I'd sure like to know how this is meta-physical in any way, shape or form... The girl problems thread should be out there somewhere, shouldn't it? ... =/

And, Xi, your answer, as expected, is centered around the physical place in which you exist, you did not consider that even the most artificial creation that man has achieved still came out of nature, out of the Earth, hence allowing me to still consider it part of nature.

You are right in your following sentences but that is still a merely observation of scientific lengths, and we live in a place and time where just science ain't enough. You need to open yourself to life some more. Not saying that you're not open at all, just that you should take a closer look, maybe you skipped something thinking it's not very important... maybe.

I made the distinction, because if you take the view that all is nature, then it is pointless to use the term. It is simply "reality".


Science is not merely the body of knowledge. It is a method by which knowledge can be obtained and organized. In addition to explaining observable phenomena, a good scientific theory can predict unobserved events. Theoretical concepts follow as predictions from a model built on previously confirmed results. Spiritual practices offer explanations and guidelines, but they do not have the same level of reliable predictive capabilities.

I notice that you mentioned that I only concern myself with physical reality. That's another matter to discuss here. I am a materialist, rather than a dualist.

Continuing the metaphysical discussions, we move now to causality.

Here's an article relating to the discussion on physical models with an absence of time, dealing with causality.

Even if you aren't too keen on reading through the previous material to understand that, there are some general issues to be considered here.

Assuming that you're familiar with the concept of causality, do you actually believe it to be a fundamental aspect of the physical universe? While all of the core scientific disciplines accept a form of causal determinism as fact, does it actually make sense to do so? Considering that all the laws of physics work time-symmetrically, is the concept of causality merely an illusion?

Consider these points, keeping in mind that 'time' is not a necessary consideration here:
1. We have a conception of cause-and-effect, due to an observed correlation between the two. I might expect that if I touch a hot surface, that I will feel the associated pain. Yet, just as Sol is not eternal simply due to human observation of a daily sunrise, is it truly the case that the temperature of that surface is what causes my pain?

2. If I had a bubble of space-time, which itself does not interact with the external world, would I expect events within the bubble to be identical through each iteration of its history, if I was to 'rewind' it each time? If all effects have a specific cause, does each cause have a specific effect?

3. Where does one find free will in a causally deterministic universe? Where does one find free will in a causally indeterministic universe? Assuming that causal determinism is real, one could argue for a position allowing for free will, yet without time, what would define cause-and-effect?

I intended to reply on Tuesday night, but lost the relevant text.

I believe that this is a cause and effect universe, but not every event that has ever happened is intertwined with each other. My decision to buy a can of Pringles will not affect someone in Russia facing the same choice. It might though, if I bought the last can of Pringles in the store, which would prompt the owner to place an order for more. The supplier would then ship them out to where I live, rather than where they would have gone originally: Russia. Now, the Russian man has no Pringles to buy. Or perhaps because the restock didn't come in time, he doesn't want to take one of the last cans simply because he's feeling peckish. In that case, my decisions do affect others around the globe.

1. You are obviously a man of science. Science tells us that sensations are passed through the nerves to the brain for processing, then sends the appropriate signals and response back to the affected area. I believe that the hot surface does actually cause you to feel the pain, through a microscopic game of telephone. There are people who cannot feel pain, which is also explained through science. We can guess that the sun will not be there forever, but as long as we have been on this earth, we have seen the sunrise. Until we see evidence to the contrary, we must assume that it will happen until the end of time.

2. I also believe that the events within the bubble will be identical each time, assuming everything happens the exact same way each time. "Does each cause have a specific effect?" To an extent, yes. If we were to take a marble and bounce it off of another marble, the second will shoot off. If we were to repeat this experiment and made sure that the marble hits in the exact same place and is propelled at the exact same force, the second marble will react the same way. If we changed one thing, however, like putting a rock in the way, the second marble will react the same exact way UNTIL it comes into contact with a rock. This could lead into a discussion of time travel to affect future events.

3. If I were to punch someone in the face, it would elicit a reaction from them. That reaction would be defined by that individual's personal experiences. If this person was Gandhi, he would likely turn the other cheek. Some Irish drunkard, however, would almost certainly hit back. This little interaction may make it onto the news, depending on the severity of the ensuing brawl, and would therefore influence young viewers and affect whether a parent would adjust their style of parenting to accomodate the previously mentioned event.


This way, free will is preserved. No one event will completely dictate the actions of those involved. There is strong influence, yes, but many have had good parents and were taught good values who went on to do terrible things. The opposite is true as well. One cannot draw a correlation between good parenting and bad actions later in life.

Either the universe is deterministic, or it isn't. If every effect has a cause, then by extension, every event would have to be related to each other, assuming that the universe began (whether through a divine power, or not).


This is based on observation of physical reality, through a particular direction of time. If we disregard time, and consider that all that happens in this process happens simultaneously, in a timeless space, with only a set of relations with which to define "time", then why would it be the case that we can definitively prove that the external stimulus causes the internal perception of pain, rather than the other way around? As mentioned, the laws of physics works time-symmetrically, and the only property which determines the direction of time is the amount of entropy in the universe.


This is the intuitive solution, yet there is no real reason to favour this explanation over another. The total entropy of the universe would decrease, if time was "reversed", yet this would not guarantee that every event will always lead to its original, time-running-forward cause. Entropy is only a measure of the amount of unavailable energy, it doesn't favour specific states over other states, when everything is governed by the same physical laws, regardless of the direction of time.


As stated above, if you would agree that cause-and-effect exists, then you must also agree that the universe must be deterministic.

The classic paradox presents one particular definition of free will. If you would argue against it, you need to redefine "free will".

∵ Free will requires both control and choice over one's actions.
∵ Causal indeterminism and causal determinism are mutually exclusive, absolute properties of the whole of physical reality. (There can be no other statements about the universe, either it is, or isn't deterministic.)
∵ If causal determinism is true, all events are determined by causes, and so no one can have choice over their actions, yet they do have control.
∵ If causal indeterminism is true, no events are determined by causes, and so no one can have control over their actions, yet they do have choice.
∴ No one possesses free will.

I fail to see how this point is true.

Taken straight from Wikipedia:

If x is a necessary cause of y; then the presence of y necessarily implies that x preceded it. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.

I am simply stating there there are two possible properties which reality may possess, and that given either, free will appears to be impossible. Notice the presence of "if" in that premise.

Science is a very broad term, I feel like you should narrow it.
I do believe that all things can be explained through evidence, logic, and observations, and have strong doubts about things that are infallible, unobservable, and without strong, or any, supporting evidence. The whole idea of the metaphysical just seems illogical to me. I am not saying that I know for sure that we are nothing more than a collection of atoms, but that is what I believe.

This is why we should be funding a device that can translate animal noises into words. We would then get a better gauge on whether what we have in terms of intellectual ability is simply a product of evolution, or if we have truly gained something special.