Does A causes B imply that time exists?

[Philosophy Explorer]

It would seem so since there must be a passage of time to go from A to B.

PhilX

[uwot]

Does A causes B imply that time exists?
It would seem so since there must be a passage of time to go from A to B.

Things happen, that is demonstrably the case; in fact you cannot demonstrate anything without things happening. It doesn't follow that that there is any such 'thing' as time which is independent of things happening.

[jackles]

Yes A plus B = plus = time

[uwot]

Yes A plus B = plus = time

Well it's more yer A then B; A plus B doesn't imply anything happening. I think what PhilX is getting at is that there appears to be a medium (other than space) through which a cause passes to its effect. This is a very difficult intuition to let go of, partly because our own experience of time is clouded by the fact that there are always things happening, if only conscious thoughts or hearts beating. When Einstein pointed out that at the speed of light, time stops, what he meant is that nothing happens, for the simple reason that in order to effect a change, a cause would have to travel faster than c to do so. If you still haven't done so check out my blog, it will tell you exactly why this is so: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

[duszek]

But can´t light be a cause too ?

If light caused something and travelled at its normal speed would time stop ?

[jackles]

A = nonlocality
A + B = local + spacetime

[uwot]

But can´t light be a cause too ?

Absolutely, think of a suntan. Individual photons are responsible for changing the energy states of atoms by being absorbed by the electron shell. Equally they are emitted when the energy state makes a 'quantum leap' downwards; photons buzzing this way and that are arguably the cause of everything we experience.

If light caused something and travelled at its normal speed would time stop ?

No. The light that causes a suntan takes roughly 8 minutes to get from the sun to you. While it is doing so, the world turns a little bit, all the clocks tick-tock and the hands creep round a bit, a caesium atom in an atomic clock on Earth vibrates x number of billions times; all this and more is going on until splat! the photons hit your skin. If you are running away from the photon at the speed of light, it will never reach you and the suntan will not happen, nor will anything else; it says so here: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

[duszek]

The light that causes suntan needs 8 minutes ?

So this is the famous light speed, I suppose.

So time does NOT stop in this case because the earth moves a little ?

And if the earth stood still the light would get me in 8 minutes too or there would be no time at all ?

[uwot]

The light that causes suntan needs 8 minutes ?

The daylight you are currently basking in left the sun about 8 minutes ago.

So this is the famous light speed, I suppose.

Well, yes. The speed of light is approximately 300 000 km a second. The distance to the sun is about 150 000 000 km. 150 000 000 divided by 300 000 is 500. So it takes light 500 seconds to get from the sun to us, or 8 minutes and 20 seconds. Roughly.

So time does NOT stop in this case because the earth moves a little ?

I don't know whether there is any such 'thing' as time; I suspect Kant was right and it is just something we make up to help us make sense of things. All our experience of time is dependent on things happening (which was Plato's point of view), the world turning, clocks ticking, our hearts beating and the stream of consciousness that is 'us'. All those things stop happening in a situation (an inertial frame) where something is travelling at the same speed as the things that make stuff happens. It's to do with the Doppler effect: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/waves.html

And if the earth stood still the light would get me in 8 minutes too or there would be no time at all ?

Well, the amount the Earth spins on its axis makes no difference to how far away the sun is.

[jackles]

Ok so if A is singularity then it A is nonlocal because its not relating to anything but its self as A. Now if we go plus B we create a locality(local sysyem) which is A plus B . Ok so A (nonlocality) is then now the timespace that the A plus B system exists in as a locality with a future tense.

[duszek]

All those things stop happening in a situation (an inertial frame) where something is travelling at the same speed as the things that make stuff happens. It's to do with the Doppler effect: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/waves.html

So my heart would stop beating in what situation ?

When something would travel at the same speed as ... my heart beats ?

[uwot]

So my heart would stop beating in what situation ?

When something would travel at the same speed as ... my heart beats ?

Physiology is not my strong point, but as I understand it, the heart receives an electrical signal that causes the muscle to contract. I think that signal travels at about 300mph/500kmph, so air travel would be fatal. It isn't for the same reason that if you bounce a ball in a moving train, it goes straight up and down from your point of view, exactly as if you were standing still. That is true no matter how fast you go, because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, things which are moving keep moving until something stops them. What happens to a ball bouncing on a moving train is that its overall speed is made up of it going left to right, say, and up and down, but since you are travelling left to right at the same speed as the ball, you only notice the up and down bit. Fortunately for anyone who been on an aeroplane, the same is true for electrical signals to your heart. The difference with light is that its speed isn't affected by the movement of anything around it; it carries on at its own speed regardless. Photons, which are little bits of light, carry the 'messages' between atoms that ultimately make everything we are aware of happen. If two atoms are travelling at the speed of light, there isn't anything left in the photons tank for it to pass from one to the other, it's all the photon can do to keep up, so the messages aren't delivered and nothing happens, including your heart beating. But since it is impossible to travel at the speed of light, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[uwot]

Ok so if A is singularity then it A is nonlocal because its not relating to anything but its self as A. Now if we go plus B we create a locality(local sysyem) which is A plus B . Ok so A (nonlocality) is then now the timespace that the A plus B system exists in as a locality with a future tense.

I think you are confusing 'locality' with space. If A is infinitesimal, it takes up no space. If it is the only thing that exists, then there is no reference point by which to judge its locality; that changes if you add B, as you say. But when physicists talk about locality, it is something completely different: confusing though it is, a 'local' event is one which can be accounted for by the interaction of things travelling at the speed of light, eg photons. A 'nonlocal' event is one that happens faster than a photon could have caused it, as happens with quantum entanglement.
Future tense only means something if something happens. If nothing ever happens, there is no future.

[jackles]

And in the beginning there was A and A was without form and nonlocal(because no time had yet existed) and then from A we had B created and behold locality came into being .And because A always had been in existance it A became naturally the timespace for the A B localised system event. And behold A+ B became light as physics in locality and moved and A new its self as light and it was good. Because A is good.

[uwot]

And in the beginning there was A and A was without form and nonlocal(because no time had yet existed) and then from A we had B created and behold locality came into being .And because A always had been in existance it A became naturally the timespace for the A B localised system event. And behold A+ B became light as physics in locality and moved and A new its self as light and it was good. Because A is good.

Who knows, jackles? What do you think A made B from? Maybe Bishop Berkeley was right and everything is just ideas in A's mind.