2007-04-09 21:21:46 · 5 answers · asked by katy 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
you ask this question in the context of astronomy and space, but it is ultimately a philisophical confusion.
Physicists love to treat time as though it were another "dimension" like the three "dimensions" that are traditionally used to measure space. Though it is convenient for some of their theories, it is hardly sensible to think that time is the same sort of "thing" as a spatial dimension. How much is one meter of time? It's silly.
Treating time like a stand-alone "thing" and comparing it with causality as an abstracted notion leads people to confuse themselves.
To undo the confusion, think of the usages of "time" and "cause" in language. Time is normally used as a means of describing two different events in the context of an accepted standard, e.g. "This happened one day before that." In the example the standard is the rotation of the earth, standardized as an effective constant in language.
"Cause," or "cause and effect," is generally used in a context of analysing the relationship between two events. If event A precedes event B, we say event A "caused" event B if there is reason to believe event B may not have happened if event A had not. If that is not the case, event A "did not cause" event B.
In language this does not work backwards. If event A precedes event B, and event A may not have happened if event B doesn't happen, we do not say event B "caused" event A.
example: event A: a coyote fell through the air. event B: a coyote hit the ground. If the coyote hadn't been falling, he might not have hit the ground. Thus event A causes event B.
on the other hand, if the coyote didn't hit the ground, is there reason to doubt that he fell through the air? Maybe, maybe not. He could have bounced off a trampoline. Then again it's hard to reconcile something falling through the air without it hitting the ground. But this is beside the point.
It simply is NOT PART of LANGUAGE to say that the coyote hitting the ground, caused the coyote to fall through the air.
The short answer, then: yes there's a connection, but it's not intricate at all. It's merely a matter of language usage. causality is a means of describing the relationship between events, and only prior events are called "causes."
2007-04-09 21:59:18 · answer #1 · answered by kozzm0 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
imagine if you reversed causality, so things fell up and walked backwards. time still goes forward and only the objects move backwards, this suggests that time and causality are not really connected.
2007-04-10 04:37:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is through causality that we define time, things happen causing others to follow by measuring this we perceive progression and time.
2007-04-10 04:32:00 · answer #3 · answered by Erebus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definitely. A tea pot cannot boil at 5 PM if I turn it on at 5:10 PM the same day.
2007-04-10 07:11:07 · answer #4 · answered by Gene 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's like saying that you are here in a point of time so therefore you exist within that point of time. The fact that you are here proves it.
2007-04-13 16:24:28 · answer #5 · answered by hilltopobservatory 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋