pioneer

The answer to the black hole information question only takes a little common sense. Say you had a cloud of hydrogen gas in space, that become a star due to gravity. The information in the original hydrogen gas cloud will change, since the material information will be compressed, heated, fused and mixed with new forming higher atom information. If we keep compressing due to gravity, we can get a neutron star. Now the information of the original hydrogen is totally gone, since all we have are neutrons. From those neutrons you can not tell the original composition (information) of that star, since any composition will end as run of the mill neutron density.

Where the confusion comes from, is gravity not only alters space-time, but gravity also creates pressure, with this pressure creating phase changes. If the laws of physics are the same in all reference, altering space-time alone will not cause phase changes. Only my watch will appear to slow down. It is the pressure aspect of gravity that causes phases and information changes. What we have in the contracted space-time reference in the center of a star is a pressure phase shift from the chemistry of hydrogen into nuclear physics. If we extrapolate from the neutron star to the blackhole, a point singularity means any form of information ends up as the same singular information bit. Hawkings was originally correct, but was swayed by lack of common sense.

I had just coined the term genetic inertia, which may be why it did not exist, if you did a google search. What I meant by genetic inertia is evolution builds upon previous genetics with the majority of systems remaining the same, as we add incremental changes. Evolution does not go from fruit fly into elephant in one giant leap, ignoring the genetic inertia of the fruit fly. The genetic inertia within the fruit fly remains, with evolutionary changes incremental. Even without changes, there is enough inertia to keep the fruit fly moving to the future. If the environment changes this inertia could make it extinct.

In the case of animals going from water to land, there are many advantages in the long term. But this is not the case in the short term. Fish have gills and can't benefit by the extra oxygen in the air, so leaving the water has no big advantage. If anything they will die quickly. There is also water retention/loss considerations, as well as mechanical problems connected to the extra weight out of water, etc. That is more than incremental change since it may require hundreds of coordinated changes most of which have little selective advantage in water, so they will not be passed forward in water.

The question becomes, how can you trump the genetic inertia of water, and go from water to land? This is where the brain comes in. The brain is designed to work within genetic parameters, but consciousness is not limited to the programming of a computer, but can learn. A deer may have the genetic instinct to run away. But at the same time, one can place the deer in countless environments and he can sort of improvise escape regardless of the terrain. The DNA does not have a program for every situation, but passes that off to the brain where the brain uses real time data and memory to improvise and learn.

Consider this scenario. A water critter is being chased by an aggressive predator. Since survival is key within the parameters of brain, one possible strategy is jump out of the water to get out of harms way. Even if there is little in the way of genetic inertia, with respect to living on land, this choice at the level of the brain can still be the lessor of two evils with respect to survival. If you stay in the water maintaining genetic inertia, you are food. If you jump out, you may live to breed another day. With the predator threat gone, his genetic inertia as a water critter, will sense a threat to life by being on land, so he wiggles into the water.

This simple brain intercession, now means the parameters of selective advantage have changed, since it will now include both land and sea. The random genetic changes that will now stick because of selective advantage, now has some genes connected to land.

If you look at migratory birds, their genetic inertia requires a given temperature range. Their migration is part of this inertia, since it allows them to maintain tighter environmental parameters such as temperature. But say an animal decided to migrate into a hostile environment, due to some intercession of the brain. This will cause the parameters associated with selective advantage to go into flux, against the original genetic inertia. New needs means new parameters for selective advantage. What comes to mind are apes are not migratory. Yet the pre-humans wandered northward out of Africa, such that the genetic inertia of being an ape, was placed into an evolutionary flux; brain intercession.

The song of Solomon is a good example of bible metaphors. The lips of the Queen of Sheba, with whom King Solomon was stricken with love, were like ripe pomegranates. This was not meant to be taken literally to mean she had huge lips the size of small grapefruits. This literal POV is how many argue for or against the bible's metaphors and symbolism. Symbolism and metaphors were used to paint pictures from which others meanings often appear.

Although I am not sure of the exact count, I think King Solomon had several hundred wives and over a thousand concubines. However, he loved the Queen of Sheba the most of all, which was forbidden, since she was an outsider. Sort of an ancient Romeo and Juliet. He writes a song of his love.

The philosopher tries to use logic almost exclusively. Science also uses logic, but not all the time, since it also uses empirical. However, the premises of any given philosophy can get subjective, with subjective premises then manipulated via reason. Science tends to do better at proving its premises, with hard experiment, but does not always extrapolate these premise using only logic, since it may then extrapolate based on further empirical data. With the two acting as a team, they take all the necessary steps, but acting alone, each sort of falls short of the ideal of using only logic and objective premises.

For example, we can have a philosophical debate between capitalism and socialism. But once you narrow to one side of the argument, your premises don't take into consideration the data in the other POV, thereby making the debate between logicians with subjective premises. With empirical science, we can show all the data in the same place, requiring the philosopher use reason to think deeper about their premises, so their logic can use objective premises.

This idea came to me this morning. The best way to explain my line of thought is with a well documented observation. The fossil data indicates that life began in the water (oceans) and eventually migrates onto the land to become the land animals. Let us look this evolutionary transition in slightly different way. After billions of years of life evolving in water, the vast bulk of the DNA had evolved to the needs of living in water. When animals begin to walk in land, this transition could only have represented a small fraction of the total genes.

What this says is the inertia of a billion years of genetic evolution to the needs of living in water, was more or less trumped by a small percentage of genes geared toward land. In other words, if evolution is a long slow process, and builds upon the past, we have the bulk DNA connected to this past, having a type of inertia, yet there was not enough inertia to prevent movement to land. Land has all types of new problem and needs that would not have advantage in water. So how can these evolve in water?

In terms of selective advantage, at the cross-roads of water to land, selective advantage should be connected to the genetic inertia of a billion years in water. Advantage at the level of DNA should pulled critters back in the direction of the water, since so much is already optimized. There is no advantage of a fish to jump in the boat. Yet, with a small amount of genes, the advantage for some critters goes away from the bulk onto the boat.

This suggests one of two things; Either there was larger than incremental change in the DNA to balance the inertia of the watery past. Or there is another mechanism which allows the inertia of the bulk DNA to become blocked, so the potential in fewer new genes has more leverage.

This might explain why evolution is so slow. The inertia of the bulk genes pulls backwards, until there is enough for forward leverage. This observation has more to do with major transitions than with cosmetic differences where the bulk DNA is still in control.

It has to do with evolution. Evolution needs sexual reproduction, which then perpetuates, generation after generation, so it can evolve. Once you add artificial additives to the process of evolution and break the chain, you begin to water down a natural process that has been around for billions of years.

One way to see this is to apply the two philosophies, to two herd of deer. One herd will be trained in the art of birth control, and the other herd will go au natural like evolution has done for billions of years. After a few generations, which of the two herds will have selective advantage?

Ironically, the church supports evolution, in spirit, but not in words. Atheism supports evolution in words, but not in the spirit of evolution; they can't understand why someone is not willing to void, what they then say is one of the critical parameters of evolution. Not exactly rational.

If an animal evolved a new behavior, which gave it selective advantage, which is passed on genetically, we would associate that with evolution. About 6-10K years ago, humans evolved the behavior that we call religion, which quickly gained those with this behavior a selective advantage. This new behavior allowed an advantage over apeman and caveman.

In its early days, history shows that the humans who made use of this new religious behavior, would gain dominion over those without this new behavior. Religion had its appeal, because a natural propensity for this had evolved. As time when on, other competing human behavior also appear. Evolution is not about a goal or even progress, since evolution is blind. It is random. Even when reason appears, such as at the time of ancient Greece, the human behavior of religion still led evolution, due to selective advantage. More humans went that way, implicit of the selective advantage.

If evolution had a goal in mind, one may argue one or the other is more progressive. But evolution, according to the theory has no goal in mind. Therefore evolution simply comes down to selective advantage and breeding, with religion outbreeding atheism. Instinctively, the religious breed more, implicit of their position at the front of evolution. Atheism tend to concede this, coming up with restrictive breeding behavior (limit offspring) and abortion to maintain their second tier within evolution. Like with animals, the dominant male breeds, which in this case has the antlers of religion. The other males concede this victory and restrict their breeding behavior.

If you look at evolution, it is very often connected to reproduction. On the one hand, the urge to breed satisfies this definition of evolution. But abortion creates a paradox, since it goes through the motions but then takes away the fruit that would close the deal for evolution. In theory, it is not much different than the dominate male winning the breeding olympics and then wandering away avoiding breeding. He would leave natural. Ironically, the anti-abortionists are more connected to the spirit of evolution, since they assume it is important to close the evolutionary deal once this natural urge has been set into motion. Using the analogy, they try to get the winner of the breeding olympics to breed.

Atheists lip service that they are based on science and evolution. That may be a magician trick. Abortion places something above evolution. Religion has humans not connected to evolution, but is connected to a creative process that separates humans from evolution.

The spirit, in the traditional sense, is not restricted to matter, body or physical reality. One aspect of humanity that satisfies all these criteria is the imagination. In the imagination, one is not under the constraints of external physical reality. I can fly to the moon flapping my arms. I can transcend the restrictions of space and time by imagining the formation of the earth billions of years ago or the death of the sun billions of years from now. I can imagine the earth overheating due to manmade global warming. The reality of the spirit occurs when what we imagine becomes as real as real itself. Then the spirit can take on a life of it own becoming sort of a subroutine that animates our reality.

In tradition, the soul animates the body. The soul is connected to brain firmware. The animal soul represents the firmware of instincts, which motivate the body to the needs of an animal. The human soul are the firmware that animates the body to the needs of being human.

In tradition, the spirit animates the soul, which then animates the body. Using the imagination and relative morality, we can use the spirit to induce the firmware of the soul to animate the body. We can blend animal with human firmware to create hybrid souls that are neither animal or human. Or we can use the spirit of the imagination to create hybrids that are more than just human, bordering on the divine. This will animate the firmware of the soul to create the eternal soul. Once it sticks as sub-routines it becomes as real as real since the soul animate the body and what we feel and perceive is the internal data the body generates.

The are good spirits and evil spirits. The imagination can use either orientation to animate the soul to animate the body. I can imagine that the stranger is my friend. This animates the soul with feelings that make my body feel connected to them. Or I can imagine that stranger is a threat. This animates the soul with feelings of danger and anger so the body reacts aggressively or defensively. If we do this all the time, it becomes a subroutine that triggers itself, with this spirit animating the soul which animates the body to create what is as real as real, since in the land of the spirit all appears relative, since it is not constrained to matter, body, physical reality or space-time.

If you look at Stalin, he was an atheist. Based on a blend of atheism and his own ideas, he took atheism to very dark places that murdered millions. It is doubtful that the modern atheist would define themselves by his example. The same was also true of periods in the history of the church, where doctrines of evil men became intertwined with religion to get something perverted. This too is not something the modern Christian defines themselves by. Both atheists and Christians filter out these doctrines and actions of evil men, to get to the purer form of their beliefs.

These dark cases of atheism and christianity swung the pendulum away from morality all the way toward primal individuality. Stalin and the witch hunter, were not under the morality of thou shall not kill, which would have allowed all to live. They came up with philosophical ethics, that allowed them ethical loop-holes, which could justify by-passing basic morality for the sake of a temporary gain.

Practical science, such as engineering, tries to find ways to do things with the most efficiency and lowest cost.

For example, it may e practical to use a shovel to dig a hole instead of using your hands. An engineer will look at this and then attempt to do the same thing even faster, easier and cheaper. He may then invent the back-hoe.

Abortion is not cheap in terms of social cost, even it it is practical. The engineer would find ways to lower all these costs. Sometimes this requires reverse engineering, where you find source of the costs and then figure out how to lower or eliminate these. This may result in a new technology. Not getting knocked up can do this. This is more practical than abortion, since cost has been lowered. If one is not very practical, cost and inefficiency is of no concern. The abortion shovel works. But the engineer prefers efficiency so the careful backhoe which save time, money and resources, would be a more practical choice.

If you look at morality, in practical terms, it defines a path that maximizes the group. Morality is not about maximizing the individual, although individuals often benefit if the group is maximized.

For example, go through the ten commandments, such as "thou shall not steal". This commandment does not maximize all individuals, since thieves would like to leave stealing left on the table. They can show studies that demonstrate that animals do this. They can prove their POV with animal data. However, if terms of the group, if nobody steals, everyone can feel safer and not have to waste time protecting things. You could leave you doors unlocked and your keys in the car. If we allow stealing, social cost is created in terms of time, energy, emotion, money, etc. This higher cost means the group is not maximized.

Ethics is where we add addenda to the code of morality, to include the legitimate needs of the individual. Stealing may be immoral, since it adversely impacts the group, but ethically, in times if dire need, it may be ethically OK to steal food to feed your family. This is still immoral, since it will still impact the group. But it is ethical under those circumstances. But since "stealing" is immoral, it means the group is not maximized even when we define this legitimate ethical addendum. Under the conditions of ethical stealing, there is still a social cost. If you lived in a place where many people are poor, people may think they need to lock their door, less they become poor also. Other people may begin to extrapolate this addendum with new loop-holes.This may then cause people to begin to get more untrusting. The group loses the original maximization. The ancients threw in "love your neighbor". This meant I should give to such person, so even ethical stealing is not needed. This circumvents further ethical loop-holes and extrapolation that could reduce maximization.

I modern culture morality is still a good bookend for the group. We also define ethics as the bookend of the individual. Between the two, we try to maximize the sum of group plus individual.

The problem with this approach is the same as having uncle Joe pay off his niece's maxed out credit cards. Once the pressure of the debt is removed, she may think this is a good time to go back to the store and complete her fall wardrobe. When her credit cards are maxed out, she is force to ponder her impulsive spending and think more practically. It is not so much protecting uncle Joe, as it is teaching his niece that money does not grow on trees. If uncle Joe knew his niece has learned her lesson, and will now be practical and spend within her means, then he may decide to help her out. But as long as she hasn't learned anything, it is a waste of money.

Since uncle is dragging his feet, the niece comes up with the idea, I will get some of my friends and have them strong arm my uncle for the money. We can tie him up and loot him. The ends justify the means. He can afford it and I will be able to pay off my cards so I can have the credit to spend again.

Another way might be to have uncle pay the debt, and then have control over my credit cards to prevent me from impulsive buying. If the rich were willing to pay, they could then have control over how future money is spent up to the amount they give. Fair is fair.

Abortion is practical, in the same way a mop is practical if you kick over a bucket of dirty water. If one was more careful, not to kick over the bucket, then the practicality of the mop for this particular application becomes sort of a moot point. A first aid kit on hand can be practical when a clumsy person is playing with sharp knives. Having a tow truck follow a teenage driver can be practical, if they are easily distracted and tend to get into many accidents. Such practical things save time. Abortion becomes practical when humans lack the forethought to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If we wanted to make a mop less practical for cleaning up buckets of spilled water, one way would be to teach the clumsy child to be careful. This requires that they pay more attention and not just wander about the room, with their head in the clouds. One way is to have the child clean up their own mess, so the amount of effort needed to clean up the mess, makes them think a little more about the consequences of being clumsy. If mother has the mop always ready, and is willing to mop, her clumsy child has no need to learn. Mother may then invest in better mops to be practical.

In culture, one side wants mother to have her mop ready on demand. The other side, is more practical to the needs of clumsy children, and tries to give the child more responsibility for its actions, so it can see the cause and effect. Letting the child stew over and try to clean their mess, can be an educational experience. Mother can complete the clean-up, but her child will benefit if she is not too quick to avoid her child learning anything.

Abortion is big business. It is like a cleaning business with mops for hires. If you were a cleaning service, your favorite clients will have many clumsy children. You may not want these children to learn since this would create a conflict with the needs of your growing business. This would not be a practical business move. A fast food restaurant does not benefit by limiting portions based on the weight of their customers. Ironically, their best customers tend to be those who eat a little too much out of impulse.

There is a way to explain the cause of quantum effects. But it runs into a religious problem connected to physics. The concept of time, has no cause. Time, like the cause of quantum effects both lack physical cause. If we can give time a cause, we can also give quantum effects a cause. However, by giving a cause for time, we will touch upon a religious reaction, since time and quantum theory are based on faith in these two things without known cause. If you give these a cause, it impacts that blind faith and you will get a religious reaction.

Putting that faith aside, for the time being, say we assume time is a potential. The next question is, is there a way to demonstrate time potential? My classic example, comes from photography and is called motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the shutter speed is slower than the action. There is a time difference left in the photo, which shows up in the photo as uncertainty in distance. Within a photo, time has stopped, so we can't measure time directly. But since space-time is integrated, we see the extra time potential via its impact on distance. What we have is uncertainty in distance; uncertainty principle is positive time potential.

To explain why we get quantum effects, all we also need is time potential. The next example, uses a slightly different photo effect. In this case, instead of a still photo, we will use a movie. We not only have a difference in shutter speed within the action for each frame, but we also have a frame rate, which breaks continuous time into on-off segments. Whereas the former adds time potential to each frame, the latter loses time potential via off-on.

If we have a slow shutter speed and get motion blur, the uncertainty in distance helps to smooth action between frame, since plus and minus time potential add and can sort of cancel. These are not quantum effects. But if we have the correct shutter speed, so there is no motion blur, the lost time potential within the frame rate will show up as quantum steps.

It is possible to say something is true, but lack proof. It might be assumed to untrue due to lack of proof. Later, studies might show it was indeed true. It was always true, but it might be erroneously called untrue, due to lack of protocol. If protocol is not followed, things might be assumed to be untrue, which can be true.

For example, say you are a victim of identity theft. You know it to be true that you did not make all those loans and charges. But your assertion will be assumed untrue, until you follow a elaborate protocol. If done properly, it will turn what was considered untrue, into truth. But it was always true with or without protocol.

When it comes to humans, two observed behavior seem to occur side by side. One is gay/lesbian and the other behavior reacts defensively to this. Has there ever been a study to see if this defensive reaction is natural? We assume this is learned behavior. Learned behavior was also assumed to be the case for homosexuality, before further studies. Homosexuality was also originally assumed to be a type of psychological problem. The defensive reaction is now called homophobia, which sort of assumes this is a psychological problem. Maybe both initial scientific POV jumped the gun.

One possible study would be to see if there are any animals that get defensive?

Chemistry is one of the most fundamental sciences associated with the broadest view of hard reality. Without chemistry, in the form of organic chemistry, biology would still be stuck at cataloging without any logical chemical mechanism to explain anything. But chemistry is more than just O-chem. There are many areas of chemistry, such as physical chemistry that interfaces chemistry with what is now the floor of physics; early physics. The chemist has a wider view of reality, yet ironically is not counting out religion, like the narrower view of biology.

Engineers are connected to practical reality. The sciences needed to maintain connection to practical reality need to be the firmest science. The engineer needs to produce results that are not only repeatable but subject to scale-up. The engineer has little need for science with levels of subjectivity. One will not see engineers using Darwinism in practice, since it is not firm enough to extrapolate into hard practical reality. It is not like chemistry which is widely used since it can scale up. This objectivity, to needs of hard reality, tends to make engineers less anti-religious.

The two areas that are less likely to deny religion, also have the firmest grasp of hard and practical reality. Those which are more likely to deny, tend to use the subjectivities of theoretical and empirical science. This adds their own religion effect.

In the analogy, I had the thalamus as the CEO. A CEO has a staff of upper level managers. The hypothalamus may well be the central hardware aspect of the upper level management. From the point of view of observing dreams from the inside (self observation and dream analysis), the CEO's staff also appears to be composed of brain firmware. Jung called this aspect of the upper level management of consciousness, the archetypes of the collective unconscious, since the self observed effects are common to all humans. These are empty at birth but evolve with data collection. This firmware generates the effect which reaches consciousness. It seems possible the hypothalamus might be setting a potential for firmware to animate.

The language of dreams is not the same as a conscious language like English. Dreams use a language called symbols. Symbolism is a dense compact language and is not as linear as spoken language. For example, the symbol liberty can be discussed for hours, since this symbol is dense with meaning. The statue of liberty is linear and can be easily pinned down with linear language, as that tall thing over there.

The natural animal uses their sensory systems for thalamus feedback. In dreams, the sensory systems are sort of cut off. In human activities like thinking, one consciously detaches from aspects of their sensory systems, shifting consciousness to the imagination. That is why we can't text and drive; our sensory system detach from hard reality so the thalamus looses important sensory data needed for survival. Consciousness feedbacks more at the level of the imagination.

This process of thinking heads consciousness in the direction of the dream state, away from the purely animal sensory attachment. This is where consciousness can begin to access the more compact data states, based on an extrapolation back to the CEO and staff. Rather than simply reacting, like an animal, the movement in the direction of higher data density, through imagination or mind's eye, creates an awareness of denser extended relationships. Then we will act upon that, rather than just reaction like an animal.

In the case of dreams, not knowing the language makes it appear like mumbo jumbo. It is sort of like the assembly line worker going to a staff meeting and observing the data and analysis the division heads are discussing. The assembly line worker may not be trained to understand the significance of all those lines and charts. With education in symbolism he can sit in on meetings and get something out of it, thereby placing their conscious cerebral feedback, at a data density that is closer to the thalamus. It is sort of like a promotion where one is bumped into management, allowing a more direct data management link to the CEO. The mid-management ego might report to an archetype, with the archetype having the ear of the CEO.

Evolution is based on genetic changes that have no apparent cause. Once the effect occurs (changing DNA), it becomes the cause for the effect called selective advantage. This precess has so sense of direction, since there is no original cause.

Is this theory without original cause, due to lack of understanding?

Buddhism is sort of a bridge between science and religion. In Buddhism, one is seeking enlightenment which represents a peak state of mind/being. It is sort of the study of human nature but using your own mind as the experiment. This goal takes a lot of contemplation, internal data observation, will power and understanding of human nature so one can separate conscious and unconscious projection. If one is lazy or too busy to put in the time, there are other religions that make the religious experience easier. Religions that tell you what to think save people from having to do as much work.

As an analogy, say we have two schools. One school makes you derive everything on your own, using basic guidelines. Buddha was not a herd animal but an individual. The other school condenses everything for you and gives you collective bottom lines to memorize. It is much less work to be fed bottom lines. Buddhism wants one to question existence. Christianity is about faith in some basic bottom line principles.

Relative to the masses, most people don't want to put that much time into anything, but they still want results. One can exercise to lose the extra weight or just pop a pill. Most tend to want the pill, to make it as effortless as possible. With Christianity, Jesus simplified the requirement to love God and love your neighbor. Those more inclined to take sort of a Buddha path, will try to make it more complicated. Easy will still tend to win. Many of the split off churches tend to add more rational complexity to meet the needs of those who wish more of a challenge from their religion. They don't want all bottom lines but will accept some. But that is not for everyone, since this takes a larger commitment of time and effort. So if they still wish to be a part; quick and easy.

I also found that a strong stomach helps to prevent back pain. When the stomach is weak, the back has to do more work to support the weight. Once the stomach gets stronger, it picks up the slack and gives the back a rest. This is more for lower back pain.

Pregnant women often get lower back pain since their stomachs get too stretched out for good leverage. They also have to shift their center of gravity backwards (lean back slightly), making more work for the back. A stronger stomach contracts better and shifts the weight forward.

The structure of an organization, like a company, sort of mimics this brain structure. At the top of the company, we have the thalamic CEO. He does not work directly with all the employees in his corporate building (cerebral), but commands a smaller number of subordinates, such as his division heads, who loop things forward. All the employees, in a good company, are not only following his global policies, but are also coming up with ways to improve the company. All the best detailed (cerebral) information works it way back to the CEO, where his policies are influenced. He may then feed back down; global memo for the organizational change.

Like the CEO, thalamus commands are very dense, and need to be decompressed, so they can become distributed properly to the entire organization. He may say we need to cut costs by 10%. That is easier said then done, but it sets the company goal. That dense yet pregnant command, has to filter down and decompress at each level, until all the employee each look for ways to cut costs and feedback up the chain of command, with all types of ideas converging at the CEO.

At night, the CEO is the last one to leave, and bounce these ideas off his staff, who then brain storm and extrapolate. The next day, when everyone returns to work (consciousness) there is now a more specific direction to focus his resources.

Water at very high temperatures and pressures or supercritical water can dissolve stable minerals with small cations like Na+ increasing this effect.

Picture the infant earth, with its surface composed of molten minerals. On top of this, we have a very dense atmosphere composed of all the ocean water, plus other gases. This will create hydrothermal conditions at the surface, that will allow water to dissolve all types of minerals. Supercritical water is neither a liquid or gas. It occupies the volume of a liquid, while not being a liquid. But it is not exactly a gas either, but a dense fluid that can eat almost any mineral to various degrees, with small cations making the water even more aggressive. As things cool and the critical state of water is lost, many minerals begin to precipitate out of the sub-critical water, with the stuff that remains in solution, becoming the base minerals for the oceans.

The modern concept of time has no cause. If time had a cause, it would imply a connection to something even more fundamental, which creates the effect we call time. As an abstraction, time expresses an effect that we measure, but without any logical cause. Relativity can alter this effect, that has no cause.