learned how to ride a horse"
In cases of overdetermination the water could especially get muddy, or highlight how we might finally select a cause for _X_ due to it being the most practical or efficient in a certain work context. That it's not necessarily a human independent fact or absolute/universal. Occasionally I feel it might have something to do with the direction that biological organisms as a whole need in order to arise, develop and evolve, as well as language preferentially piggy-backing on that orientation. But who knows, there might be the symmetry of also consciously experiencing events in "reverse" -- an opposite for THIS cognitive discrimination/separation of the events of an individual lifetime. Either way we'd seem to construe each "direction" as the norm if toggling to the other apprehension mode at death or fetal brain emergence. But I have doubts that there really would be no native preference and good reasons for only this manner of experiencing the co-existing differences comprising our existence. I don't restrict eternalism to an overly simplistic "block-universe" hypersolid or a field alternative. I have no idea how non-procedural being would pertain/endure independent of our representations of it. If there was, say, a "many-worlds" version of it, then personal experience of one's life might "replay" mutably due to not repeating the same route through the maze of different, co-existing world states (if "replays" were applicable). Which is not to say that I'm ruling out presentism or a commonsense temporal belief of the world truly winking in and out of be-ing as distinct global moments. With the "past" being no more than memory and the "future" merely anticipation. But that's a process type of existence (IMO), thin on substantialness in its ephemeral context, or roughly/arguably analogous to objective idealism. All being a "dream" governed by a Platonic stratum of immaterial, generative principles (or a "world-mind", whatever a specific variation of that diverse and ancient school of thought would advocate). Such can be disguised under "process" labels, but the historical roots/similarities show through for discerning observers. My token reservations about that territory could be metaphysical virtue signaling -- superficial allegiance to science's own philosophical bent of its public figures usually advocating a stripe of materialism/physicalism in their personal beliefs (the terms increasingly vague in meaning, with respect to lecturers at physicalism convention gatherings often at odds about definitions nowadays).
i have been lucky enough to have grown up in conjunction to some of those whom burn as hot as the surface of the sun. Good Luck is as much a mercy as Bad Luck is as much a mistress of evil as is my own experience i had big plans(was working 2 different jobs[which had been promised to meld into 1 new job which i had been waiting on which turns out was a lie] and looking to open a small business idea) but life got in the way ironically i was planning to expect some major road blocks to my plans around 6 months ago however i had not quite correctly defined the nature of the source. having 3 random(stranger) abusive events in the middle with a family member dying & mounting bills... a micro investor repeatedly delaying on me(for their own personal life issues not of any malice or poor reason) some thoughts would suggest i should know it would be an obstacle coarse. those who are smarter work smarter, but are still the ones working around 3 times as hard as the average person. fate verses opportunity making your own luck etc etc ... quality of life ... appreciation of things ... humans are such a weird animal i have always felt i lack a certain amount of core sustainable evilness(compared to my lack of sheer genius) to be a really good capitalist it is my achilles heel one does get used to a certain style of running it is not so much that you may leave people in your wake, but more so in the choosing of who to drown in the waves of your ambition that defines the skill of your achievements. ambition oh how people love it when it's not working in competition to them.
point taken.... It is interesting that human can not avoid but take the "arrogant" position and even claim over or under determination, when it is apparent that the effect in question is unknown enough to generate such posturing. The fact is that the effect has occurred and that "everything" is needed for that effect to have occurred. There can be no actual over or under determination in reality. The principle being tested is: "Everything's existence is absolutely dependent on everything being absolutely dependent on everything". Referring to the terms "over unity" and "under unity" as being at the least an attempt to mitigate that "arrogance" might help in the understanding. I feel there is a danger in getting lost between that of the temporal imaginings of a human mind and manifestly material "nature" of reality.** Suffice to say that it is a very difficult discussion to have and one I do not usually contemplate getting in to too deeply using a web based forum medium. "Unicorns exist for a reason" comes to mind but that reason is highly debatable. ...still considering your post... and shall post more response if appropriate. Thanks. Edit: There is logical reason to believe that everything is temporal (of mind) and that is only a matter of degree...and inter-dependency that is in question.
Your post reminded me of a bit of wisdom...that goes something like this: "You can either wade up stream against the flow of the river, allow the river to carry you where ever it takes you, or you can wade across stream or stay still and let the river flow past you. The art is in the learning which to choose and when." Edited to include the 4th option..
