Just to shake things up a bit I resurrected this from a post I made in 2003. I cleaned it up some as there was no spell checker then, otherwise left it the same. So, I'm reading a book called "The Elegant Universe" a Pulitzer Prize contender about Relativity, Quantum and String Theory. Since we always seem to get stuck in discussions about time and cause and effect let me see if I can summarize a small part of the book which is explaining how time is not a fixed, linear thing which occurs always and everywhere the same. (Hence what caused what when? Or how did it all start?) Imagine you are in a spaceship alone in the universe. Nothing else exists. If this is the case you would not be able to know if you are moving or not as you have nothing to reference to. In the distance you see another spaceship approaching at a constant velocity. It comes along side, and passes by disappearing in the distance. It is moving, you are not. Now jump to the other ship where I am sitting. I am alone in the universe and can not tell if I am moving. Along comes your ship and passes me by. Which one of us is moving? You can not tell, it works either way. One ship thinks the other is moving, the other ship thinks the same thing. Either could be true. Now, place a clock on both ships and increase the speed of one of them to near the speed of light. Einstein's Special Law of Relativity tells us that the moving ship will experience time at a slower rate then the non-moving ship. (Which I'm not going to explain right now) So, now as I pass you, you "see" that I am living slower then you are. You will die before I do as my metabolism et al has been slowed due to my traveling near the speed of light relative to you. You die first, then me. But remember, in my ship I see you approaching me! To me, it is you that is moving near the speed of light, and I am stationary. So I "see" you living slower than me! I will die first, before you! Who dies first? Make any sense???? __________________ "Still here."
The point is, time is a relative concept, not an absolute. That means the concept of cause and effect is also relative, not absolute. Which means that causes can become effects, and the same effect can become a cause, depending on your physical point of view. Which is very interesting.
If cause and effect aren't absolute, then how can space (or time) be the cause of anything. Does time seem to cause anything to exist? Also, if it's completely relative to the observer, does that make every observer a living emodiment of time? And therefore doesn't it actually move in every direction all observers move, rather than being some overarching thing that flows for us all from a shared past to a shared future?
Why would we assume that space or time are the cause of anything? If something is caused, it is caused by something else, somewhere (space), at some time. Space and time didn't cause it. Time would, IMO, be the same for everyone traveling at the same speed. In our world, we are all traveling at about the same speed so we experience time the same and so also share a common past and future. Although there has been an experiment with atomic clocks traveling very fast at high altitudes that have proved the relativity of time.
If time and space are the result of the big bang couldn't they, in a sense, be the secondary causes of everything?
And like Meagain said, if causes and effects aren't absolutes and effects can be causes, then if the Big Bang caused time, couldn't time have caused the Big Bang?
If nothing else exists, nor does time. You wouldn't know what movement was. You have no point of reference from which to perceive movement. Wait on, I thought nothing else existed? As I have said, movement is not a concept our mythical astronaut could comprehend. But you aren't alone. You've already answered: ship #2 is approaching at a constant velocity. No. Pilot #1 cannot conceive of movement. Pilot #2 is moving, but we don't know enough to be able to discern his or her perceptions. What "speed" are you increasing? Our measurement of time? The rotation of the hands? The decay of a cesium133 atom? Not strictly so, but close enough if you answer the above question, and if you explain "time" to Pilot #1 No, for any number of reasons Who is "you"? #1 or #2? I know what you are trying to say, but time paradoxes really don't lend themselves to expurgation.
Think of dominoes: without the initial cause (a push of the finger) no effects will be observed. Once the primary cause is initiated (a push of the finger), the effect of the first domino falling causes the second domino to fall which causes the third domino to fall etc. Obviously the last domino to fall causes nothing.
What I'm not getting is... But the first domino falling cannot be seen to cause the push of the finger? Maybe the idea of an original cause just doesn't make any sense somehow, though it seems for one event to occur it must have been caused by another. I have read somewhere before that perhaps the entire energy of the universe adds up to zero (or something like that.) I wonder if the universe just keeps running out of time, maybe, exploding and time starting up again. That'd be weird if the whole universe could just run out of time for some reason. Or no reason at all, if that's just the way things are. It won't ultimately end in a big crunch or anything. It'll just run out of time, and then seem to explode again from a single point, being nothing anyway.
I don't know, because if it caused something and causes and effects can work in reverse in time, then maybe they can be reversed. I'm waiting for Meagain to explain. It's weird, because the Big Bang didn't happen in time, but was time, or started time???
All right, I have to think about this....and I'm too tired right now. Just let me say quickly that the point I was making is that time is not the same everywhere if different rates of speed and or gravitation fields are taken into account. Time is dependent on the observer and the observer's rate of speed.. As far as cause and effect. You can not have an effect without a cause and you can not have a cause without an effect. Then I stuck myself in a big mess and said that effects can proceed causes. I have to think that one out some more. I know I read that it can occur at quantum levels, but I have to research that and then figure out how it could apply to macro levels.
There was a young lady named bright, Who traveled much faster than light. She started one day In the relative way, And returned on the previous night. –Arthur Buller Okay I think I have it. I was trying to express the relativity of simultaneity. Although I didn’t know what it was called. Now, observe the animation below. Simply put, we have three stationary observers shown as the Blue, Grey, and Yellow spheres; equally spaced apart at a vast distance. We are also observing all three from a vast distance. A Red and Green light are turned on, at an equal distance from the Yellow observer. As the Red and Green light travels outward, notice when the Red and Green line meters show that the Blue and Grey observers see each respective light. The Yellow observer sees both lights simultaneously, the Blue sees the Red first, and the Grey sees the Green first. The order has been reversed for the Blue and Grey observer. And yes The Beatles were showing the relativistic time in that dual submarine sequence.
I must be missing something. It looks like the blue receives the red light first, because he's closer to it, and the green second because it's farther away. And the same way for the gray. What order is being reversed?