Philosophy Now Forum

-
There's a sub-forum (elsewhere) titled The Sandbox, with the suggested contents being:

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

This is copying that format -
Such that there's a suitable place one can verbalize/transcribe their thoughts without creating a unique topic.

Feel welcome to utilize this space, if so inclined.

can something exist that affects other things,
but is never affected itself?

what is the opposite and equal reaction to an effect that itself is never affected?

how would we ever test it's presence,
and would it be wrong to associate this unaffected effect (UE),
as an action / capacity of the thing the UE affects?

if the UE can affect multiple known things,
then could we say multiple things have the capacity
to act in a way that the UE causes them to react?

are attributes/actions of a thing,
partially the sum of UE's that interact with it?

how would a UE look different than an inherent behaviour of that which it affects?

future leads to past
the furthest future is the previous moment

time could flow from future to past,
and our experience would not be different.
time could chaotically move through the jumbled assortment of all possible states,
and our experience would not change.

potential is a conceptual prediction
based on the memory/evidence of past,
and it's relation to other memories / experience, namely present.

if existence is a loop,
then there is no potential other than existence being,
and always being.

a boltzmann brain is the experience of existing as a classical entity in a classical universe,
but really you're only a flashing instance of awareness, before dissipating.
it'd be really funny, if what the boltzmann brain did during that moment,
was think about boltzmann brains.

https://youtu.be/4b-6mWxx8Y0
'Is Consciousness Fundamental?'

the interpreter
-
in the absence of awareness of the reason one did an action,
the brain makes a guess, without recognize it's a guess.
however, there was a reason the body did something.
perhaps part of our brains, are always crafting the story -
and sometimes get the details wrong.

ask a non-split brain test candidate to do a series of convoluted actions.
ask why they did it.
they'll say they were following the instructions.
this is the most objective explanation,
and likely in accord with why they actually did that series of convoluted actions.

this does not mean reasons never factor into our decision making,
but that the narrator of our actions,
isn't always aware of all that contributes to our actions,
thus they're unreliable and often get the details wrong.

but what is consciousness, and how do we plan / strategize for the future,
without narrating / recognizing the behaviours and likely causes of behaviours,
including our own?

that part of the brain narrates and crafts a story for our behaviour (even if partially false),
still may provide utility for the brain's capacity to assess the situation and factor one's behaviour into the assessment.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 12:19 pm can something exist that affects other things,
but is never affected itself?

what is the opposite and equal reaction to an effect that itself is never affected?

how would we ever test it's presence,
and would it be wrong to associate this unaffected effect (UE),
as an action / capacity of the thing the UE affects?

if the UE can affect multiple known things,
then could we say multiple things have the capacity
to act in a way that the UE causes them to react?

are attributes/actions of a thing,
partially the sum of UE's that interact with it?

how would a UE look different than an inherent behaviour of that which it affects?

how would UE cause change if nothing affects it?
and what is UE, if not itself a composition of other things?
and if the UE's components affect it, then it isn't UE.

perhaps there's just orders of magnitude / scales,
and those beyond our capacity to inspect,
get taken for granted as just stuff existence does.

let's say there's a two separate bubbles b1 / b2,
b1 does stuff that affects b2,
but the stuff b2 does never directly affects b1.
b2 never sees b1, and never knows about b1,
and attributes all of b1's actions as being stuff b2 does.
this isn't terribly unreasonable,
but b2 is missing a huge chunk of the picture.

extending this,
perhaps b2's actions affect b1 indirectly through b3,
and each never recognizes the other -
but there's layers of actions that each are oblivious to,
never seeing the full picture.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 12:19 pm can something exist that affects other things,
but is never affected itself?

Not that I am, yet, aware of. Can any one, here, name any thing that is never affected, itself, by absolutely any thing?

If yes, then will 'that one' just write down, here, what 'that thing' is, exactly?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 12:19 pm what is the opposite and equal reaction to an effect that itself is never affected?

Would it not be wise to wait to see if there is any 'actual thing' that is never affected, itself, first?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 12:19 pm how would we ever test it's presence,
and would it be wrong to associate this unaffected effect (UE),
as an action / capacity of the thing the UE affects?

But, is there even 'such a thing' existing anyway?

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?

Ben JS wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 12:19 pm if the UE can affect multiple known things,
then could we say multiple things have the capacity
to act in a way that the UE causes them to react?

are attributes/actions of a thing,
partially the sum of UE's that interact with it?

how would a UE look different than an inherent behaviour of that which it affects?

Imaging a 'thing' might exist, and then wondering 'how' 'that thing' works, which is not yet even known to exist, a great way to 'spend time'.

Age wrote:Not that I am, yet, aware of.

I can't think of one either off the top of my head.

Age wrote:

Ben wrote:what is the opposite and equal reaction to an effect that itself is never affected?

Would it not be wise to wait to see if there is any 'actual thing' that is never affected, itself, first?

If there's a way to disprove it's possibility, then we'd have an answer to the first question.
And the question of mine quoted here may reveal an internal contradiction in the original concept.

Age wrote:Imaging a 'thing' might exist, and then wondering 'how' 'that thing' works, which is not yet even known to exist, a great way to 'spend time'.

Reading and responding to someone doing that too? But perhaps you're trying to rescue from this futile endeavour.

If anything, it's a contrast from thinking about all those currently in war, children being abused by their captors, prisoners losing sanity in solitary confinement, everyone dying regardless of life resolution and that the trajectory of the human species is on a wire attached to buttons causing global annihilation.

To each their own - one must make do.
I suppose I should turn the other cheek..

Are you judging how I spend my time, Age?
If so, recommendations?

[quote="Ben JS" post_id=770830 time=1746616789 user_id=23256]
future leads to past
the furthest future is the previous moment[/quote]

Are you able to explain how this makes sense, to you, if it does?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?
[quote="Ben JS" post_id=770832 time=1746617295 user_id=23256]
time could flow from future to past,[/quote]

But, 'time', itself, is not some thing that so-calls 'flows'.

Also, you used the 'could word, here. Which means that 'time' 'could' also do a myriad of 'other things', as well.

But, considering what the word 'time' word means, and/or refers to, exactly, which could fit in with the G.U.T.O.E. 'time' really does only one thing, only.

[quote="Ben JS" post_id=770832 time=1746617295 user_id=23256]
and our experience would not be different.
time could chaotically move through the jumbled assortment of all possible states,
and our experience would not change.

potential is a conceptual prediction
based on the memory/evidence of past,
and it's relation to other memories / experience, namely present.

if existence is a loop,
then there is no potential other than existence being,
and always being.

a boltzmann brain is the experience of existing as a classical entity in a classical universe,
but really you're only a flashing instance of awareness, before dissipating.
it'd be really funny, if what the boltzmann brain did during that moment,
was think about boltzmann brains.
[/quote]

There are quite a few 'ifs' and 'coulds', here, and which, by the way, could not and do not 'fit in with' what is actually irrefutably True, and Right.

(I am not sure why this post is formatting like the way it is, here.)

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 9:28 am

Age wrote:Not that I am, yet, aware of.

I can't think of one either off the top of my head.

Therefore, to 'us', at the moment, there is absolutely nothing, which 'we' are aware of. So, presuppose anything else, regarding some thing, which to 'us' does not even exist, could be 'time' better spend considering 'other things', like, 'How could 'we' all create, and live in, a much 'better world?' for example.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 9:28 am

Age wrote:

Ben wrote:what is the opposite and equal reaction to an effect that itself is never affected?

Would it not be wise to wait to see if there is any 'actual thing' that is never affected, itself, first?

If there's a way to disprove it's possibility, then we'd have an answer to the first question.

But, there is a way to disprove some made up 'possibility'.

However, in saying 'that', it can be proved that it is empirically and logical impossible for the Universe, Itself, to have begun, but for those who are 'currently' believe that the Universe could and/or did begin, then it does not matter how much disproof you provide for both the logical and empirical possibility, let alone actuality, 'these people' will just not accept 'the irrefutable proof'.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 9:28 am And the question of mine quoted here may reveal an internal contradiction in the original concept.

But, 'the internal contradiction' already exists.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 9:28 am

Age wrote:Imaging a 'thing' might exist, and then wondering 'how' 'that thing' works, which is not yet even known to exist, a great way to 'spend time'.

Reading and responding to someone doing that too? But perhaps you're trying to rescue from this futile endeavour.

If anything, it's a contrast from thinking about all those currently in war, children being abused by their captors, prisoners losing sanity in solitary confinement, everyone dying regardless of life resolution and that the trajectory of the human species is on a wire attached to buttons causing global annihilation.

To each their own - one must make do.
I suppose I should turn the other cheek..

But, you are, what is called, 'turning the other cheek', when you are imagining, and/or pondering over, what you are, here.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 9:28 am Are you judging how I spend my time, Age?
If so, recommendations?

I would not call 'it' 'judging', but more so like, 'pointing out' what you are actually doing, or not doing, as the case may well be.
As for recommendations.
Just become, and Be, open, honest, while seeking to becoming a 'better person', in order to create and make a 'better world' for 'others'.

Age wrote:Are you able to explain how this makes sense, to you, if it does?

ben wrote: If existence is a circle,
and determinism true,
then from any unique state,
every other state of existence,
will unfold in the same order -
such that any state could be considered
the start or end of the loop.
Meaning -
if you travel from one state of existence,
until you meet an identical state of existence,
you've now made a loop of existence.
Traveling further would only be a repeat.

[&]

If we could slice existence along the dimension of time,
between the smallest / fastest interactions that ever transpire,
then compare slices:
If the interactions of existence,
are only ever influences by itself,
and always react the same way given the same conditions / environment,
then:
If any slice, matches another slice,
we’ll call these slices C1 & C2,
logically,
the slice after C1 and the slice after C2,
should also match -
and the slice before C1 and before C2,
should also match.
This pattern would continue until you fully connect C1 & C2.
Cycle 1, cycle 2, cycle 3 etc.
But why count or differentiate these cycles at all?
For all intents and purposes, they’re identical to each other.
We can just call it the one cycle - time’s a loop.

Each identical state leads eventually to itself,
after cycling through every other state -
therefore the furthest moment from the present state,
which can't be itself (as those are identical),
would be the previous state.

Why?

Because to reach the previous state,
you have to cycle through ever other state excluding one -
the current state we're already in.
Which means the distance from the current state to the previous state,
is the sum of all states minus one.

Age wrote:But, 'time', itself, is not some thing that so-calls 'flows'.

I wasn't being precise with my language -
and you accurately point this out.

One of the perks of posting in 'Sandbox' (I hope/hoped),
is I can communicate in a more vague way -
because I'm not holding myself to the criteria / effort,
of ensuring every thing is articulated perfectly without misinterpretation.

The typical experience of time is that it flows.
Time could be defined as the measure of change.
And it's the measure of change of all other dimensions,
along the axis of time.
But each other dimension could also be defined as the measure of change long it's own axis,
for if you traveled along any axis, the contents of things along the axis of time / all other spatial dimensions,
would also be changing in a manner akin to if one were to travel along the dimension of time.

Age wrote:There are quite a few 'ifs' and 'coulds', here,

It's poorly articulated speculation. Again, 'Sandbox'.

Age wrote:then it does not matter how much disproof you provide for both the logical and empirical possibility, let alone actuality, 'these people' will just not accept 'the irrefutable proof'.

However, I accept the proof myself if I'm able to recognize it -
and that's primarily where the question emerged.
Seeking if there's something that would disprove the possibility to me.

Age wrote:But, 'the internal contradiction' already exists.

May you please express the contradiction again (if you already did so)?

If existence always is, so too may a component of existence be, no?
A component that only expresses it's influence on another thing one time in the entire unique totality of existence.
If this is the case, existence being eternal, might not disprove the unaffected effect.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Thu May 08, 2025 10:25 am

Age wrote:then it does not matter how much disproof you provide for both the logical and empirical possibility, let alone actuality, 'these people' will just not accept 'the irrefutable proof'.

However, I accept the proof myself if I'm able to recognize it -
and that's primarily where the question emerged.
Seeking if there's something that would disprove the possibility to me.

Age wrote:But, 'the internal contradiction' already exists.

May you please express the contradiction again (if you already did so)?

If existence always is, so too may a component of existence be, no?
A component that only expresses it's influence on another thing one time in the entire unique totality of existence.
If this is the case, existence being eternal, might not disprove the unaffected effect.

The 'internal contradiction' is that the very 'thing', in question, here, does not yet even exist, to you.

If something exists, it exists - regardless of one's direct awareness of it.

Existence: that which affects anything else that exists.

Awareness exists.

Thus, anything that affects awareness exists -
and anything that affects something else that affects awareness,
is indirectly affecting awareness -
thus, it too exists.

Awareness of other things that exist beyond awareness,
stem from the contents of awareness.

I suspect:

We're human resources - acceptable losses - pawns - collateral damage.
When we're not of utility to those with power, we're a burden - to be cleansed.
To a psychopath:
whether it's a dead Israili, Palestinian, Ukranian, Russian, American...
Of zero consequence or relevance.
If it leads to them getting theirs, then death to any who would inhibit their end.

----

If we want peace, we must forego some rights - make some sacrifices.
Society isn't stable if we allow murder and injustice.
So we forego some impulses, for the common good - which is also the overall personal good.

I think all land should be free and preserved by society - with everyone an equal claim.
Rid ownership, set the tally equal across the board.
We must be willing to accept modesty,
and work towards increasing the living standards of all.

Where land in high demand can only be booked like a temporary hotel.
And cultural areas are preserved for access by all.

We are all of earth.
Our ancestors stretching back billions of years,
we are it's children.
We each have a right to be here.

That you exist, demonstrates your worthiness.

If we want to remove catalysts for war & suffering,
we must forego personal ownership over resources/territory.
This is a method to neutralize a classic source of war.

"A new consciousness is developing
which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that
an organism at war with itself is doomed.
We are one planet." - Carl Sagan

I think if you claim solipsism and that the wellbeing of others doesn't matter because it's all in your head:
society should declare all your rights moot, and that it's acceptable to abuse you.
As, if society is only in your head, you're doing it to yourself, right?
No one else to blame.

So claiming solipsism & proceeding to abuse others,
becomes a fuck around and find out scenario.

To the solipsist:
Why shouldn't society do this to you?

-

Solipsism is a destructive & selfish perspective.
What incentive does anyone have to adopt it,
other than justifying abuse?

[I'll respond to the fools in my own time.]