Is Causality Fundamental in the Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kmarinas86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cause Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of causality in the universe, exploring whether causality is fundamental or if it can be viewed as an assumption. Participants examine various interpretations of causation, including the implications of infinitely rough changes and the nature of entities causing other entities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that causation can be viewed as a cyclical relationship, where A causes B and B causes A, leading to infinite regress.
  • Questions arise regarding the meaning of "infinitely rough" changes, with some suggesting it refers to an infinite level of detail akin to fractals.
  • One participant challenges the idea of infinite regress in derivatives, arguing that any mechanism, including humans and computers, can only perform a finite number of iterations.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that at the quantum level, traditional notions of cause and effect may not apply, implying a potential acausal nature of the universe.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions underlying causation, with references to philosophical concepts such as Sufficient Reason and Bell's Theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of causality, with no consensus reached. Some argue for a cyclical understanding of causation, while others question the validity of causation itself, particularly at the quantum level.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in definitions of causation and the implications of mathematical constructs like infinity, suggesting that these concepts may not align with physical reality.

kmarinas86
Messages
974
Reaction score
1
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?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What do you mean by 'infinitely rough'?
 
kmarinas86 said:
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".
 
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.
 
Paul Martin said:
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.
 
kmarinas86 said:
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?
kmarinas86 said:
Infinite detail - like a Mandelbrot.
What makes you think so? Take any program that let's 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
 
Last edited:
Paul Martin said:
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 let's 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.
 
Last edited:
kmarinas86 said:
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
 
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..
 
  • #10
Only the uncaused can cause the caused.
 
  • #11

Similar threads

Undergrad Is the universe actually just mass and length?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School The infinite and the infinitesimal
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School Does dark energy's effect or strength vary over time?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
How does an eddy current brake work exactly?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad The vector math of relative motion of wire-loop & bar magnet
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School How do the candidates for Dark Energy 'work'?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Direct and alternating current, a personal approach to understand them
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Black Holes: Event Horizon Causally Disconnected?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Induced EMF in a moving Loop Conductor
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Could cosmic rays induce a vacuum decay in the future?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K