Are You Conscious?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How could the ball reach its destination before being thrown in ANY reference frame ???

It can't. Since the ball can't move faster than light, any conceivable observer will always see cause before effect.

Quote:

Special pleading. There is distance between the computer parts, ergo, a time differential.

If cause and effect are working, then the interaction is not going to be affected by general relativity. The distance between the parts and their relative velocity is sufficiently small that relativistic effects don't matter.

That the computer is on a planet moving around the sun, and the sun, and the galaxy are all moving doesn't make any difference - because the computer, its parts and the user are all in the same frame of reference. That was understood by Galileo and Newton as well as Einstein.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How could the ball reach its destination before being thrown in ANY reference frame ???

That isn't what westprog is talking about. He/she is saying that if you were viewing the ball being thrown from one frame, and viewing the ball being caught from another frame, then the ball might be caught before the ball is thrown.

Of course, this is beyond stupidity, because not only is it a mathematical error to switch reference frames without bringing all variables and constants into the new frame, but it is also something no rational creature would even consider to begin with.

Unless they were cornered in a debate, and knew they were wrong, and had to somehow salvage what they stated earlier. In such a case, I can see a rational creature trying to fudge words and ideas until something resembling their earlier claim came out.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by westprog

It can't. Since the ball can't move faster than light, any conceivable observer will always see cause before effect.

Wait. You also said this, less than a page ago:

Originally Posted by westprog

There isn't even an order of events which are seperated in distance and time.

These are mutually exclusive statements. Both of them cannot be true.

Because if a cause is separated from its effect in distance and time, any conceivable observer will still always see the cause before the effect.

So ... um ... you can either choose one statment you consider true, or else continue to contradict yourself.

Not that we aren't used to you contradicting yourself constantly, but ...

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Frank Newgent

Sorry rocketdodger. You just lost the thread.

I admit that I have probably caused much suffering by prompting westprog to continue making posts that lead to a net intelligence loss after reading.

In that sense, I am not a winner, and I apologize to everyone for it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

It can't. Since the ball can't move faster than light, any conceivable observer will always see cause before effect.

So the order of events is preserved.

Quote:

That the computer is on a planet moving around the sun, and the sun, and the galaxy are all moving doesn't make any difference - because the computer, its parts and the user are all in the same frame of reference.

That's all relative, of course.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So the order of events is preserved.

In the case where events are sufficiently close in spacetime and space, yes. Cause and effect is not effected by relativity.

Where events are seperated, then the order of events can be different depending on the viewpoint. And the significant point is that no particular choice of ordering is privileged over another.

Quote:

That's all relative, of course.

It's their relative positions, velocities and accelerations, yes.

I think that some of the confusion in this topic is in the concept of "now". It really doesn't make sense to ask what is happening "now" a million light years away.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by westprog

Cause and effect is not effected by relativity.

Where events are seperated, then the order of events can be different depending on the viewpoint. And the significant point is that no particular choice of ordering is privileged over another.

But what about when cause and effect are separated?

Originally Posted by westprog

I think that some of the confusion in this topic is in the concept of "now". It really doesn't make sense to ask what is happening "now" a million light years away.

Before the telegraph, did it make sense for someone in New York to ask what was happening "now" in Los Angeles?

Even though it would take weeks for any human usable information to cross the distance?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

Where events are seperated, then the order of events can be different depending on the viewpoint.

How ? That the interval can be different is one thing, but the order ?

Quote:

I think that some of the confusion in this topic is in the concept of "now". It really doesn't make sense to ask what is happening "now" a million light years away.

And, again, I don't see how it relates to our discussion on consiousness.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How ? That the interval can be different is one thing, but the order ?

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But if you accept the central premise of the Special theory - that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference - then it effectively follows.

Don't, please, take my word for it - just look at the animation on the Wiki page. Relativity of simultaneity.

The important point is that it isn't possible to claim that because from one point of view A precedes B that this is the "real" order. According to relativity, all viewpoints are equally valid, including those where B precedes A.

And as you pointed out, this doesn't apply to all events, just those sufficiently separated in space and/or time. If it's possible for event A to connect to event B at less than the speed of light, ordering is preserved for all viewpoints, and causality works. That's why breaking the speed of light is not considered possible - it would break causality as well.

Still, don't take my word for it - I'm paraphrasing someone else's paraphrase of Einstein. There's plenty of information, but the Wikipaedia article is as good as anywhere else.

Quote:

And, again, I don't see how it relates to our discussion on consiousness.

It doesn't at all, which was my point. I noticed that there was a reference to a universal "now", and I pointed out that the theory of relativity made any concept of a non-local "now" unsustainable. It didn't affect the main topic at all, it was just wrong. I didn't expect it to be disputed, or I'd have split the topic off.

However, it's a nice change to deal with a topic that's well-defined and known, even if it's a bit weird.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by westprog

And as you pointed out, this doesn't apply to all events, just those sufficiently separated in space and/or time. If it's possible for event A to connect to event B at less than the speed of light, ordering is preserved for all viewpoints, and causality works. That's why breaking the speed of light is not considered possible - it would break causality as well.

So, at this point, you agree with us, and have inadvertently argued against your former arguments.

If you remember, my original claim is that time dependence reduces to order dependence because while time intervals can change order cannot change.

You have just agreed that causal order cannot change.

The only remaining point of possible contention -- since you agreed about causal ordering -- is concerning non-causal, or arbitrary, ordering.

It is true that arbitrary ordering can change depending on reference frame.

However, this has nothing to do with our conversation, because if an ordering is arbitrary then by definition it cannot factor into any type of dependency.

Do you understand that? If there is a DEPENDENCY, then there is a CAUSAL ORDER that cannot be changed.

Time dependency implies causal dependency implies causal ordering. Arbitrary ordering -- the only thing that relativity can alter -- has nothing to do with any of this.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And, again, I don't see how it relates to our discussion on consiousness.

The point of contention, Belz, is whether the time dependence of a real physical process reduces to order dependence. And by order dependence I mean the causal order of events.

Why is this important?

Because westprog is asserting that since the notion of abstract computation doesn't explicitly contain any constraints due to time intervals it isn't necessarily sufficient to explain the consciousness that occurs in physical reality, where westprog says time intervals are an essential constraint.

However, I dispute this claim. My argument is thus:

1) When we speak of a "time dependency," for example that event B must occur between one and two seconds after event A, we really mean that after event A occurs, there is a series of further events that will occur, and once those are complete event B needs to occur, and that this group of intermediate events takes one second to occur, and finally that one second later another event (call it C) will occur that B is supposed to preceed. Thus, if B does not occur within that time interval, it really means that B occurs before the intermediate events finished or after C (that it should have been prior to). In other words, some essential ordering is messed up.

2) This is confirmed by relativity, since in a relativistic world (our world) the time intervals between ordered events can be very different but the ordering itself cannot change. Unfortunately I wasn't clear that I was speaking of causal order -- I thought that would be implicitly apparent since nobody cares about arbitrary order -- but westprog latched on to the fact that relativity can change arbitrary order in some pathetic attempt to find at least one thing wrong with my argument to avoid looking completely wrong himself/herself. We now have agreement from westprog, however, that causal ordering cannot change, regardless of relativistic effects.

3) If #1 is true (and it is, since #2 is true, as westprog has finally admitted) then it means the notion of abstract computation implicitly contains the equivalent of time dependency -- order (causal) dependency, because time dependency is nothing more than order (causal) dependency anyway!

4) Thus, the argument that some essential aspect of reality isn't accessible in the abstract world is invalid, at least in this case. "Time dependency" is just shorthand for order (causal) dependency in the physical world.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Sounds, looks, and acts.

Quote:

The important point is that it isn't possible to claim that because from one point of view A precedes B that this is the "real" order. According to relativity, all viewpoints are equally valid, including those where B precedes A.

No, I can't think of a single example where this'd be true. Not even if you switch from one reference frame to another. I don't need to take your word for it, indeed, but you might want to explain yourself more than saying "it's true!"

Quote:

And as you pointed out, this doesn't apply to all events, just those sufficiently separated in space and/or time.

I didn't say that. You did.

Quote:

It doesn't at all, which was my point. I noticed that there was a reference to a universal "now", and I pointed out that the theory of relativity made any concept of a non-local "now" unsustainable.

And yet that doesn't mean that the order of events isn't maintained.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Sounds, looks, and acts.



No, I can't think of a single example where this'd be true. Not even if you switch from one reference frame to another. I don't need to take your word for it, indeed, but you might want to explain yourself more than saying "it's true!"



I didn't say that. You did.



And yet that doesn't mean that the order of events isn't maintained.

OK, in case you're thinking that this is just getting too weird - I didn't make this up. I didn't get it from some crank website. It's very conventional physics.

The concept is called Relativity of simultaneity. It was figured out as part of implications of the Special Theory of Relativity, which was based on Einstein's observation that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.

Quoting from the Wikipaedia article:

Originally Posted by Wikipaedia

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity—whether two events occur at the same time—is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. Where an event occurs in a single place—for example, a car crash—all observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in Beijing, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the Beijing crash may occur first.

If you look at the article, you'll see that there are animations showing how the order of events depends on the point from which they are seen.

It's important to realise that it is not a matter of the events having a "real" order, and that it just looks as if they are happening in the wrong order due to some kind of optical illusion. According to Einstein, the order in which the events happens is genuinely different depending on your viewpoint.

I don't ask that you take my word for this. Look at any of the articles about the subject. Einstein writes about it here.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

Quoting from the Wikipaedia article:

I'm not talking about simultaneity but a change in the ORDER of events.

That's a nice diagram they have but it doesn't really tell me in what circumstances it could happen.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm not talking about simultaneity but a change in the ORDER of events.

Order of events is dealt with right in the first paragraph. It explicitly describes how from some viewpoints A precedes B, and from others B precedes A. And this is not an optical illusion. The order of the events is really different.

Quote:

That's a nice diagram they have but it doesn't really tell me in what circumstances it could happen.

The opening paragraph of the article gives the example of the car crashes in London and Beijing occuring in a different order depending on the frame of reference.

I doubt if I can explain better than the articles under exactly what circumstances this might happen.

Exactly under what circumstances the order of events can change is not obvious. It appears that it's impossible for two events to change order if one can send another a signal at less than the speed of light- e.g. I throw the ball, and you catch it.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm not talking about simultaneity but a change in the ORDER of events.

That's a nice diagram they have but it doesn't really tell me in what circumstances it could happen.

Belz, westprog is talking about the order of events that are not dependent upon each other in some causal sequence.

The order of those can indeed change based upon the frame they are viewed from.

The best way to think about it is that the state of an observer affects the relative rates of whatever is going on to cause the events, from the standpoint of the observer. So in other words, if the observer is going a certain velocity, the rates of events leading up to event A in the diagram might slow down considerably compared to those leading up to B and C, etc. If this happens, then it is possible B and C might occur before A -- from the standpoint of that observer. But there is still a sequence of events leading up to A that doesn't change order relative to A, a sequence leading up to B that doesn't change relative to B, and one leading up to C as well. The reason the order of A, B, and C can change is because the rates of those three sequences can change relative to each other.

What does not happen, and what westprog is failing to explain to you, is that this isn't some magical trick that just "makes" events change order. It is merely the result of simple mathematics -- time dilation is something many first year physics students are asked to derive on tests for extra credit -- that lead to the rates of events changing.

What westprog is not explaining to you is that since this changing of order can only apply to events that are causally independent, it doesn't apply to any set of events you or I or any other human would ever really care about. It certainly doesn't apply to the thrown ball being caught.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by westprog

Exactly under what circumstances the order of events can change is not obvious. It appears that it's impossible for two events to change order if one can send another a signal at less than the speed of light- e.g. I throw the ball, and you catch it.

Yep.

It isn't obvious from the mathematics that explain relativity, I agree (although to some it probably is -- I hope someone smart enough to answer chimes in here).

But it is obvious if you consider causality. Because causality propagates at no greater than lightspeed, so if event A causes event B, they can be separated by no more than the distance light would travel in the time between them. And since causality cannot change, we know right off the bat that if two events are closer than this distance, given the time between the events, then the order between them cannot change either.

So it doesn't even matter if they actually are causally dependent, it only matters if they could possibly be causally dependent.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Belz, westprog is talking about the order of events that are not dependent upon each other in some causal sequence.

Well, it's very telling that someone OTHER than westprog actually manages to clear that up.

But if what you say is true, who cares ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

The opening paragraph of the article gives the example of the car crashes in London and Beijing occuring in a different order depending on the frame of reference.

I doubt if I can explain better than the articles under exactly what circumstances this might happen.

You're right. I missed that, somehow.

But those two events have nothing to do with one another, so how, AGAIN, does that relate to the discussion ?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You're right. I missed that, somehow.

But those two events have nothing to do with one another, so how, AGAIN, does that relate to the discussion ?

It doesn't. I was trying to clarify a point to do with general relativity - which also has nothing to do with the discussion.

It should perhaps have moved into its own thread. If I'd known it was a point of contention I'd have done so.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, it's very telling that someone OTHER than westprog actually manages to clear that up.

But if what you say is true, who cares ?

It goes back to a statement I made about being able to order all relevant events in the universe.

I was saying that one can conceptually look at sequential states of the universe and order all of the events in a causal fashion. This particle bangs into that one, this force is imparted on that particle which then bangs into that other particle, etc.

Then westprog objected because relativity states that there is no absolute "now" in the universe.

So for the last two pages I have been trying to explain why his/her objection is irrelevant, and in at least two posts during this latest exchange he/she claimed that not only does relativity imply there is no "now" but also that it implies there is no absolute ordering of events.

Then you and I pointed out that this is not true because you can order events according to causal dependence.

Finally (thank you for your patience), in order to not seem entirely wrong, westprog pointed out that he/she was actually talking about events that are not causally dependent when he/she said events can't be ordered in an absolute way.

So that is the answer to your question -- westprog cares because westprog wanted to be right at least once in this discussion. And he/she is indeed correct on this minor point -- congratulations to westprog!

The fact that, when all is said and done, the thing he/she was right about has no bearing at all on the original issue may or may not mean something. I leave you to decide that.

[Trent Wray]

Okay, I totally realize I'm jumping into the middle of something ... so please feel free to COMPLETELY ignore my question/comment if you want to let the previous debate rest. And not having read all 46 pages of this thread, I hope I'm not repeating what someone has already mentioned ....

..... but, does the concept of quantum entanglement throw a monkey wrench into any of this debate, and if yes/no then why/why not in your opinion? And I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant (i.e., that it has been slowing down or speeding up over time), or that cause-effect may or may not be broken depending on whether there was ever anything to Hawking's ideas that black holes absorb matter and that said matter "goes nowhere".

I'm not trying to wake something that wants to sleep, but I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of those who are well versed in general causality and relativity, etc ...

[westprog]

Originally Posted by trentwray

Okay, I totally realize I'm jumping into the middle of something ... so please feel free to COMPLETELY ignore my question/comment if you want to let the previous debate rest. And not having read all 46 pages of this thread, I hope I'm not repeating what someone has already mentioned ....

..... but, does the concept of quantum entanglement throw a monkey wrench into any of this debate, and if yes/no then why/why not in your opinion? And I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant (i.e., that it has been slowing down or speeding up over time), or that cause-effect may or may not be broken depending on whether there was ever anything to Hawking's ideas that black holes absorb matter and that said matter "goes nowhere".

I'm not trying to wake something that wants to sleep, but I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of those who are well versed in general causality and relativity, etc ...

AFAIAA, quantum entanglement doesn't violate anything in relativity, though Einstein didn't like it ("Spooky action at a distance" IIRC). The non-constant speed of light remains hypothetical. Cause-effect may already be broken by quantum theory - but in a quite different way than could happen by exceeding the speed of light.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by trentwray

..... but, does the concept of quantum entanglement throw a monkey wrench into any of this debate, and if yes/no then why/why not in your opinion?

Why would it ?

Quote:

And I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant

You shouldn't. It's constant.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You shouldn't. It's constant.

In a vacuum. The fact that the speed of light can be slowed in some media doesn't have any particular implications for physics. If there's an upper limit, then relativity works.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

In a vacuum. The fact that the speed of light can be slowed in some media doesn't have any particular implications for physics. If there's an upper limit, then relativity works.

The speed of light is not "slowed down". The photons are absorbed and then re-transmitted. Photons always travel at c.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

The speed of light is not "slowed down". The photons are absorbed and then re-transmitted. Photons always travel at c.

Indeed - appropriate clarification. c is one of the building blocks of physics. It's what photons travel at.

[Trent Wray]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Why would it ?



You shouldn't. It's constant.

I mentioned quantum entanglement because of the idea that involves particles having an effect on one another at speeds faster than light, or independent of the speed of light. ... possibly of course.

And there was a reason I said "I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant, or hasn't always been constant" .. lol

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by trentwray

I mentioned quantum entanglement because of the idea that involves particles having an effect on one another at speeds faster than light, or independent of the speed of light. ... possibly of course.

And there was a reason I said "I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant, or hasn't always been constant" .. lol

It does seem to throw a wrench into the works when it comes to viewing time as something distinct from the order of causal events.

Which would of course be more evidence that the only important thing -- period -- is causality, and everything else reduces to it.

[Dancing David]

The speed of light is constant, otherwise it would mess with the fine structure constant alpha and the spectrums of stars would vary from what we see. If there is a violation of Bell's inequality it will not use photons, now the speed of light is an average, due to Heisenbergs Indeterminancy Principle. So it will vary slightly.

(I asked about the speed of light thing a long time ago here.In SMT)

[Belz...]

Bumpiddy doo...

Say, Westprog, Aku...

Did any of you actually provide a definition of consciousness ? It might help carry the whole debate forward if I knew how either of you defined it.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Bumpiddy doo...

Say, Westprog, Aku...

Did any of you actually provide a definition of consciousness ? It might help carry the whole debate forward if I knew how either of you defined it.

I've put forward the suggestion that there are inevitably fundamental things that cannot be defined precisely, because eventually we run out of more basic levels upon which definitions can be built. I also suggested that consciousness may be one of these basic building blocks.

[Belz...]

So you have NO definition of consciousness, whatsoever ?

If somebody asks you "what is consciousness ?" you reply "it is what it is" ?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by westprog

I've put forward the suggestion that there are inevitably fundamental things that cannot be defined precisely, because eventually we run out of more basic levels upon which definitions can be built. I also suggested that consciousness may be one of these basic building blocks.

That is a very good position to take, if one wishes consciousness to remain in the realm of magic that humans can't understand.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So you have NO definition of consciousness, whatsoever ?

If somebody asks you "what is consciousness ?" you reply "it is what it is" ?

I can refer to consciousness in a way that allows other people who experience consciousness to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my consciousness to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.

[ChrisH]

I was conscious that I was entering a vote -- so I voted for 'conscious'.

Next question?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

I can refer to consciousness in a way that allows other people who experience consciousness to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my consciousness to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.

Irrelevant. In order for us to probe what consciousness is, scientifically, we have to be able to define what we mean by the word. So what do YOU mean by the word ?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Irrelevant. In order for us to probe what consciousness is, scientifically, we have to be able to define what we mean by the word. So what do YOU mean by the word ?

Yes, defining consciousness would be a necessary first step in scientifically investigating it. Our failure to produce a good definition is one reason why it's a Hard Problem.

There's no difficulty in producing a bad definition, like "consciousness is self-referential information processing". But I don't want to give a bad definition.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, defining consciousness would be a necessary first step in scientifically investigating it. Our failure to produce a good definition is one reason why it's a Hard Problem.

YOUR failure to provide a good definition. You still haven't answered my question!!

Quote:

There's no difficulty in producing a bad definition, like "consciousness is self-referential information processing". But I don't want to give a bad definition.

I don't think self-referential information processing is a definition of consciousness as much as it's an explanation of how it works.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by westprog

I can refer to consciousness in a way that allows other people who experience consciousness to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my consciousness to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.

Then why is it easy to define music?

I can refer to music in a way that allows other people who experience music to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my music to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.


Why is it different for consciousness than music?

(Could be I have made an error.)