Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is 'causally closed' and does it imply materialism?

  1. Apr 6, 2007 #1
    What is 'causally closed' and does it imply materialism?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2007 #2

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks for the puzzle:

    Here's something very related,

    excerpt from:

    http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/09/23/

    The conclusion goes like this,

     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
  4. Apr 7, 2007 #3
    Is this really so firmly established?

    What about things such as gravity, the discrepancy between qm and general relativity, dark matter, black holes, consciousness, and anything else we dont understand?
     
  5. Apr 7, 2007 #4

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The author has slightly addressed your concern here

    because we haven't been able to explain, observe or otherwise understand certain events in the universe dosn't mean they won't be understood at a later date through better technology or process.

    I have to say that you have brought up my contention with the theory.

    Let's say gravity is X and mass is A and the effects of gravity are B.

    We observe A and we observe B and these two observables lead us to a conclusion of X yet we cannot observe X. Is X material or what?
     
  6. Apr 7, 2007 #5

    UMB

    User Avatar

    What makes you think that there is something to gravity over and above its effects? Or, in other words, what makes you say that we can't observe gravity? Certainly I seem to observe gravity all the time, not directly, but indirectly by unconsciously postulating that there is something that explain the similarity in the way things fall. So I observe a similarity, which we call "gravity", by observing individual effects.
     
  7. Apr 7, 2007 #6

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's an assumption of X not an observation of X.
     
  8. Apr 7, 2007 #7

    UMB

    User Avatar

    All observation are "assumptions" to some extent. For example, we observe individual atoms only by observing the readout of an electron micoscope. We are thus making an assumption that the readout tracks what is really going on at the atomic level, an assumption that is justified by theory. Likewise we observe gravity through our obvservations of a similarity (analogous to observations of readout) which is supported by a theory of gravity (analogous to our theory concerning how electron microscope works).
     
  9. Apr 8, 2007 #8
    Of course but id rather reason from the situation as it is, and not from some desired situation.

    The person on that site argues that things are unobservable because we lack the tools, but this sounds to me like attributing omniscience to future tools and technologies.


    Material is described here as 'what is observable', i dont see how the existence of something observable means that anything that caused it is observable aswell?
     
  10. Apr 8, 2007 #9

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I have to agree about the omniscience concept. Wishful thinking with regard to the future of technology and its abilities is no reason to assume there will be an understanding of the mysteries we are faced with today.

    I think its about verification.

    When we are able to directly observe a phenomenon it means it's state or its condition is interacting with our own senses. Our senses are systems which we, in turn, are able to verify by observation (of neurons and brain activity).

    So, the interaction between our senses and an observable phenomenon is a "confirmation" of the material nature of the interaction. (This does not take into account hallucination, illusion or misperception)


    Is there a chance that mass is caused by the apparently unobservable property of "gravity" rather than the opposite?
     
  11. Apr 27, 2007 #10
    I would like very much to digress towards the last post by bay wax. I have pondered Einstein's relativity and come to the conclusion that I am not content with the explanation of spacetime curvature as being entirely due to geometry. I think we have the tools to describe the curve but not the cause. What are your thoughts on this.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What is 'causally closed' and does it imply materialism?
  1. What is materialism? (Replies: 43)

Loading...