Asklemmy

43950 readers

1962 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Have you gone down any rabbit holes that gave you an existential crisis? (discuss.online)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Have you went down any internet rabbit holes only to come out with a deep set existential crisis? If so, what are they?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can have situations where person 1 sees an event happen as A B and person 2 sees that same event happen as B A.

This is only true if A and B are not causally related. If A causes B all observers will see A causing B.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you 100% on that? I thought it was recently proved that it actually could be reversed. Maybe I misunderstood. Thinking about this stuff makes my brain feel fuzzy and numb, but like, more than usual.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, I am 100% on that.

If A causes B, that is true for all observers. Otherwise you get into causeless actions.

Imagine observer 1 (O1), sees one rock (A) crash into another (B) and it changes it's direction of travel. O1 has on opinion on the sequence of events.

How imagine observer 2, (O2) watching the same events from a different perspective.

There is no situation or perspective O2 can take which would have B change direction before the collision with A.

Therefore no matter their perspective both O1 and O2 agree on the sequence of events. Thus causality is fundamental.