Downward Causation: Exploring Competing Definitions

  • Thread starter loseyourname
  • Start date
In summary, the two presentations seem to be discussing different aspects of the same concept, but they are not compatible and I do not know why.
  • #1
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,830
5
A definition:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/murphy/lecture2.html

More detail:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html

I wanted to post these in the 'Can Everything be Reduced to Physics' thread, but it's gone so far off-topic so many times that I'm not going to bother. Admittedly, I'm being lazy by just posting links, but I'm not sure if these two presentations are compatible with each other and I have no idea why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Question: Would there still be duality without space and time!? Is it not so, in the true sense of the word, that Eternity, has nothing to do with time? Is it not what time and space cuts out. Does not an Epiphiny suggest this as well. Isn't that experience why it's so good to break past all this. The real question then therefore, is what is the nature of the radiance being experienced?! No ponogrphy, no didactics, but transparancy to the radiance. To meet something you don't know, and understand?!What do you suggest?!......MEDIUM......> o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Eternity, in the contemporary conception at least, is necessarily atemporal as we know from cosmology that there was an instant at which time came into existence and eternity, by definition, cannot come into existence. Whether this is truly a necessary fact of eternity or just an artifact of poorly thought-out definitions of concepts that are far removed from familiar experience I don't know.

What does this have to do with emergent causation?
 
  • #4
loseyourname said:
A definition:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/murphy/lecture2.html

More detail:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html

I wanted to post these in the 'Can Everything be Reduced to Physics' thread, but it's gone so far off-topic so many times that I'm not going to bother. Admittedly, I'm being lazy by just posting links, but I'm not sure if these two presentations are compatible with each other and I have no idea why.
Hi. I found the second link to be better written than the first. The first uses a poor example: the ant jaw example involves a temporally extended feedback loop which seems understandable without reference to downward causation. It also talks about "activation" of constituent part's causal powers by higher level properties, which isn't particularly insightful.

Anyway, my own view is that the notion of downward causation is a vague placeholder for a more complete account of the behavior of complex systems. I do think there is a real issue here: we don't have an adequate account of causation for complex macro-level phenomena, even though many assume we do. But just asserting that there exists something called downward causation (like asserting there exist "emergent" phenomena) isn't satisfying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Steve Esser said:
Hi. I found the second link to be better written than the first. The first uses a poor example: the ant jaw example involves a temporally extended feedback loop which seems understandable without reference to downward causation. It also talks about "activation" of constituent part's causal powers by higher level properties, which isn't particularly insightful.

Anyway, my own view is that the notion of downward causation is a vague placeholder for a more complete account of the behavior of complex systems. I do think there is a real issue here: we don't have an adequate account of causation for complex macro-level phenomena, even though many assume we do. But just asserting that there exists something called downward causation (like asserting there exist "emergent" phenomena) isn't satisfying.
I agree that the second article is more informative and better-written, but I find both articles to be rather simplistic and misleading.

The latter article talks of the dynamics of ice crystal growth in terms of "state-space attractors", and argues that "which attractor will be eventually reached is totally unpredictable from the point of view of the molecules. It rather depends on uncontrollable outside influences. But once the attractor is reached, it strictly governs the further movement of the molecules."

What on Earth is an "uncontrollable outside influence"? What I think the authors are (or should be) trying to say is that the deterministic causative influences of ice crystal growth are to be found in numerous (complex and often chaotic) environmental factors. To me this would seem to be an example of "downward causation" only in the sense that we can maybe make better intuitive sense of what is happening (we can maybe understand what is happening more easily) by “thinking” in terms of holistic downward causation rather than in terms of reductionist upward causation. But (to me) this is all that downward causation is – an aid to understanding what is going on. Unfortunately this can also lead to confusion and errors in understanding. It does not actually mean (in this example) that there are causative influences at the holistic level which are determining the growth of ice crystals. All of the causative influences are “upward” rather than downward, and can still be undertsood (albeit with great difficulty in complex cases) via the upward causation reductionist method.

MF
:smile:
 
  • #6
moving finger said:
It does not actually mean (in this example) that there are causative influences at the holistic level which are determining the growth of ice crystals. All of the causative influences are “upward” rather than downward, and can still be undertsood (albeit with great difficulty in complex cases) via the upward causation reductionist method:
I agree with you here, MF. I remember reading an explanation for the uniqueness of snowflakes somewhere recently. I am not good at remembering details, so I'll give you my recollection of the gist of the explanation as best I can.

Ice crystals form along 2 (or it may be 3; one of the details which may be wrong) different axes. When a particular gas molecule with the right amount of energy comes in contact with the growing crystal, it might align itself along one or the other of those axes. The choice is made by critical differences between temperature and humidity in that region. Certain combinations of values of temperature/humidity will favor one axis and others will favor the other axis. The particular combination at one moment will favor one axis, so gas molecules ready to attach will all align along the same axis relative to their point of attachment since the temperature/humidity will be nearly the same over the entire region of the snowflake. Thus each attachment contributes to the six-fold symmetry. But the very action of those molecules attaching immediately changes the temperature and humidity in the region of that crystal. This new combination may or may not change the preferred axis, but the effect is local only to that snowflake. So as the snowflake grows, the pattern of which axis is preferred at each successive stage of growth is determined by the local environment and the local feedback loop. The number of molecules in a snowflake is large enough that the combinatorics of the axis choices leads to the uniqueness.

It's sort of like that.
 

Related to Downward Causation: Exploring Competing Definitions

1. What is downward causation?

Downward causation is a concept in philosophy and science that suggests that higher-level phenomena or entities can have an influence on lower-level phenomena or entities. This means that the effects of a system can also impact its causes, leading to a causation that moves in a downward direction.

2. How does downward causation differ from traditional causation?

Traditional causation, also known as bottom-up causation, follows a linear and hierarchical model where lower-level events or entities are the cause of higher-level events or entities. Downward causation, on the other hand, suggests that higher-level events or entities can also have an influence on lower-level events or entities, creating a non-linear and more complex model of causation.

3. What are some examples of downward causation?

One example of downward causation is seen in the brain, where higher-level mental processes can influence the activity of neurons. Another example is seen in biology, where the behavior of a group of cells can impact the functioning of individual cells within that group. In both cases, the effects are not solely determined by the lower-level elements, but also by the higher-level elements.

4. Is downward causation a widely accepted concept in science?

Downward causation is a subject of ongoing debate in the scientific community. While some argue that it is a valid and necessary concept to understand complex systems, others criticize it for being untestable and lacking empirical evidence. As of now, there is no consensus on the validity of downward causation in science.

5. How is downward causation relevant to different fields of study?

Downward causation has implications in various fields such as philosophy, biology, neuroscience, and physics. In philosophy, it challenges traditional notions of causation and determinism. In biology and neuroscience, it can help explain the emergence of complex systems and behaviors. In physics, it raises questions about the nature of causality in quantum mechanics. Overall, downward causation is a topic of interest and debate in many different fields of study.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
5K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
25K
  • Special and General Relativity
6
Replies
184
Views
20K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top