"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Luke Campbell on 5 Mar 2010 17:38 On Mar 5, 2:18 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Mar., 23:14, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > > > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > > But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, > > > isn't there? > > > No, of course there isn't one. > > Didn't Wayne just say that there is? > > - Tue No. Our best description of the way the universe works has that all frames of reference are equivalent. None of them has anything special about it from fundamental principles, and the laws of physics work the same way in all of them. This description of the universe - Einsteinian relativity in both its special and general forms - has been verified by experiment to very high accuracy. There are certain things that are not affected by your frame of reference. These are invariants, and you can use them to good effect in many circumstances. This seems to be what Wayne was talking about. Luke
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 17:38 : Erik Max Francis <max(a)alcyone.com> : Causality means effects follow causes. Period. That's all. : Determinism means that you can predict all future states of a system : once you know the state of it at some particular time. Deterministic : systems are obviously causal, but there's no reason for causal systems : to be deterministic. I'm not all that sure all deterministic systems must be causal. Think of the notion of fate. All events may well spring forth spontaneously, uncaused, but if they are all predestined, they are deterministic, are they not? I suppose I agree in the ordinary way of thinking about it. Indeed, the ordinary way of thinking about it is, as you note, that if you know a given state, you can predict future states, which implies causality. But really deep-down-fundamentally, I think they are almost independent notions, even if even if determinism without causality seems a a less-useful-than-average notion. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 17:45 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : I believe in determinism and also in free will. Interesting trick. Most phi losophers would say it's self-contradictory. I myselves try to pull it off by redefining what I mean by "free" and "will". You seem more to be redefining what determinism is. : The rules of determinism are just different at the quantum level, and : it's the interaction between the material determinism and the quantum : determinism that makes free will possible. Well... basically, this seems to be more evidence that you're using "determinism" in a very peculiar, ideosyncratic way. The very notion that "material determinism" and something you're calling "quantum determinism" are distinct things is bizarre at best. : That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! :-) Shrug. Everybody's their own humpty-dumpy I suppose. Doesn't make communication any easier, though. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 20:36 On 5 Mar., 23:34, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > ::: But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, > > :: No, of course there isn't one. > > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Didn't Wayne just say that there is? > > Not that I'm aware of. A reference to a specific post might help. I was referring to the first thing you said in this thread: "That turns out not to be the case. Relativity in and of itself deals in an objective universe. But don't worry, it's a common misconception. Given a time machine, it would probably be a mitzvah to go back and rename it "invariant theory" instead of "relativity theory"." But I may be a bit confused. That all frames of references are equivalent is apparently not the same as that there is one universal frame of reference? - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 5 Mar 2010 20:36
On 5 Mar., 23:38, Luke Campbell <lwc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 2:18 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5 Mar., 23:14, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > > > > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > > > But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, > > > > isn't there? > > > > No, of course there isn't one. > > > Didn't Wayne just say that there is? > > > - Tue > > No. > > Our best description of the way the universe works has that all frames > of reference are equivalent. None of them has anything special about > it from fundamental principles, and the laws of physics work the same > way in all of them. This description of the universe - Einsteinian > relativity in both its special and general forms - has been verified > by experiment to very high accuracy. > > There are certain things that are not affected by your frame of > reference. These are invariants, and you can use them to good effect > in many circumstances. This seems to be what Wayne was talking about. Yes, that does smack of a universal frame of reference... - Tue |