Register to reply

Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves?

by kmarinas86
Tags: caused, things, universe
Share this thread:
kmarinas86
#1
May12-06, 11:07 AM
P: 1,011
A causes B, and B causes A.

A changing electric field generates a magnetic field.
An electric field whose change is changing generates a changing magnetic field which itself generates an electric field.
An electric field whose changing of change is changing generates a magnetic field whose change is changing which itself generates an changing electric field that generates a magnetic field.

If this change is infinitely rough, this pattern extends endlessly.

If A causes B, and B causes A, then is it possible for:

-inf...... >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> ......+inf

The only way the change can be infinitely rough is for the pathways of energies to be infinitely rough, which require infinetesimal forces and accelerations, and hence infinitesimal energies. The largest possible thing is something that cannot change, something that is not subject to acceleration, or a change in path - that would have to be infinity (non-object).

Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
New type of solar concentrator desn't block the view
Researchers demonstrate ultra low-field nuclear magnetic resonance using Earth's magnetic field
Asian inventions dominate energy storage systems
Paul Martin
#2
May12-06, 06:33 PM
P: 341
What do you mean by 'infinitely rough'?
Rade
#3
May12-06, 09:42 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by kmarinas86
Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves?
You are a thing in the universe. You were caused by what ? Suppose you say sexual actions of mother and father--then one could say that you were caused by two things that caused a thing (you) like themselves. But there is another view. Suppose we hold that you were caused by union of DNA in egg and sperm cells. In that view, you as a thing are not like that which caused you for each agent of cause only contained 1/2 of the DNA material required to form you. Thus, to answer your question we need to know what you mean by the word "cause".

PIT2
#4
May13-06, 05:40 AM
P: 904
Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves?

It would also be useful to know what 'things like themselves' actually consist of. Most people think that all things consist of one basic something-ness.
kmarinas86
#5
May14-06, 06:12 AM
P: 1,011
Quote Quote by Paul Martin
What do you mean by 'infinitely rough'?
Meaning that if you take the derivative again, again, again, again, again, ag... etc. you'll never have a constant. Infinite detail - like a Mandelbrot.
Paul Martin
#6
May14-06, 01:23 PM
P: 341
Quote Quote by kmarinas86
Meaning that if you take the derivative again, again, again, again, again, ag... etc. you'll never have a constant.
Think about this. If you take the derivative, you will get a constant. If you take the derivative again, you will get another constant. If you take the derivative yet again, you will get yet another constant.

"if you take the derivative again, again, again, again, again, ag... etc." you'll have a constant at each and every step.

The question is, exactly who or what is the "you" who is taking all these derivatives? If it is literally you, or me, or any other person, then I think you would agree that any of us could only take a finite number of such derivatives, in which case we'll always have a constant. If the "you" is a computer, or any other mechanism you can think of which is capable of taking derivatives, it too will only be capable of doing a finite number of iterations and will only produce a succession of constants.

What else could you mean?
Quote Quote by kmarinas86
Infinite detail - like a Mandelbrot.
What makes you think so? Take any program that lets you examine the Mandelbrot set in finer and finer detail and keep zooming in on any area you like. You will discover that in five or eight (or some other small number of) iterations, the image appears to reach a plateau in which it becomes uniform. The detail disappears. Yes, this is an artifact of the word size of the particular computer, but it clearly shows the limitations I am trying to show will always exist. My point is that there is no reality to the commonly accepted conclusion that infinite regress occurs under any circumstances.

Of course, mathematicians will quickly point out that infinities occur in mathematics, and I agree that the "concept" of infinities occur in mathematics. The "concept" of unicorns also appears in literature.

I just happen to disagree with most mathematicians that a consistent definition of infinity can be made. The typical approach is to accept the Axiom of Choice, or some equivalent axiom, which in essence posits the existence of some kind of agent which can carry out your sequence of "again, again, again, again, etc." to "infinity". In the views of Kronecker and Brouwer over a hundred years ago, and in my opinion now, the acceptance of such axioms leads to contradictions, and thus should be disallowed. Kronecker and Brouwer lost the argument and are now dead. In the meantime, Goedel proved that any axiomatic system robust enough to contain the infinite set of integers, must either be incomplete or inconsistent and you can't tell which. To me, that theorem should have been interpreted as vindication for Kronecker and Brouwer, but it wasn't.

In my view, physics and philosophy would be better served by a "grainy" mathematics with no infinities than with the continuous math of Cantor et. al. (See www.paulandellen.com/essays/essay089.htm )

Paul
kmarinas86
#7
May14-06, 05:43 PM
P: 1,011
Quote Quote by Paul Martin
Think about this. If you take the derivative, you will get a constant. If you take the derivative again, you will get another constant. If you take the derivative yet again, you will get yet another constant.

"if you take the derivative again, again, again, again, again, ag... etc." you'll have a constant at each and every step.
Though what I meant was that the entire expression be a constant (i.e. no variables). For example, for 2x^2 + 3x + 2, you have to take the second derivative before the whole thing is a constant (=4). For a polynomial with an near-infinite degree, you would have to have take the deriviative a near-infinite number of times.

The question is, exactly who or what is the "you" who is taking all these derivatives?
No who is necessary here. Also, what exactly is causing these actions (in general) to exist. I don't know.

If it is literally you, or me, or any other person, then I think you would agree that any of us could only take a finite number of such derivatives, in which case we'll always have a constant.
Sure.

If the "you" is a computer, or any other mechanism you can think of which is capable of taking derivatives, it too will only be capable of doing a finite number of iterations and will only produce a succession of constants.
Sure.

What else could you mean?
What makes you think so? Take any program that lets you examine the Mandelbrot set in finer and finer detail and keep zooming in on any area you like. You will discover that in five or eight (or some other small number of) iterations, the image appears to reach a plateau in which it becomes uniform. The detail disappears. Yes, this is an artifact of the word size of the particular computer, but it clearly shows the limitations I am trying to show will always exist.
The Mandelbrot is not a perfect analog of reality.
moving finger
#8
May15-06, 03:27 AM
P: 1,603
Quote Quote by kmarinas86
A causes B, and B causes A.

A changing electric field generates a magnetic field.
An electric field whose change is changing generates a changing magnetic field which itself generates an electric field.
An electric field whose changing of change is changing generates a magnetic field whose change is changing which itself generates an changing electric field that generates a magnetic field.

If this change is infinitely rough, this pattern extends endlessly.

If A causes B, and B causes A, then is it possible for:

-inf...... >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> ......+inf
What is shown here is a possible "inter-relatedness" between A and B, I'm not sure I would call it "cause and effect".

At the quantum level, it seems that there may be no "cause and effect", and what we interpret in the macroscopic world as "cause and effect" may be an (intuitive) illusion.

Best Regards

MF
eggman
#9
May20-06, 03:31 PM
P: 60
The Universe appears to be 'acausal'...

Sufficient Reason reveals itself to be Insufficient.....

Cause is an assumption.... : )

I am not sure but Bells Theorum comes into play somewhere about now..
Eric England
#10
Jun8-06, 10:02 PM
P: 114
Only the uncaused can cause the caused.
setAI
#11
Jun9-06, 12:22 PM
P: 482
causal networks of arbitrary structure and complaexity can arise from causally invariant algorithms- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CausalInvariance.html

so there is nothing that requires causality be fundamental


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fundamental things, emergent things General Discussion 47