I don`t study science, just a bit of sociology and arts. I don`t understand quantum physics, nor do I really understand Einsteins theory of special relativity..

I came a long this question, resulting from a thought experiment. I don`t know if this thought experiment was already labeled or thought up by somebody else.

I apologize, if I accidently plagiarize.

Though experiment

There are two observers in different locations in space witnessing a chain of events: explosion (A) and explosion (B). Let`s say the explosions only create sound waves, but no light waves.
The causalities are unknown:

A could cause B
B could cause A
A and B could happen simultaneously

Questions:

Is there a constellation, in which observer (1) hears A before B and observer (2) hears B before A even though A and B happen simultaneously?

If you say A causes B, than A has to happen before B. There has to be a time difference because the information from A exploding has to reach B, before B explodes.

Is there a constellation, in which observer (1) hears A and B simultaneously and observer (2) hears B before A, even though A causes B?

I am not sure what sort of questions qualify as ‘relevant questions’. But I am interested in seeing you write a post on the thought processes involved in deciding whether to procreate or not. In today’s world of 6 odd billion people, there is no real threat to the survival of the species although one’s special genes may die out if one doesn’t procreate. I can’t seem to find any rational justification for procreation by the economically well off since there is an overcompensating rate of procreation by the lesser economically developed nations. And unless one has evidence about racial superiority, there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to procreate as an educated and reasonably well-to-do individual. I’ll look forward to your analysis given that your bio suggests you’ve indulged in procreation yourself.

(1) Talk of consciousness should be dispensed with and replaced with the language of information theory (complexity, entropy etc) , for an example of a theory along these lines see:

‘An Information Integration Theory of Consciousness’

(2) When reasoning about subjective experience, a more general theory of rationality than Bayesian Induction is needed, the whole notion of ‘anticipation of experience’ is simply incoherent, because Bayes is insufficient

(3) The required generalization of Bayes involves translating it to the information theory framework (1) by integrating it with analogical inference, so Bayesian Induction merely becomes a special case of categorization, and ‘Similarity’ turns out to be more fundamental than ‘probability’, see:

‘Integrating Analogical Inference with Bayesian Causal Models’

‘Exemplars, Prototypes, Similarities and Rules in Category Representation: An Example of Hierarchical Bayesian Analysis’

(4) The notion of ‘utility’ also needs to be generalized to convert to the information theory framework (1), this is done by defining a new type of ‘complexity’ based on aesthetics, see below paper on neuroaesthetics for some criteria of what bitstrings the brain regards as ‘interesting’,

‘The Science of Art’

(5) After steps (1)-(4), we have a new framework for dealing with subjective experience;
(a) epistemological reasoning involves determination of which reference class we fall into (categorization, similarity measure), ‘anticipation’ and ‘probability’ has nothing to do with it, and (b) Reflective decision making (reasoning about our own valuation algorithm) involves information integration via the new complexity measure – ‘expected utility’ has nothing to do with it.

Have a good Christmas, see y’all around the galaxy!