[quote author=“AlbanyDave”]This reminds me of an old Jung book I read a very long time ago.
If you believe that time is a linear function with a definite beginning and a definite end, then causality breaks down at the extremes.
That’s right, such a conception of existence is not logical. People who believe in such a conception prove that they really have no faith in reason, despite the scientific outlook they proudly claim to have.
After all, if all things are created, then who created the creator? If all things are caused, what caused the cause at the beginning of all causes? And, at the other extreme, what results from the final cause?
That’s right, the only logical conclusion is an infinite totality without begining or end.
If you hold that causality is true in all places and at all times, exclusively, then there can be no concept of linear time with beginning and end points at the extremes.
Now, we have evidence that causality exists. To claim that synchronicity exists too seems a bit like searching to a patch to cover the hole in the argument, sort of like how people ‘invented’ ether to explain how light could move through space.
It is uneccesary to think of synchronicity as acausal. Here is an analogy: Picture people living in a 2 dimensional flat-land. Now picture a very large V-shaped 3 dimensional object coming into the view of the 2 dimensional land dwellers from above. First of all, not only will the three dimensional V-object only appear only in two dimensions, but it will appear as if two totally related objects appeared simultaneously. The truth is that the two seemingly unconnected events are connected and caused.
Also, consider the analogy that David Bohm developed to explain some puzzeling effects observed in Quantum physics.
Suppose there is a glass aquarium with one fish in it. A TV camera is
aimed at the side of the tank, and you are in another room looking at
a screen connected to that camera. On the screen you see a fish
swimming left to right, and then turning away from you.
There is a second TV camera aimed at the left end of the tank,
connected to a second screen which you can also see. On the second
screen you simultaneously see a fish swimming away from you, then
If you only saw one screen, you might make many fish observations that
lead to conclusions about fish behavior, with no reference to the
other screen. If you study the other screen, you would come to the
same conclusions, and imagine you have a second fish. Doing the EPR
experiment is like watching both screens at once and puzzling about
the connection between the “two” fish. But the fish on one screen does
not exist independent of the fish on the other.
Bohm says: “Rather, they refer to a single actuality, which is the
common ground of both (and this explains the correlation of images
without the assumption that they causally affect each other).” (1)
We cannot truly determine if time had a beginning or will ever end.
I would say that it is an absolute logical truth that time has no begining or end.
Lastly, what evidence do we have that time is truly a linear phenomenon, and that the perception of linear time is not due to our limited ability to sense time?
Empirical evidence to prove this will always be impossible. As for whether or not time is a linear phenomena, I’m not sure what you mean. It’s linear in the sense that it unfolds, but it has no begining or end. Time also cannot be percieved in any other way than in terms of animation, movement. How could it be known in any other way?
Now, a creature capable of perceiving two dimensions is not actually two-dimensional. Even a thin sheet of paper has depth, and any drawing on that sheet of paper has the depth of the thickness of the pencil lead dragged across it’s surface.
I disagree. I think a VR simulation of a 2 Dimensional world is possible.
So too are we capable of directly perceiving three dimensions, and inferring a fourth., and yet possessed of many more. And yet, we cannot and never will be able to directly perceive the fourth or higher dimensions with our senses alone.
Try to examine the ‘timeness’ of a thing. Can you stare at a rock, and without making any inference based on geology or if that rock has appeared int he historical records, or without looking at old photographs to see if it was there 50 years ago, the age of that rock?
I don’t believe time is seperate from space. When you look at one, you are looking at the other. Einstein’s suggestion about the indivisbility of time and space seems perfectly reasonable.
Thus, can we trust that our sensual perception of time is correct, that it is in fact linear, any more than a two dimensional drawing looking out across the page it rests upon could correctly tell the difference between a ball and a circle drawn on the same page?
You seem to be implying that you think time and space is in someway absolute and objective, but I say that time and space are relative to the observer.
I would argue that we cannot. We require mathematics and physics to do what our senses cannot so. to perceive N-space.
You are percieving only the very mathematics themselves and nothing else. Perhaps you are defining a particular form of mathematics as N-space. That is fine. But Math is not reality, for reality cannot be contained in mathematics.
Causality implies alot of things. Before we create something like synchronicity to make the model fit our preconcieved notions of the universe, let’s ask whether our concepts of the universe are correct. Maybe, we need to throw the model out all together and come up with a new explanation.
All models are invariably false. They are sometimes useful tools, but they can never serve as ultimate explanations. The closest you will ever get to a theory of everything is ‘causality’. That’s the most truthful thing you can say about ‘ultimate’ reality.