"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Tue Sorensen on 4 Mar 2010 20:37 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"? 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? 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? Are you confused yet? :-) I'm just trying to adjust my own understanding by finding out if there is something resembling an established consensus about these things. - Tue Sorensen
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 21:44 "Tue Sorensen" <sorensonian(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. 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. > 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"? > > 2. In your opinion, do the terms "simplicity" and "complexity" need > particular definitions in each case of use in order to make sense? They are just adjectives, not absolutes. You can talk of a level of complexity (prob not so often talk about level of simplicity) > 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? > > 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? Yes > 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, That's pretty much the case. But they do have a dual nature .. which part of that nature is 'dominant' depends on what is going on. When a photon interacts as a particle, it is, effectively, a particle. > 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? > > Are you confused yet? :-) No > 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 .. especially on a newsgroup where so many crackpots post.
From: Thomas Heger on 4 Mar 2010 21:55 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. > 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. > 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. Greetings TH
From: dlzc on 4 Mar 2010 21:59 Dear Tue Sorensen: On Mar 4, 6:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 exactly. "Causality" is smaller than determinism, and determinism describes essentially the set of all possible causes and effects. > If processes follow the rules of causality, > then the outcomes are also determined, aren't > they? But not the inverse. > 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? No difference, because there is no domain that is not contained by determinism. > So shouldn't science-minded people embrace > the term "determinism" just as much as we do > "causality"? Why would we care? We are still trying to find predicive descriptions for the simplist things. > 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? Not always. > 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? All words need definitions. It helps ascribe the amount of work necessary in approaching a problem. > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle >; when a particle and an anti-particle > annihilate and become energy, Except for a photon and its antiparticle the photon ... > does this represent a real transition from > matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just > mean a jumble of teensy-weensy elementary > particles? It is usually represented by photons. But at the instant of the Big Bang, the rules that allowed photons are supposed not to have existed yet... > If the particles really become energy, do we > know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > its material shackles and lets it become energy? Can't know. > 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? They don't change nature. You are straining at the model, the *name*, not the fact. We say it must be discrete, and in population it must be continuous. So we describe it in terms macroscopic minds can grasp... > Are you confused yet? :-) I'm just trying to > adjust my own understanding by finding out if > there is something resembling an established > consensus about these things. You would not find it here in any case. You would find variances if you moved outside of categories of investigators. David A. Smith
From: BURT on 4 Mar 2010 22:16
On Mar 4, 6:59 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tue Sorensen: > > On Mar 4, 6:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 exactly. "Causality" is smaller than determinism, and determinism > describes essentially the set of all possible causes and effects. > > > If processes follow the rules of causality, > > then the outcomes are also determined, aren't > > they? > > But not the inverse. > > > 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? > > No difference, because there is no domain that is not contained by > determinism. > > > So shouldn't science-minded people embrace > > the term "determinism" just as much as we do > > "causality"? > > Why would we care? We are still trying to find predicive descriptions > for the simplist things. > > > 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? > > Not always. > > > 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? > > All words need definitions. It helps ascribe the amount of work > necessary in approaching a problem. > > > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle > >; when a particle and an anti-particle > > annihilate and become energy, > > Except for a photon and its antiparticle the photon ... > > > does this represent a real transition from > > matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just > > mean a jumble of teensy-weensy elementary > > particles? > > It is usually represented by photons. But at the instant of the Big > Bang, the rules that allowed photons are supposed not to have existed > yet... > > > If the particles really become energy, do we > > know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > > its material shackles and lets it become energy? > > Can't know. > > > 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? > > They don't change nature. You are straining at the model, the *name*, > not the fact. We say it must be discrete, and in population it must > be continuous. So we describe it in terms macroscopic minds can > grasp... > > > Are you confused yet? :-) I'm just trying to > > adjust my own understanding by finding out if > > there is something resembling an established > > consensus about these things. > > You would not find it here in any case. You would find variances if > you moved outside of categories of investigators. > > David A. Smith Absolute order starts from an absolute beginning. Mitch Raemsch |