Philosophy Now Forum

Consider a chain of causality, X(t) to X(t+dt), where t and t+dt are two consecutive points on time. Such a description is used in physics frequently. The problem is that we lousily use such a mathematical formula without being aware that future may not exist so X(t+dt) cannot exist.

Unicorns don't exist, yet you can describe one.
Revenge does not exist, yet you can define it.
Ideas, concepts, fancies, constructs - the products of human brain activity have no independent existence, but serve well enough in the context of human cogitation and communication.

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:32 pm Unicorns don't exist, yet you can describe one.
Revenge does not exist, yet you can define it.
Ideas, concepts, fancies, constructs - the products of human brain activity have no independent existence, but serve well enough in the context of human cogitation and communication.

I agree with what you said but we are dealing with a problem, namely X(t+dt) cannot exist, if future does not exist.

Of course it can't; it's in the same category - an idea, not a thing.

Rather than the Future the History exists. So you can rather consider influence of “(X(t) - X(t-dt))/dt” at the development of the Universe... I personally can see the Future as (Platonic) world/empire of ideas:) If you are interested, you can read more...
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9654#p124332

Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:36 am Of course it can't; it's in the same category - an idea, not a thing.

So how you are going to deal with causality?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:04 am Rather than the Future the History exists. So you can rather consider influence of “(X(t) - X(t-dt))/dt” at the development of the Universe... I personally can see the Future as (Platonic) world/empire of ideas:) If you are interested, you can read more...
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9654#p124332

We have a problem at the beginning of time if we use X(t-dt) to X(t) as a causal chain, t being the big bang time.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:05 pm [Of course it can't; it's in the same category - an idea, not a thing.]
So how you are going to deal with causality?

Why should I need a way to deal with causality?
Making up a symbolic formula doesn't "deal with" anything; it's just one of many ways to describe a sequence of events. Event took place, and will continue to take place, whether we have a reliable language to discuss it or not. And there is nothing wrong with using a formula that doesn't exist in the real world, any more than with the symbols we use for an alphabet to write about things or musical notation to describe sound.

Causality is an everyday phenomenon that is easy to understand so it does not need to be dealt with in any way
The future is simply the present that has yet to happen while the past is the present that has already happened

Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:05 pm [Of course it can't; it's in the same category - an idea, not a thing.]
So how you are going to deal with causality?

Why should I need a way to deal with causality?
Making up a symbolic formula doesn't "deal with" anything; it's just one of many ways to describe a sequence of events. Event took place, and will continue to take place, whether we have a reliable language to discuss it or not. And there is nothing wrong with using a formula that doesn't exist in the real world, any more than with the symbols we use for an alphabet to write about things or musical notation to describe sound.

A symbolic formula can represent an aspect of reality. In here we are interested in causality. Causality is impossible if future cannot exist.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:47 pm Causality is an everyday phenomenon that is easy to understand so it does not need to be dealt with in any way

Yes, causality is common sense to us. Here we are explaining that causality is impossible if future does not exist.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:47 pm The future is simply the present that has yet to happen while the past is the present that has already happened

No. Future is a point on time that does not happened yet while past is a point on time that happened.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:19 pm A symbolic formula can represent an aspect of reality.

The key word there is "represent". The letter A does not exist. It is a symbolic representation of a small range of possible sounds made by human speech equipment. The letters in the formula have no independent existence, either: they're symbols for speech sounds that have been further co-opted to represent concepts with no independent existence that are further organized into representing yet another concept with no real-world existence, that of the relationship of those previous concepts.

In here we are interested in causality. Causality is impossible if future cannot exist.

Do you believe that Dorian Grey stayed young and pretty because his portrait underwent the changes his body should have?
Anyway, nobody said there is no future, only that it has no material existence. The future is a prediction of events that have not yet taken place, based on events that have taken place.
Events don't exist: they happen. Things are. Processes devolve.

There are two ways to think of this

Only the present exists eternally with the past and the future being nothing more than abstract concepts
Past and present and future are separate demarcations that exist in relation to our temporal experiences
In everyday existence it doesnt really matter which one is preferred as the actual effect remains the same

Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:49 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:19 pm A symbolic formula can represent an aspect of reality.

The key word there is "represent". The letter A does not exist. It is a symbolic representation of a small range of possible sounds made by human speech equipment. The letters in the formula have no independent existence, either: they're symbols for speech sounds that have been further co-opted to represent concepts with no independent existence that are further organized into representing yet another concept with no real-world existence, that of the relationship of those previous concepts.

You basically deny physics.

Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:49 pm

In here we are interested in causality. Causality is impossible if future cannot exist.

Do you believe that Dorian Grey stayed young and pretty because his portrait underwent the changes his body should have?
Anyway, nobody said there is no future, only that it has no material existence. The future is a prediction of events that have not yet taken place, based on events that have taken place.
Events don't exist: they happen. Things are. Processes devolve.

By future exists I mean that it objectively exist and can accommodate a state of affair.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:50 pm There are two ways to think of this

Only the present exists eternally with the past and the future being nothing more than abstract concepts

Causality therefore is not possible in this case.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:50 pm Past and present and future are separate demarcations that exist in relation to our temporal experiences
In everyday existence it doesnt really matter which one is preferred as the actual effect remains the same

How could we have temporal experience if future, past and present exist? We should experience everything.