RE: A crazy thought: Could causality not be real?
May 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2014 at 5:20 pm by Hegel.)
(May 13, 2014 at 4:44 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Am I onto something, or am I just crazy?
To me it simply makes no sense to say that causality is not real. Why? There are a couple of reasons. First, even if one accepts you argument, causality IS real within the frames of reference. ToR is a form of traditional realism, at least when it is generalized into a model of space time structure. And you forget that there ARE objective points of reference (inertial co-ordinates), and is it not the case that fundamentally singularity (Big Bang) is such point of reference? (I am not certain about this) In any case, time has an arrow, it is not reversible, as TD shows; but ToR is reversible... It is not the full view (there's also QM).
In any case, even if you think (like Kant) that causality, space and time are in fact a forms of "transcendental subject", still this form must be real, for you are real.
In any case ToR does not, as far I understand, imply in any sense that causality is not real, but one can make the claim that "time is not real", it is an "Illusion" or whatever. Or at least some make such claims.
So what's the point? Don't take the map (model of physics, which, if ToR is considered alone, seems to imply a kind of non-temporal picture of reality, in which time and space are totally inter-changeable) for reality. In some sense causality must be real, because it makes no sense to say it is an "illusion". I am a realist, but just as reasonable as it is to make these obscure claims that are at odds with all everyday common sense sense of reality, it would be to say reality is what we experience and those nice models of physicists are but instrumental models to predict how things go in this reality. The truth is, I guess, between these extremes.
