Argument from Temporal Relation

[ydoaPs]

Here's my anti-Kalaam argument. If you think of a nifty name for it, let me know. I may work on it and submit it to one of the undergrad paper contests.

 

(1) If a causal agent A causes object O to begin to exist, then A stands in a prior temporal relation to O with respect to A's proper time.

(2) If an object exists at all points in time, then nothing stands in a prior temporal relation to it.

(3) The universe exists at all points in time.

(4) Therefore, nothing stands in a prior temporal relation to it.

(5) Therefore, there exists no causal agent that caused the universe to begin to exist.

 

Premise (2) and (3) are true by definition. So, the only premise that really needs defending is (1). Premise (1), however, is rather uncontroversial since almost every philosopher ever has held it as a necessary condition for causation. It is also extremely well supported evidentially since every single time we've observed something caused to begin to exist, the causal agent stood in a prior temporal relation to that thing wrt said agent's proper time.

 

Line (4) follows from (2) and (3) via Modus Ponens. Line (5) follows from (1) and (4) via Modus Tollens.

[iNow]

Here's my anti-Kalaam argument. If you think of a nifty name for it, let me know.

 

I'd go with "a kalam mistakum, my first argument for dismissing first cause."

[michel123456]

You have to go in 3 steps only.

 

and I think the Kalaam argument is opposed to your statement 2.

 

Although i like your conclusion.

Edited February 14, 2013 by michel123456

[imatfaal]

Have you ever read A N Priors work on temporal logic and the adaptation of propositional logic to a temporal framework? If no I will try and dig out some references.

You have to go in 3 steps only.

 

and I think the Kalaam argument is opposed to your statement 2.

 

Although i like your conclusion.

Without 3 you could argue that god exists in time - and the universe exists in a subset of that time. 3 makes it clear, through the modern scientifically agreed definition of the big bang starting not just space but time as well, that there is no time prior to the universe (which many non-scientists would argue - but would be unable to refute, ie there is no t=-1)

Title - Waiting for God. Oh!

[ydoaPs]

Have you ever read A N Priors work on temporal logic and the adaptation of propositional logic to a temporal framework? If no I will try and dig out some references.

No, but I've played with temporal modal logics.

 

You have to go in 3 steps only.

Arguments can be any finite length.

and I think the Kalaam argument is opposed to your statement 2.

Premise (2) is true by definition. If something is present at the first point in time, nothing can be before it.

 

I'd go with "a kalam mistakum, my first argument for dismissing first cause."

Title - Waiting for God. Oh!

I'd say that I like those titles, but they're too tongue in cheek. However, I then remembered that I recently read a paper called "Two Dams and that Damned Paresis".

[imatfaal]

d Logic

No, but I've played with temporal modal logics.

You know you know tonnes more about formal and prepositional logic than I - it was just a name that haunted me from the past that I thought might be useful

Arguments can be any finite length.
Premise (2) is true by definition. If something is present at the first point in time, nothing can be before it.

I'd say that I like those titles, but they're too tongue in cheek. However, I then remembered that I recently read a paper called "Two Dams and that Damned Paresis".

 

Agree with the tongue-in-cheekness - I have never given into temptation and done a non-straight title. Although I do like to drop in fairly irrelevant quotes that might turn a smile or demonstrate understanding of, but utter lack of engagement with, a completely separate strand of thought

 

 

 

"Past and future are what veil God from our sight.
Burn up both of them with fire! How long
Wilt thou be partitioned by these segments as a reed?"

 

Whinfield's translation of the Masnavi (Trübner, 1887), p. 34

Taken from

BERTRAND RUSSELL, Mysticism and Logic (Unwin, 1959) p. 22

 

 

Another t-in-c title "Men talk of killing time whilst time is slowly killing God." with apologies to both Nietzsche and Boucicault

[ydoaPs]

d Logic

You know you know tonnes more about formal and prepositional logic than I - it was just a name that haunted me from the past that I thought might be useful

 

Agree with the tongue-in-cheekness - I have never given into temptation and done a non-straight title. Although I do like to drop in fairly irrelevant quotes that might turn a smile or demonstrate understanding of, but utter lack of engagement with, a completely separate strand of thought

 

 

 

 

 

Whinfield's translation of the Masnavi (Trübner, 1887), p. 34

Taken from

BERTRAND RUSSELL, Mysticism and Logic (Unwin, 1959) p. 22

 

 

Another t-in-c title "Men talk of killing time whilst time is slowly killing God." with apologies to both Nietzsche and Boucicault

If you could find the paper you're thinking of, I'd love to take a look.

[Tim the plumber]

I think you are trying to make sence out of the universe using the English language as your tool.

 

Any human language is not going to be up to the job.

 

You will have to study the way the universe is and how it works. This will mostly need to be done in maths. Unlucky. It's going to be very hard to come out with anything profound because science has been at it since the 1600's (at least) and hard at it with lots of clever people spending all their lives working very hard since 1880 ish. They have covered the easy bits long ago.

 

Good luck, but you might like to start with a physics course.

[ydoaPs]

I think you are trying to make sence out of the universe using the English language as your tool.

 

Any human language is not going to be up to the job.

 

You will have to study the way the universe is and how it works. This will mostly need to be done in maths.

The argument is formulated in a first order quantified temporal modal logic. It is written in English for readability.

Good luck, but you might like to start with a physics course.

Tell me where in physics it says that points on a four-dimensional differentiable manifold aren't points on a four-dimensional differentiable manifold. I'd love to see it. Edited February 16, 2013 by ydoaPs

[Ophiolite]

Good luck, but you might like to start with a physics course.

Hi Tim, welcome to the forum. You might like to start with finding out a little more about members with in excess of 9,000 forum posts (and a tally of Likes over 1,000) before you give them educational recommendations. YdoaP's has had rather a few physics courses. I'm still laughing and I imagine several other members are too. But fear not, an opening gaffe is almost de rigueur for forum neophytes. Welcome again.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Ophiolite

[ydoaPs]

The argument is formulated in a first order quantified temporal modal logic. It is written in English for readability.Tell me where in physics it says that points on a four-dimensional differentiable manifold aren't points on a four-dimensional differentiable manifold. I'd love to see it.

Rereading this post, I may have come across more curt than I intended. If you really do know of anything that goes against the premises, I'd really like to see it. No sarcasm was intended.

[Villain]

Here's my anti-Kalaam argument. If you think of a nifty name for it, let me know. I may work on it and submit it to one of the undergrad paper contests.

 

(1) If a causal agent A causes object O to begin to exist, then A stands in a prior temporal relation to O with respect to A's proper time.

(2) If an object exists at all points in time, then nothing stands in a prior temporal relation to it.

(3) The universe exists at all points in time.

(4) Therefore, nothing stands in a prior temporal relation to it.

(5) Therefore, there exists no causal agent that caused the universe to begin to exist.

 

Premise (2) and (3) are true by definition. So, the only premise that really needs defending is (1). Premise (1), however, is rather uncontroversial since almost every philosopher ever has held it as a necessary condition for causation. It is also extremely well supported evidentially since every single time we've observed something caused to begin to exist, the causal agent stood in a prior temporal relation to that thing wrt said agent's proper time.

 

Line (4) follows from (2) and (3) via Modus Ponens. Line (5) follows from (1) and (4) via Modus Tollens.

 

Definition of time?

[ydoaPs]

Definition of time?

Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

[Moontanman]

Can you show a proof of #2 and #3? There are hypothesis that assume time before the universe, ekpyrotic universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

I was wondering about 3).

 

From here, it appears that the farther we look out, the farther we look back in time. But one could argue, that every point in the universe is exactly as old as we are (as a galaxy of material). In which case, what the universe is "currently" doing, is not something we will see for quite a while, and far away quasars are quite old news to the universe. I would argue that the universe has already done 13.8 (or whatever) billion years worth of stuff, and no point in the universe, no observer is in "another" time, currently. Therefore the universe does not contain all points in time. Only this one. The past has already happened, and the future has not yet occurred, everywhere.

 

How did we come to the conclusion that 3 is true? (without differentialble manifolds)

 

Regards, TAR2

(Figuring that to an observer sitting on a planet circling a sun in a galaxy spawned by that quasar, WE are at the quasar state)

[imatfaal]

Two pieces from my notes a long time back - have only haziest memory of details - and cannot for the life of me remember why I was reading them

 

PRIOR, A.N. 1965. Time, Existence and Identity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 66, pp.183-192
PRIOR, A.N. 1957. Time and Modality. Oxford: Clarendon Press or possibly OUP

 

The article is carried by Jstor

 

On searching for the publisher - my bibliography has both in different bits - found that the ever reliable Stanford Encyclopedia has a long section on him.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prior/

[tar]

Wonder why a gentleman named Prior, and one named Chronus would spend so much time thinking about it.

[imatfaal]

Wonder why a gentleman named Prior, and one named Chronus would spend so much time thinking about it.

 

 

A Prior - is just a great name for a philosopher (talk about nominative determinism) - whereas Diodorus "Chronos" was a nick-name I am afraid. He was the pupil of Apollonius Chronos (the aged/old-timer/traditional Apollonius) and he took his teacher's name - even though he was very much not a stick-in-the-mud or old. I am sure the time connexion was at the fore-front of his mind as he was famed for clever and "knowing" names

[tar]

Imatfaal,

 

Well anyway, thanks for the link. I got a lot out of it. Those modalities are quite "informative" as to the grammar that we use to think and speak to each other. My underlying investigation for the past couple of years has been a investigation of the meaning behind language. I have Kant and Pinker and Deutscher and Chomsky just a half an armslength from my seat.

 

I believe there is a way to find the categories in the way our brains and minds and senses are setup. Though I think there is an inherent impossibility of reaching an "understanding" that is not going to be, by definition a human one. One should, in my estimation, alway be careful not to overestimate or underestimate our capabilities. It seems we have to be, as conscious individuals, cabable of subjectivity and objectivity, both. What is sort of odd, is how imaginary things are images of real things, in many cases, but associating oneself directly to these things is not realistic. Although we have the capability to put ourselves in somebody elses shoes, we are not really in there shoes, even though their shoes and them are real.

 

Such is my problem with ydoaPs number 3. "The universe" itself is not in one place at one time. If we hold a model of the entire thing, in our heads, it is in one place at one time, but not really, just imaginarily. The actual thing is quite spread out and by most accounts, should look somewhat like the way we see it, from any "current" observer's point of view. That is, with close stuff, about our age, and farther stuff younger looking. But our reality is constructed from the actual electromagnetic and gravity waves that are arriving at our postion, now. Thus an understanding of how Alpha is now, what really is the case, at Alpha, is quite immaterial to our current here and now. We have no way to "get there" and back and know about, or report its current condition. It is none-the-less real, and will be affecting us in a few years, so what IS the case, is a difficult truth table problem.

 

Not to be Bill Clinton about it, but it all depends on what your definition of is is.

 

With any formula, or any mathematical space, the whole space is conceived of at once. This might not be reflective of reality, at all. And the translation between objective stance and subjective stance might be readily accomplished by a genius, but not readily switched between by a lesser intellect, like TAR. I have to look at it the one way, and know I am sort of temporarily ignoring the other, to do it, but allow that the other way is real as well, and only by seeing how the one fits with the other, can you sort of get a feel for reality.

 

In any case, ydoaPs number three is suspect, because the universe is too big and too lively to be understood "at once", even though, from an imaginary godlike view, it may indeed be in a particular state, right now, any actual resident sees it quite the way we see it, when we look up at it. Which would indicate that the way we see it, is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

[imatfaal]

Imatfaal,

 

Well anyway, thanks for the link. I got a lot out of it. Those modalities are quite "informative" as to the grammar that we use to think and speak to each other. My underlying investigation for the past couple of years has been a investigation of the meaning behind language. I have Kant and Pinker and Deutscher and Chomsky just a half an armslength from my seat.

I can relate to that.

 

 

I believe there is a way to find the categories in the way our brains and minds and senses are setup. Though I think there is an inherent impossibility of reaching an "understanding" that is not going to be, by definition a human one. One should, in my estimation, alway be careful not to overestimate or underestimate our capabilities. It seems we have to be, as conscious individuals, cabable of subjectivity and objectivity, both. What is sort of odd, is how imaginary things are images of real things, in many cases, but associating oneself directly to these things is not realistic. Although we have the capability to put ourselves in somebody elses shoes, we are not really in there shoes, even though their shoes and them are real.

Echoing your first point - it is not really possible to put ourselves in our own shoes. The unconscious and perhaps the subconscious parts of our being are so powerful - and until recently unresearchable - that our individual higher consciousness is, to an extent, just as tenuous and ungraspable as anothers.

 

Such is my problem with ydoaPs number 3. "The universe" itself is not in one place at one time.

No, but by his and my definition it is all places and all times in that no place is outside the universe and no time is prior or post the universe

If we hold a model of the entire thing, in our heads, it is in one place at one time, but not really, just imaginarily. The actual thing is quite spread out and by most accounts, should look somewhat like the way we see it, from any "current" observer's point of view. That is, with close stuff, about our age, and farther stuff younger looking. But our reality is constructed from the actual electromagnetic and gravity waves that are arriving at our postion, now. Thus an understanding of how Alpha is now, what really is the case, at Alpha, is quite immaterial to our current here and now. We have no way to "get there" and back and know about, or report its current condition. It is none-the-less real, and will be affecting us in a few years, so what IS the case, is a difficult truth table problem.

Not really no - you are conflating the concepts of observable universe and universe. The observable universe clearly does not contain more than the entire universe - that would be a contradiction in definitions. But even in the completely unlikey and highly anthropocentric view that the observable universe is the entire universe the point still stands. It is not describing the nature of the contents of the universe but the universe itself

Not to be Bill Clinton about it, but it all depends on what your definition of is is.

 

With any formula, or any mathematical space, the whole space is conceived of at once. This might not be reflective of reality, at all. And the translation between objective stance and subjective stance might be readily accomplished by a genius, but not readily switched between by a lesser intellect, like TAR. I have to look at it the one way, and know I am sort of temporarily ignoring the other, to do it, but allow that the other way is real as well, and only by seeing how the one fits with the other, can you sort of get a feel for reality.

Description of a set, a group, a gathering as a single entity is fraught with danger if you are lose with your terms - but is none-the-less quite do-able. You can set a definition of a group - then describe a universal group characteristic, the fact that the characteristic turns out not to be true does not (necessarily ?) effect the original definition

In any case, ydoaPs number three is suspect, because the universe is too big and too lively to be understood "at once", even though, from an imaginary godlike view, it may indeed be in a particular state, right now, any actual resident sees it quite the way we see it, when we look up at it. Which would indicate that the way we see it, is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

You do not need to understand, to internalise an image, in a god-like snapshot to be able to usefully describe, constrain, define, and engage with a concept or entity. I think ydoaps might disagree - but I might put it thus; I define the universe as all space and all time that has existed, exists, and will exist in the future. If you wish to argue that definition then I might just redraw my argument into your terms; ie whatever you call the things in which time exists/happens I can claim there is a temporal argument along the lines laid out above in the op. To defeat point 3 by changing the definition of universe from my preferred definition is not possible - you must also defeat point 1; ie you must show that your definition of universe includes the possibility of non-temporal cause and effect and that one is a biggie.

[tar]

Imatfaal,

 

I suppose, I am challenging the accepted definition. I do not consider the universe as currently containing all points in time. It has aged. From the godlike stance, considering all points in the universe, as currently existing in a particular state and arrangement, positionally referencable with all other points, there is no point that is other than 13.8 billion years old. 1 billion years ago, every point was only 12.8 billion years old. That condition, no longer exists. It is the past. For the entire universe.

 

I suppose I am suggesting that time, as in age of existence, is one thing, and time as in distance, is another.

 

This concept, that I have been entertaining since a stint of reading a few books on QED and relativity 20 years back (the math was beyond me) keeps me from accepting blindly equations that have a symbol for time in them, because I am not clear, on which sense the term is being used. Age or Distance?

 

I thusly do not agree that one can go backward in time(age) because you have to be growing older while you are going anywhere. And thusly as well, I am confused on the TWIN paradox, because the velocity at which one twin moves away from the other, is exactly the same velocity as the other moves from the one, and should have no bearing on their ages.

 

My overall theory is that the universe has done 13.8 billion years worth of stuff, and all that is past, and no longer exists. And the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. So only now exists.

 

Regards, TAR2

Imatfaal,

 

In your link about Prior, one of the thinkers was speaking of time not being linear, but consists of branches from now. What the thinker did not include is what would be the opposite of branches that would define the past.

 

I think it a more complete thought, to imagine now as a point consisting of as many branches coming in, or prior to now, as those going out, or that will occur later. And the idea of a branch suggests a discrete line going in one direction and then branches from there, each branch another discrete line. How do you picture this backward? What is an "unbranch" that points backward in time?

 

I don't think reality is a thing easily granualized, since it rather needs the rest of it, to constantly "be there".

 

13 year old TAR no longer exists, anywhere in the universe, the only TAR there is, is 59 years old. Even though the light of the match I held to the stars when I was 15, has not yet reached a "neighborhood" star 50 lightyears from here.

 

All points in time do not exist in the universe, only this one now, everywhere. That is my take, and I think it makes number 3 false, if my take is true. Which would allow for something "prior" the big bang, even if that would mean consideration of a "different" reality that existed, that allowed for the big bang to come into being.

 

Regards, TAR2

[imatfaal]

Imatfaal,

 

I suppose, I am challenging the accepted definition. I do not consider the universe as currently containing all points in time. It has aged. From the godlike stance, considering all points in the universe, as currently existing in a particular state and arrangement, positionally referencable with all other points, there is no point that is other than 13.8 billion years old. 1 billion years ago, every point was only 12.8 billion years old. That condition, no longer exists. It is the past. For the entire universe.

 

I suppose I am suggesting that time, as in age of existence, is one thing, and time as in distance, is another.

It is not the definition of universe that you seem to be arguing with but a concept of time. But for the sake of this thread - put that aside; do you not agree that all moments of the year 2012 (basis gmt) were in 2012 (gmt) none were in the year 1066 or any other year. All the moments, no matter how divided; past, present, or future of 2013 will be in 2013 - the fact that alpha centaurians will not observe them till 2017 makes no difference what so ever. I am not claiming all the points of time and space exist in the universe as a single unaging point, or all together nor what happens to that time etc.; it is much simpler - there is no time outside the bounds of the universe.

 

This concept, that I have been entertaining since a stint of reading a few books on QED and relativity 20 years back (the math was beyond me) keeps me from accepting blindly equations that have a symbol for time in them, because I am not clear, on which sense the term is being used. Age or Distance?

It's trite - but time is what clocks measure. Any further complication is bound up with human baggage. In relativity you do end up with an transform between time and distance such that the difference is blurred but not lost. If you think that this definition of time is singularly lacking substance - rethink your definition of distance and be sure that it is not similarly flawed.

 

I thusly do not agree that one can go backward in time(age) because you have to be growing older while you are going anywhere. And thusly as well, I am confused on the TWIN paradox, because the velocity at which one twin moves away from the other, is exactly the same velocity as the other moves from the one, and should have no bearing on their ages.

This is so far OT - but it seems to be just you and me now... Backward time-travel falls into the category for me of don't know, don't care - prefer to think about stuff and learn about stuff that is at least understood by the academics.

 

If the twins never met again then that would be correct - but they do meet which means the velocities cannot match. John Baez Physics usenet faq page has a superb section on the Twins - I find the doppler explanation easiest to visualize, calculate and engage with.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

 

My overall theory is that the universe has done 13.8 billion years worth of stuff, and all that is past, and no longer exists. And the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. So only now exists.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Imatfaal,

 

In your link about Prior, one of the thinkers was speaking of time not being linear, but consists of branches from now. What the thinker did not include is what would be the opposite of branches that would define the past.

 

I think it a more complete thought, to imagine now as a point consisting of as many branches coming in, or prior to now, as those going out, or that will occur later. And the idea of a branch suggests a discrete line going in one direction and then branches from there, each branch another discrete line. How do you picture this backward? What is an "unbranch" that points backward in time?

 

I don't think reality is a thing easily granualized, since it rather needs the rest of it, to constantly "be there".

 

13 year old TAR no longer exists, anywhere in the universe, the only TAR there is, is 59 years old. Even though the light of the match I held to the stars when I was 15, has not yet reached a "neighborhood" star 50 lightyears from here.

 

All points in time do not exist in the universe, only this one now, everywhere. That is my take, and I think it makes number 3 false, if my take is true. Which would allow for something "prior" the big bang, even if that would mean consideration of a "different" reality that existed, that allowed for the big bang to come into being.

 

Regards, TAR2

I will have to reread links

[Villain]

Imatfaal,

 

I suppose, I am challenging the accepted definition. I do not consider the universe as currently containing all points in time. It has aged. From the godlike stance, considering all points in the universe, as currently existing in a particular state and arrangement, positionally referencable with all other points, there is no point that is other than 13.8 billion years old. 1 billion years ago, every point was only 12.8 billion years old. That condition, no longer exists. It is the past. For the entire universe.

 

I suppose I am suggesting that time, as in age of existence, is one thing, and time as in distance, is another.

 

 

 

Age of existence is movement which implies distance.

[tar]

Imatfaal,

 

If all time and all space, are within the bounds of the universe and no time or space can be outside these bounds, is there anything else, that might be outside the bounds of the universe? If we are prone, as humans to consider space and time as pure intuitions, and from these intuitions, understand movement and causation, if we use these notions to recognize differences and similarities, then we should not conclude that we are in possession of the only possible understanding of the universe. We should not conclude that nothing can exist beyond our understanding. On the one hand. And on the other, we should not conclude that the past any longer counts as part of the universe, since it no longer exists. It counts as history of the universe, or memory of the universe, but it is a ghost, with no actual existence, anymore. Similarly the future has not yet occurred, and can not count as being part of the universe, or within the bounds of the universe, yet. The only part of the universe that is actual is what is happening now, how it all is positioned in relationship to the rest of it, currently.

 

If in our minds eye, we can consider past present and future a story, titled "the life of the universe", then we have, ourselves, stepped out of the bounds of time and space to tell the story, and use time to mark a beginning and an end, and space to mark the progression (as in starting from a point and expanding til...). We cannot actually take this position outside the bounds, inorder to see it as "one thing"...and we probably do not have the equipment to make much of anything of it, without referencing time and space.

 

Let's say for instance that the laws of physics came into being at the first moment of the big bang, and they will cease to exist if the universe should ever come to an end. Math could not have existed prior. Relationships, and differences could not have existed prior or outside the bounds of the universe...but "outside" is a distance thing, a relational thing. And it begs the question of what was the environment like, what was the stage upon which the big bang occurred and continues to occur and what will that stage be like, when the big bang ceases to occur, ceases to be. And if it not time, or space that is outside the bounds, then there either is no boundry, or there is something other than time and space, that lies outside the bounds.

 

Lets say Alpha just went super nova. It will not affect us, it will not be real to us for a year or two or however long it takes light to bring us the news.

 

So, tomorrow, when asked, if Alpha exists as part of the universe, what is the answer? True, or false. Which now do we use, the here and now, or the universal now?

 

Regards, TAR2

Any "old" star we see in a distant galaxy is probably dead by now, and any young star we see is probaby old by now, and the dust we see has probably pulled itself together into a young star by now.

 

What is that distant galaxy "really" like right now? We have no clue. We only know its here now, in our skies. Looking like it does.

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

Perhaps cosmologically speaking we have to look at your assumptions and definitions contained in your other statements in your argument.

 

1) for instance, talks of objects A and B without mentioning the duration of the objects. Let's take for instance the causal relationship between the sun and its environs and Alpha Centuri and its. Alpha is really a binary or tercary system, but we will call it one object for the purposes of this question. In this case, and for causal relationship purposes, and temporal definition purposes we will look at each object, taking their whole existence from big bang till now, into consideration. Soon after the inflationary period of our universe, this object A and object B stood in causual relation to each other. The gravity from the one, reached the other, and soon after photons could travel, the photons from the one reached the other. The gravity and radiation, from the each to the other has been constant, with never a break, for 13.8 billion years. Alpha affects Sol mightily and causes many things to happen around here. Consider that if you are a human and live where you can see the southern constellations, and you look up on a clear night, the visible photons from Alpha enter your tiny eyeballs, and cause a chemical signal to be released from the rods and cones in the back of your eyes. Now consider not only visible light, but higher and lower frequency electromagnetic energy, and a tiny gravitational effect causing changes to occur, not only on your eyeballs but on your face, your whole body, the whole neighborhood, the entire Earth, and every other planet and peice of matter in Sol's system, including Sol. That is a lot of joules and newtons causing things to happen around here. And such effects have been continual, since near the beginning.

 

So what exactly is the temporal relationship between object A and object B in this case. Which is prior the other?

 

Regards, TAR2