Cause-and-Effect. Is Causality necessarily true?

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Then you would be the semantic freak
(if you demanded a definition for every word
I use). Besides, you have to use words to ask
what my words mean, and so you fall into the
same trap.

I don't care about the words you use, I'm
talking about apparently basic stuff in reality.
(I talked about this a few dozen times in
the past I think...[zz)])

I'll try one more time to repeat my PoV on the
original subject here 'cause I'm tired with
all that time stuff you keep throwing my way
with complete irrelevance to my point.
If you wish I'll make no direct link to time.

So, first of all causality HAD it existed would
be a basic constituent of reality (if you
don't wish to grasp it as a specific type
of time - the general thing), which means it
would defy explanation or is based upon things
that most likely defy explanation like everything
else in the Universe. Second, currently science
rejects causality according to it's classical
definition from Newtonian Mechanics.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I don't care about the words you use, I'm
talking about apparently basic stuff in reality.
(I talked about this a few dozen times in
the past I think...[zz)])

I'll try one more time to repeat my PoV on the
original subject here 'cause I'm tired with
all that time stuff you keep throwing my way
with complete irrelevance to my point.
If you wish I'll make no direct link to time.

So, first of all causality HAD it existed would
be a basic constituent of reality (if you
don't wish to grasp it as a specific type
of time - the general thing), which means it
would defy explanation or is based upon things
that most likely defy explanation like everything
else in the Universe. Second, currently science
rejects causality according to it's classical
definition from Newtonian Mechanics.

Live long and prosper.

I still don't get why things that are basic defy definition. Could you please explain that?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I still don't get why things that are basic defy
definition. Could you please explain that?

Because they don't have one, unless it is
self-referential of course...

 

[The Opiner]

I take exception to claims that "contemporary, modern science" has relegated necessary cause and effect to the dustbin of history. Surely the vast majority of scientists and educated, non-superstitious people would grant, after some thought, that macroscopic objects, like rolled dice or falling leaves, have completely determined outcomes (however incapable we are to predict, in advance, their final resting positions - thus "random" in common parlance).

Serious claims to the contrary seem to come at the quantum level - apparently originating around the time of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. I have long been interested in this discussion as a lifelong determinist and so joined in some discussion to this effect in the Physics and Theoretical Physics fora. Through these discussions I have learned, and been generally encouraged by, input by apparently informed participants and suggested websites, that this issue is far from settled. There are at least some current physicists (as well as famed ones from the past) that are investigating different interpretations which are deterministic (cause and effect without exception). A partial list: Einstein (a good man to have on one's side!), David Bohm, Roger Penrose, Jeffrey Bub, John Bell, and the recent Nobel Prize winner from Denmark (please forgive my memory here).

As I have remarked before, how anyone can accept that some things happen without cause - that is for no reason what-so-ever - and not go insane is beyond me.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Welcome to PF Opiner !

Well, you are correct about this issue
being far from settled. What I did say
is that regardless of the interpretation
the currently accepted theory of QM does not
allow for classical determinism and hence
classical causality. Not just due to the
HUP and wave-particle duality but also due to
lack of individuality - identity (and perhaps
other principles I'm a bit too tired to
remember right now, sorry).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Because they don't have one, unless it is
self-referential of course...

Is this inductive or deductive reasoning?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Welcome to PF Opiner !

Well, you are correct about this issue
being far from settled. What I did say
is that regardless of the interpretation
the currently accepted theory of QM does not
allow for classical determinism and hence
classical causality. Not just due to the
HUP and wave-particle duality but also due to
lack of individuality - identity (and perhaps
other principles I'm a bit too tired to
remember right now, sorry).

Live long and prosper.

And yet all of the things you mention allow for the existence of an "observer", which would exist as a separate entity to that which is "observed".

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
And yet all of the things you mention allow
for the existence of an "observer", which
would exist as a separate entity to that which
is "observed".

No, QM does not allow for such separation.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Is this inductive or deductive reasoning?

It is a simple scientific fact, for now.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
No, QM does not allow for such separation.

Have you forgotten Schrodinger's Cat entirely? The state remains undertermined, until observed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
It is a simple scientific fact, for now.

You aren't answering my question.

Besides, since when is it a scientific fact that all things that are "basic", are undefinable? This may (emphasis on the "may") be philosophically true, but that doesn't mean that it is a scientific fact.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Have you forgotten Schrodinger's Cat entirely?
The state remains undertermined, until observed.

In which case you yourself are in a superposition
of states. Though, I heard that modern experiments
have shown that WF collapse is quite delicate.
In addition you can not possibly be objective
or a separate observer where particles have
no identity. Basicly, according to QM you can
not define any distinct particles and the
only time you know they are somewhere (without
knowing which) is when you, supposedly, observe them.
So, I could have a free electron in my body
exchanged with a free electron from the keyboard
and it will seemingly be the same electron
as it interacts with other particles in my body.
In fact, it is meaningless to say that this electron
belongs to my body and that one belongs to the
table - I have no possible way of knowing this for
certain. It's just a liekly assumption.

To sum up - QM forbids the observer/observed
separation, period.

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
You aren't answering my question.

I can not define science - observation as being
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea.

Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, since when is it a scientific fact that all
things that are "basic", are undefinable? This may
(emphasis on the "may") be philosophically
true, but that doesn't mean that it is a
scientific fact.

I was referring to SPECIFIC basic entities in science.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2.

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
In which case you yourself are in a superposition
of states. Though, I heard that modern experiments
have shown that WF collapse is quite delicate.
In addition you can not possibly be objective
or a separate observer where particles have
no identity. Basicly, according to QM you can
not define any distinct particles and the
only time you know they are somewhere (without
knowing which) is when you, supposedly, observe them.
So, I could have a free electron in my body
exchanged with a free electron from the keyboard
and it will seemingly be the same electron
as it interacts with other particles in my body.
In fact, it is meaningless to say that this electron
belongs to my body and that one belongs to the
table - I have no possible way of knowing this for
certain. It's just a liekly assumption.

To sum up - QM forbids the observer/observed
separation, period.

Live long and prosper.

Still wrong, as QM does allow for there to be individiual particles, it just doesn't allow you to describe their position (or any other part of their current state) accurately. However, when you get to large, complex, beings - like humans - you get the distinction between observer and the observed, even though the large, complex, being's position is not perfectly definable either.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I can not define science - observation as being
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea.

I'm not talking about Science, I'm talking about things that are "basic". You said that they are all undefinable. I asked how you knew that, and you responded, "Because they don't have [a definition], unless it is self-referential of course...". I asked you if this was inductive (meaning that you had actually tried to define every single "basic" entity, and found that this was true in all cases) or deductive (meaning that you had followed logical premises to this conclusion) reasoning.

I was referring to SPECIFIC basic entities in science.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2.

I read it, but I disagree, as I don't think it is a fact now, or that it has ever been.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
Still wrong, as QM does allow for there to be
individiual particles, it just doesn't allow
you to describe their position (or any other
part of their current state) accurately.
However, when you get to large, complex,
beings - like humans - you get the distinction
between observer and the observed, even though
the large, complex, being's position is not
perfectly definable either.

Look, I will not continue to argue this
point because I am no expert in the field
and hence do not have the knowledge to do
this with full accuracy and validity as you
would probably prefer. I do, however, know
that QM is said not to allow observer/observed
separation for the general reasons I explained above.
For more details you could pose a question
to the real experts in one of the physics forums.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Look, I will not continue to argue this
point because I am no expert in the field
and hence do not have the knowledge to do
this with full accuracy and validity as you
would probably prefer. I do, however, know
that QM is said not to allow observer/observed
separation for the general reasons I explained above.
For more details you could pose a question
to the real experts in one of the physics forums.

Live long and prosper.

Fair enough.

 

[drag]

Greetings again, Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not talking about Science, I'm talking about
things that are "basic". You said that they
are all undefinable. I asked how you knew that,
and you responded, "Because they don't
have [a definition], unless it is self-referential
of course...". I asked you if this was inductive
(meaning that you had actually tried to define
every single "basic" entity, and found that this
was true in all cases) or deductive (meaning that
you had followed logical premises to this conclusion)
reasoning.

AGAIN, I referred to SPECIFIC BASICS - WITHIN
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).
We were discussing causality and I said that
you can NOT decide if it's true - in response to
your original question, because even when it
was considered a scientific principle it was
a basic one - self-referential/unexplained, and
thus one has no way of discerning its truth
or anything else about it, the same way I can't
say an electron is true/false.
Now, in science a basic thing has a name and
certain characteristics discribed by the way
this basic thing is incorporated into our likely
model of observation. Hence, by definition it
has no explanation, until one is invented - theorized,
which in turn relies on other basics or is
self-referential. Clear ?

Originally posted by Mentat
I read it, but I disagree, as I don't think
it is a fact now, or that it has ever been.

Please, explain an electron.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings again, Mentat !

AGAIN, I referred to SPECIFIC BASICS - WITHIN
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).

That's exactly what you referred to. Just read the third post of the third page of this thread.

We were discussing causality and I said that
you can NOT decide if it's true - in response to
your original question, because even when it
was considered a scientific principle it was
a basic one - self-referential/unexplained

I was asking why you immediately make this connection (between being basic, and being unexplained).

Now, in science a basic thing has a name and
certain characteristics discribed by the way
this basic thing is incorporated into our likely
model of observation. Hence, by definition it
has no explanation, until one is invented - theorized,
which in turn relies on other basics or is
self-referential. Clear ?

Oh, ok, you are saying that if something is definable, then you have to define the terms used to define it, and so on ad infinitum or until one runs into self-reference. While this is true, it is not practical, as language is based on the use of words to define words.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
That's exactly what you referred to.
Just read the third post of the third page of this thread.

Clearly we had a misunderstanding, because
I meant one and the same thing from the beginning.

Originally posted by Mentat
I was asking why you immediately make this connection
(between being basic, and being unexplained).

Because basic is supposed to be a concept
used to refer to things that have no explanation.
If I could explain the scientific term of
an electron the same way I can explain an
orange - as consisting of other particles,
I would not call it basic. But, for the moment,
I can't, so I say it's a basic concept - an
axiom of science. Or, an axiom of the reasoning
we apply to observation.

Now, same went to classical causality when
it was assumed to be a part of science.
But, even if it were a part of science today,
I could not decide if it's true/false because
these terms have a meaning INSIDE science and
can not be extended to its axioms. Unless,
of course, you consider some form of reasoning
BEYOND what you use in science. You may do
so, of course, and it may allow you to say
weather causality is indeed true (whatever true
will mean in that system), but first you'll have
to justify this system. That is why there is
probably no ultimate proof.

Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, ok, you are saying that if something is
definable, then you have to define the terms
used to define it, and so on ad infinitum or
until one runs into self-reference.

[zz)]

Originally posted by Mentat
While this is true, it is not practical, as
language is based on the use of words to
define words.

I don't think I understand what you're
talking about here and how it's related ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I don't think I understand what you're
talking about here and how it's related ?

I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).

We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with , you don't have one.

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with , you don't have one.

Peace and long life.

I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use
of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my
argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.

You have proof of causality ?!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
You have proof of causality ?!

You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.

No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...

Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.

And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).

Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.

Anyway, what's your proof ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).

Why?

Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.

Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need not be rigorously defined for us to do so.

Anyway, what's your proof ?

My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own personal experience of consciousness. If you like science, you should respect empirical data taken from your own personal experience.

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
Why?

Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION.
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.

Originally posted by Mentat
Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather
rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need
not be rigorously defined for us to do so.

Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ?

Originally posted by Mentat
My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own
personal experience of consciousness. If you like
science, you should respect empirical data taken
from your own personal experience.

Science operates in a different way. Science
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.

If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".

The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.
I personally think it's better to leave consciousness
outside of science, as part of the PoE, rather than
throw away science because of this problem and
crack our heads at how we can define a type of
reasoniong compatible with consciousness (seemingly
complete lack of causality ).

Live long and prosper.