The discussion revolves around the nature of physical laws and how they are "enforced" in the universe. Participants explore the philosophical implications of this question, examining the relationship between cause and effect, the role of definitions, and the interpretation of physical laws.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on how physical laws are enforced or the nature of causation. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the philosophical and physical implications of the questions raised.
Participants highlight limitations in understanding the connection between cause and effect, suggesting that definitions and interpretations may vary significantly. The discussion also reflects on the contextual nature of applying cause/effect reasoning in physics.
Per definition?Ken G said:"how does a cause lead to an effect"?
Is cause/effect reasoning even part of physics? Physics describes the relationships between some quantities. Does labeling the quantities as "causes" or "effects" affect the quantitative result?Ken G said:Apparently, the use of the connection, as in physics, is something quite different from understanding the connection-- if any such understanding is even possible.
A.T. said:Per definition?
Is cause/effect reasoning even part of physics? Physics describes the relationships between some quantities. Does labeling the quantities as "causes" or "effects" affect the quantitative result?
I didn't ask if a cause leads to an effect, I asked how it does. That's in the spirit of the "how" in the OP, and no definition tells us that, unless you know one that does.A.T. said:Per definition?
I would say that cause/effect reasoning is certainly part of physics, on the grounds that we do it all the time in physics. As for what does cause/effect reasoning require, or what models do we have of the cause/effect connection, I'd say that question is also along the lines of the OP, and requires philosophical reasoning to address. In my opinion, both the OP, and the related questions around how does a cause lead to an effect, fall outside physics and are not even fertile questions for philosophy (in agreement with Hume).Is cause/effect reasoning even part of physics? Physics describes the relationships between some quantities.
True, but fundamental physics does not attribute an arrow to time, so although cause precedes effect given our conventions of that arrow, this does not define a specific physical relationship if we invert time's arrow. For example, we can say that a man died because someone shot him, or we can say that someone must have shot the man because he died of a gunshot wound. The use of a "because" in physics is always highly contextual, and not part of the fundamental laws. The same holds for the OP question-- we assert laws because we view their usefulness, but we do not assert whether reality is constrained to follow laws, or if laws are constrained to follow reality.Mordred said:One way that cause and effect becomes essential is when you involve time. Effect cannot preceed cause.
That is true, but cause/effect is sometimes misapplied to instantaneous physical quantities, taken at the same time point. Here the choice which is which is arbitrary and doesn't affect the quantitative result. For example.Mordred said:One way that cause and effect becomes essential is when you involve time. Effect cannot preceed cause.
It might be possible for X to enforce itself, depending on what X was, but that would require allowing laws of nature to refer to themselves. If we allow that, we get the Godel-esque problem when we contemplate this law of nature:mrspeedybob said:If I were to formulate a theory that all the laws of physics are "enforced" by X then X becomes a fundamental law of physics. The question then becomes "What enforces the law X?"