"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sørensen on 5 Mar 2010 06:51 On 5 Mar., 03:44, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Tue Sorensen" <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e294e805-c201-4cf5-abf6-aaaaa7e964ba(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > > 1. Don't the terms "causality" and "determinism" actually mean the > > exact same thing? > > Not as I understand. Causality means cause does not follow effect. So causality is a simplified way of modelling individual causes and effects? So one doesn't usually talk about causality as a general law of the universe, but mainly in relation to a limited set of circumstances where specific causes and effects can be analyzed? I just think that the entire universe is a single, simultaneous cause and effect, but I suppose the term for this phenomenon would be better described as determinism, then (absent any supernatural element, of course, incl. mystical free will). > Determinism means every cause must have a single set of effects .. there is > nothing random involved. So if you know all the causes, you can exactly > predict the effects. > > We know in quantum physics that things are probabilisitc .. eg the decay of > particles into other particles is actually random .. you cannot determine > when it will happen. The way we understand it now, anyway... > > I'm just trying to adjust my own > > understanding by finding out if there is something resembling an > > established consensus about these things. > > It is better to get a well-respected text book or two and read up. Science > isn't defined by consensus I think it is, to a great extent. The consensus of the scientific community, anyway. > .. especially on a newsgroup where so many > crackpots post. Good point! :-) But when I have specific questions that can't be directly looked up in a text book, it's often easier to see if some actual person happens to know the answer... Thanks, - Tue
From: Tue Sørensen on 5 Mar 2010 06:56 On 5 Mar., 03:55, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tue Sorensen schrieb:> I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > > 1. Don't the terms "causality" and "determinism" actually mean the > > exact same thing? If processes follow the rules of causality, then the > > outcomes are also determined, aren't they? People tend not to like > > determinism, because they see it as negating free will. But wouldn't > > you say that determinism is something quite different from *pre- > > *determinism, which is more a destiny kind of thing? So shouldn't > > science-minded people embrace the term "determinism" just as much as > > we do "causality"? > > Any outcome needs a LOT of input. The results from input to output goes > along infinitely many connections. These influence with different > strength and in all practical situations we could ignore the most of > them, because the influence is so small. That is why we can figure out > many things. But e.g. the weather is hard to predict, even though we > know a lot about the influencing values. The difficulty is, that we > can't do infinitely many calculations. Only in closed and controlled > situations we have the possibility to make precise predictions. > So the real world is the only possible real time simulation, because > that is how all the influences combine to their outcome and proceed from > there, to influence their future. > Whether or not this is predetermined, we could not know and it is > irrelevant for all practical purposes. Perhaps, but an approximated scientific description is still necessary, and needs an appropriate terminology. > > 2. In your opinion, do the terms "simplicity" and "complexity" need > > particular definitions in each case of use in order to make sense? > > Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, > > amphibians? That the brain is more complex than a stone? That a > > computer is more complex than an abacus? That a gold atom is more > > complex than a hydrogen atom? Do we need to define simplicity/ > > complexity any further than to degree of atomic/biological/ > > technological organization? > > I think, that nature acts on a fundamental level very simple. Complexity > lies in the eye of the observer. That stems from the combination of > many simple things into a complex one. E.g. computer software consists > in the end only of zeros and ones, but you can have all kinds of things > acting on your screen. That screen itself consists of tiny dots of red, > blue and green. It is the human brain that puts them together to say > pictures, text or flying monsters. > And the human body consist of an immense number of cells, that look and > function very similar. > So you decide, whether you want things simple or complex, mainly by > looking at small or larger systems. Yes, but in general if you speak of an animal or a star, it is pretty clear which scale of the system you are talking about. > > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > > anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real > > transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a > > jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really > > become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > > its material shackles and lets it become energy? And for that matter, > > are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that > > they don't just become particles when they need to interact with > > something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and > > particles at the same time, but can change between those states > > depending on the environmental circumstances? > > I would guess, that the very idea of fundamental particles is wrong. We > have particles, but those are -in my view- certain structures, that we > can identify and model, but they are not 'real' in the sense of distinct > and separable entities. Well, in order to make up a real macroscopic world, they must become real at some point... - Tue
From: Thomas Heger on 5 Mar 2010 08:00 Tue S�rensen schrieb: > On 5 Mar., 03:55, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tue Sorensen schrieb:> I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... >> ... > 2. In your opinion, do the terms "simplicity" and "complexity" need >>> particular definitions in each case of use in order to make sense? >>> Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, >>> amphibians? That the brain is more complex than a stone? That a >>> computer is more complex than an abacus? That a gold atom is more >>> complex than a hydrogen atom? Do we need to define simplicity/ >>> complexity any further than to degree of atomic/biological/ >>> technological organization? >> I think, that nature acts on a fundamental level very simple. Complexity >> lies in the eye of the observer. That stems from the combination of >> many simple things into a complex one. E.g. computer software consists >> in the end only of zeros and ones, but you can have all kinds of things >> acting on your screen. That screen itself consists of tiny dots of red, >> blue and green. It is the human brain that puts them together to say >> pictures, text or flying monsters. >> And the human body consist of an immense number of cells, that look and >> function very similar. >> So you decide, whether you want things simple or complex, mainly by >> looking at small or larger systems. > > Yes, but in general if you speak of an animal or a star, it is pretty > clear which scale of the system you are talking about. > Yes, but complex things or living beings behave very complex. To estimate how they would behave, we had to know everything about every little piece of them. That is not particularly easy. So, knowledge about the principles does not necessarily generate knowledge about the behavior of complex systems. But we can estimate certain systems, because they have intrinsic mechanisms, that we could explore. Like where and how birds fly, because that is specific to them. But - say- quantum mechanics wouldn't help in this case, because that level is too low. If some birds had the habit of cooperating with others, than this would generate formation of flocks, which we could observe. The reason would be, that they have this habit and not that flocks are predetermined. >>> 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an >>> anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real >>> transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a >>> jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really >>> become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from >>> its material shackles and lets it become energy? And for that matter, >>> are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that >>> they don't just become particles when they need to interact with >>> something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and >>> particles at the same time, but can change between those states >>> depending on the environmental circumstances? >> I would guess, that the very idea of fundamental particles is wrong. We >> have particles, but those are -in my view- certain structures, that we >> can identify and model, but they are not 'real' in the sense of distinct >> and separable entities. > > Well, in order to make up a real macroscopic world, they must become > real at some point... Now, the question is: what does 'real' mean? Actually, this is not as easy as you think. 'Real' means something like observable. But relativity tells us, that observations are depending on the point of view, hence on the observer. I would guess, this would include the 'realness' of particles, too. Greetings TH
From: Inertial on 5 Mar 2010 07:00 "Tue S�rensen" <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f4bdb7c0-901f-4bb2-a1eb-572b1327f60d(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 5 Mar., 03:44, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Tue Sorensen" <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e294e805-c201-4cf5-abf6-aaaaa7e964ba(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... >> >> > 1. Don't the terms "causality" and "determinism" actually mean the >> > exact same thing? >> >> Not as I understand. Causality means cause does not follow effect. > > So causality is a simplified way of modelling individual causes and > effects? The cause preceded effect is pretty much it. Though in quabtum physics that is not necessarily the case, though no information ca ntravel backwards intime. > So one doesn't usually talk about causality as a general law > of the universe, but mainly in relation to a limited set of > circumstances where specific causes and effects can be analyzed? I > just think that the entire universe is a single, simultaneous cause > and effect, but I suppose the term for this phenomenon would be better > described as determinism, then (absent any supernatural element, of > course, incl. mystical free will). > >> Determinism means every cause must have a single set of effects .. there >> is >> nothing random involved. So if you know all the causes, you can exactly >> predict the effects. >> >> We know in quantum physics that things are probabilisitc .. eg the decay >> of >> particles into other particles is actually random .. you cannot determine >> when it will happen. > > The way we understand it now, anyway... > >> > I'm just trying to adjust my own >> > understanding by finding out if there is something resembling an >> > established consensus about these things. >> >> It is better to get a well-respected text book or two and read up. >> Science >> isn't defined by consensus > > I think it is, to a great extent. The consensus of the scientific > community, anyway. Based on experimental evidence >> .. especially on a newsgroup where so many >> crackpots post. > > Good point! :-) But when I have specific questions that can't be > directly looked up in a text book, it's often easier to see if some > actual person happens to know the answer... > > Thanks, You're welcome
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 09:34
On 5 Mar., 14:00, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tue S rensen schrieb:> On 5 Mar., 03:55, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Tue Sorensen schrieb:> I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > .. > > > > > 2. In your opinion, do the terms "simplicity" and "complexity" need > >>> particular definitions in each case of use in order to make sense? > >>> Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, > >>> amphibians? That the brain is more complex than a stone? That a > >>> computer is more complex than an abacus? That a gold atom is more > >>> complex than a hydrogen atom? Do we need to define simplicity/ > >>> complexity any further than to degree of atomic/biological/ > >>> technological organization? > >> I think, that nature acts on a fundamental level very simple. Complexity > >> lies in the eye of the observer. That stems from the combination of > >> many simple things into a complex one. E.g. computer software consists > >> in the end only of zeros and ones, but you can have all kinds of things > >> acting on your screen. That screen itself consists of tiny dots of red, > >> blue and green. It is the human brain that puts them together to say > >> pictures, text or flying monsters. > >> And the human body consist of an immense number of cells, that look and > >> function very similar. > >> So you decide, whether you want things simple or complex, mainly by > >> looking at small or larger systems. > > > Yes, but in general if you speak of an animal or a star, it is pretty > > clear which scale of the system you are talking about. > > Yes, but complex things or living beings behave very complex. To > estimate how they would behave, we had to know everything about every > little piece of them. That is not particularly easy. So, knowledge about > the principles does not necessarily generate knowledge about the > behavior of complex systems. > But we can estimate certain systems, because they have intrinsic > mechanisms, that we could explore. Like where and how birds fly, because > that is specific to them. But - say- quantum mechanics wouldn't help in > this case, because that level is too low. > If some birds had the habit of cooperating with others, than this would > generate formation of flocks, which we could observe. The reason would > be, that they have this habit and not that flocks are predetermined. > > > > >>> 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > >>> anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real > >>> transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a > >>> jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really > >>> become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > >>> its material shackles and lets it become energy? And for that matter, > >>> are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that > >>> they don't just become particles when they need to interact with > >>> something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and > >>> particles at the same time, but can change between those states > >>> depending on the environmental circumstances? > >> I would guess, that the very idea of fundamental particles is wrong. We > >> have particles, but those are -in my view- certain structures, that we > >> can identify and model, but they are not 'real' in the sense of distinct > >> and separable entities. > > > Well, in order to make up a real macroscopic world, they must become > > real at some point... > > Now, the question is: what does 'real' mean? Actually, this is not as > easy as you think. 'Real' means something like observable. But > relativity tells us, that observations are depending on the point of > view, hence on the observer. I would guess, this would include the > 'realness' of particles, too. But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, isn't there? Otherwise we're getting into absolute idealism; that reality is created by the observer, which negates objectivity (and hence most science). - Tue |