The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Curious George]

Only when science can link a specific cause to an effect as in the macro world of classical physics. Ultimately science is descriptive discipline like math, and when the world science works with gets smaller and smaller, at the Quantum level the limit of observing 'cause' ends when measuring things in terms of Quanta of mass, energy, and speed.

From: Photons as light quanta
For example:
Photons as light quanta

A photon is a quanta of light. Our picture of light, to this point, has been that of a wave. Wave-like characteristics are responsible for diffraction and refraction. However, light is absorbed and emitted one photon at a time. The energy in a photon is related to the frequency of the light wave through Planck's constant.

Photons are massless particles. The idea of massless particles may seem a bit strange. To understand them better, we consider the expressions for energy and momentum of particles of mass m.

This does not change anything i have said. There is no magic dividing line between the macroscopic and the quantum world. Where suddenly a different reality exists. We have one reality. What we understand of quantum physics could not exist but for the assumption of cause and effect. Our continued experimentation could not exist but for the assumption of cause and effect. You cannot escape this simple truth. Cause and effect necessarily exist. So foundational is this inductive leap that were it not true all science would fail to matter.

Without cause and effect you could not be certain that one quanta of light is released at a time or that the measurement if energy had any accuracy. Without cause and effect, probabilities too cease to exist meaningfully.

 

[Curious George]

No

Yes. Pick any actual experiment. Literally any. Show me whereupon cause and effect is not relied.

True, for the most part classical physics is defined by cause and effect in the macro world.



No. Laws of Nature determines this, science is only descriptive, and your assertions do not determine the nature of cause and effect in the natural world.

It is a bit too simplistic, but from the layman;s perspective you may consider the Laws of Nature as the ultimate cause where the 'Buck stops here.'



Only with the layman's view of determinism that the ultimate cause are the Laws of Nature.

Okay, you are going to have to define the laws of nature then. What you have said makes no sense. Why would i consider the laws of nature as an ultimate cause. Lets just have you define this instead of giving meaningless vague similies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. Pick any actual experiment. Literally any. Show me whereupon cause and effect is not relied.

. . . because the scientists are simply observers and not the cause of the electron. They just put the electron in the state that it may be observed and photographed.

Okay, you are going to have to define the laws of nature then. What you have said makes no sense. Why would i consider the laws of nature as an ultimate cause. Lets just have you define this instead of giving meaningless vague similies.

Already did that they are the ultimate laws that determine the nature of our physical existence. Science is descriptive and simply observes the effects of the ultimate laws of nature.

There is no other possible 'cause' that may be confirmed by the descriptive science resulting from the falsification of the objective falsification of the theories and hypothesis of science.

no smilies . . .

 

[Polymath257]

Incorrect. There even this correlation must rest upon the assumption of cause and effect. If you think you have some alternative method, break it down. Hopefully you will see. But ultimately all science is founded upon the notion of cause and effect.

What we usually call cause and effect is, in reality, usually just high correlation.

Again, when event A causes event B, do we require that B follow whenever A happens? If so, very few quantum events are caused. Yet the correlations propagate and that gives us enough information to be able to test our ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

Thus invoking cause and effect. I guess cause and effect did not "go out with Newtonian physics."

Newtonian physics was causal in each and every event. If all the information for the universe was known at one time, then all future and past events could be derived (given enough math). That is not the case in QM.

That is only possible with cause and effect.

Lol, like cause and effect?

An assumption only possible with cause and effect.

Cheers

On the contrary, most of this is possible without causality, but only with correlation. That is one thing we have learned in the past century or so.

For macroscopic objects, the averages are set enough that we can make very good predictions and that is enough. Is this what you want to call 'cause and effect'?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. Pick any actual experiment. Literally any. Show me whereupon cause and effect is not relied.

OK, Aspect's experiment showing the violation of Bell's inequalities. We can affect the *probabilities*, but not the singular events. We can set up a system where those correlations are detectable, but we cannot set up what happens in any single observation.

This is widespread in the quantum world. The double-slit experiment, for example. There is no *cause* for going through one slit or the other. It is random. The fundamental equations for the situation determine probabilities only. We can change the probabilities, but have no control over individual events because those underlying events are random. So, there is a sense in which the probabilities are caused. But that isn't what most people mean when they talk about causality.

 

[shunyadragon]

This does not change anything i have said. There is no magic dividing line between the macroscopic and the quantum world. Where suddenly a different reality exists.

No, science does not remotely claim that. They are simply different levels of one reality dealing with only scale concerning the nature of our reality. Classical physics simply describes our reality on a macro scale. Quantum Mechanics describes the SAME reality on a micro scale of Quanta.

We have one reality.

True described above.

What we understand of quantum physics could not exist but for the assumption of cause and effect. Our continued experimentation could not exist but for the assumption of cause and effect. You cannot escape this simple truth. Cause and effect necessarily exist. So foundational is this inductive leap that were it not true all science would fail to matter.

Nonsense!!! Needs some coherenet clarification based on science.

Without cause and effect you could not be certain that one quanta of light is released at a time or that the measurement if energy had any accuracy. Without cause and effect, probabilities too cease to exist meaningfully.

Again from the layman's simplistic view the ultimate cause is the laws of nature that determines the nature of our physical existence as observed and described by science.

 

[Curious George]

. . . because the scientists are simply observers and not the cause of the electron. They just put the electron in the state that it may be observed and photographed.



Already did that they are the ultimate laws that determine the nature of our physical existence. Science is descriptive and simply observes the effects of the ultimate laws of nature.

There is no other possible 'cause' that may be confirmed by the descriptive science resulting from the falsification of the objective falsification of the theories and hypothesis of science.

no smilies . . .

List these ultimate laws then. Going from "natural laws" to "ultimate laws" is unfortunatley no more descriptive... are you being purposfully evasive?

 

[Curious George]

What we usually call cause and effect is, in reality, usually just high correlation.

Again, when event A causes event B, do we require that B follow whenever A happens? If so, very few quantum events are caused. Yet the correlations propagate and that gives us enough information to be able to test our ideas.

Cause and effect is an inductive jump in logic to which we commit when we see high correlation. This jump is and can only only occur based on previous jumps made through either similar high correlation or through basic assumptions of cause and effect that are necessary for our perception of reality.

 

[Curious George]

Newtonian physics was causal in each and every event. If all the information for the universe was known at one time, then all future and past events could be derived (given enough math). That is not the case in QM.



On the contrary, most of this is possible without causality, but only with correlation. That is one thing we have learned in the past century or so.

For macroscopic objects, the averages are set enough that we can make very good predictions and that is enough. Is this what you want to call 'cause and effect'?

Correlation tells us nothing. Cause and effect are inductive jumps in logic. Without these jumps we could not have correlation at all.

 

[Curious George]

OK, Aspect's experiment showing the violation of Bell's inequalities. We can affect the *probabilities*, but not the singular events. We can set up a system where those correlations are detectable, but we cannot set up what happens in any single observation.

This is widespread in the quantum world. The double-slit experiment, for example. There is no *cause* for going through one slit or the other. It is random. The fundamental equations for the situation determine probabilities only. We can change the probabilities, but have no control over individual events because those underlying events are random. So, there is a sense in which the probabilities are caused. But that isn't what most people mean when they talk about causality.

Sure, with Aspect, how do we know what the polarizers did, how do we know what the optic switches did? How de we know only one photon does not spontaneously create other photons which alter coincident rates...the list goes on and on. We assume cause and effect.

Without cause and effect you cannot get from hasnt happened to wont happen. Without cause and effect, anything becomes possible. This creates huge problems with any experiments. You cant even know what will occur when you flip a switch in an experiment without cause and effect. Just because i flipped the lightswitch to my house a thousand times and x happened does not mean that the next time i flip the switch y will happen. You cannot have experiments without invoking cause and effect.

 

[Curious George]

Again from the layman's simplistic view the ultimate cause is the laws of nature that determines the nature of our physical existence as observed and described by science.

Sure, what are they then? And how do they determine the nature of our physical existence, and what do you mean by the nature of our physical existence, how are these laws described by science?

What exactly is any of this supposed to mean?

 

[Curious George]

Nonsense!!! Needs some coherenet clarification based on science.

What precisely would you like me to clarify? I have already noted that all experiments rely upon the notion of cause and effect. If you take away this notion you take away experimentation. If you take away all experimentation, then you take away all science. You are left with philosophy alone.

 

[blü 2]

Skwim

So, just how does Bell's theorem support the view that some quantum events are uncaused?​

I withdraw that statement. I think I misthought.

It remains my understanding that the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay is random ie uncaused in classical terms.

The fluctuations of the quantum vacuum are likewise uncaused in those terms.

Instead their description is statistical / collective.

 

[Curious George]

Skwim

So, just how does Bell's theorem support the view that some quantum events are uncaused?​

I withdraw that statement. I think I misthought.

It remains my understanding that the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay is random ie uncaused in classical terms.

The fluctuations of the quantum vacuum are likewise uncaused in those terms.

Instead their description is statistical / collective.

Skwim

You may be familiar with Bell's theorem, which comes down on the side of the Copenhagen interpretation against EPR. It supports the view that some events in quantum theory have no cause, as distinct from no known cause.

You should not withdraw the statement. The only problem is that "it" is not clearly referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which supports the theory that some quantum events are probablistic, i.e. have no cause.

You were correct here, though this is a separate issue from radioactive decay. The idea is that the wave function, once collapsed will be in on of several probable positions. There would be no way to conclude which one other than playing the numbers and getting lucky. However there are other interpretations besides the copehagen interpretation. These can allow for a deterministic universe. So, Bell's therom, doesn't itself support that some events are uncaused, instead the main most accepted view of quantum mechanics does. (Here I use most accepted to mean most widely taught, I know there are some users who believe that the who's who favor other interpretations and I am not trying to engage in such an argument)

But I could see where you were going if you had meant "it" to refer to bells therom. Either way, your point was close enough to the mark to be well made.

Cheers

 

[Skwim]

Skwim

So, just how does Bell's theorem support the view that some quantum events are uncaused?​

I withdraw that statement. I think I misthought.

Understood.

It remains my understanding that the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay is random ie uncaused in classical terms.

This is a common misunderstanding that has been kept alive in main by those who see it as a threat to the idea of free will.

The fluctuations of the quantum vacuum are likewise uncaused in those terms.

Unfortunately they are.

____________________________________________

As an unconnected aside, here are a few notes that may help with your posting.

When replying to a particular post simply click on the "Reply" box in the bottom right corner of the post. This will bring up a replica of the post to which you can isolate any remark and respond to it individually. This is done by making sure the material you want to quote has a "{quote]" at its beginning and a {/quote] at its end, (do not use a "{" as I have here, but another "[" ). After this is done simply make your reply below it. The following is an example.

{quote] It remains my understanding that the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay is random ie uncaused in classical terms.{/quote]
The sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home.​

Substituting "[" for the "{" This will reproduce as

It remains my understanding that the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay is random ie uncaused in classical terms.

The sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home.​

When quoting a post in its entirety or the first remark following the poster identification label, {QUOTE="blü 2, post: 5250877, member: 62549"], the label can function as the initial {quote]. Of course, close the quoted material with a {/quote] at its end.

 

[shunyadragon]

What precisely would you like me to clarify? I have already noted that all experiments rely upon the notion of cause and effect. If you take away this notion you take away experimentation. If you take away all experimentation, then you take away all science. You are left with philosophy alone.

We already covered that, observations and descriptions at the Quantum Level do not assume a cause, unless you are going to consider Natural Law a cause.

For example we observe and and describe the basic particles of matter without knowing their specific cause.

What caused the muon to exist and behave the way it does?

Answer: Natural Laws

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure, what are they then? And how do they determine the nature of our physical existence, and what do you mean by the nature of our physical existence, how are these laws described by science?

What exactly is any of this supposed to mean?

Already answered this in plain simple English. Gravity behaves like gravity, muons and other basic particles exist and behave as they do, because the laws of nature determine this. Science develops the Theories and hypothesis based on the objective verifiable observations and descriptions of this'cause.'

 

[shunyadragon]

List these ultimate laws then. Going from "natural laws" to "ultimate laws" is unfortunatley no more descriptive... are you being purposefully evasive?

In the present discussion my reference to "ultimate natural laws and natural laws" mean the same. Through the falsification of Theories and hypothesis scientists develop laws of nature for practical application to describing our physical existence.

Physical existence - Everything that can be objectively observed by scientific methods and falsified as predictive theories and hypothesis. The philosophy of Methodological Naturalism defines what can be objectively observes as evidence for science.

From: Methodological Naturalism

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

The ultimate natural laws do not exist as a list. Science observes and describes the effects of these laws.

 

[Polymath257]

Cause and effect is an inductive jump in logic to which we commit when we see high correlation. This jump is and can only only occur based on previous jumps made through either similar high correlation or through basic assumptions of cause and effect that are necessary for our perception of reality.

Once again, what exactly do you mean by 'cause and 'effect'? Does this allow probabilistic and non-deterministic relationships? If so, then you might even be ble to claim QM is a causal theory, even though it certainly is not causal in any classical sense.

So, for example, the instability of tritium results from the composition of the nucleus: two neutrons and a proton. Using the laws of QM, we can determine that such an arrangement is unstable and will decay with a particular half-life. But you cannot determine *when* that decay will happen.

So, given this situation, is the decay 'caused'? Yes or no, and why. If it is caused, what is the cause?

The point is that classical causality requires a mechanism that determines the outcome, not just in character, but also in time.

As @Skwim has pointed out, the mechanism may not be readily apparent or be too complicated to calculate in practice, but for causality it has to be there. So, for example, the roll of dice is causal in this sense: given the motion of the dice and the characteristics of the table and wind currents, the value the dice will show is determined (and could potentially be calculated by a computer before the dice land). There is an underlying mechanism that determines both what will happen and when it will happen.

This is NOT the case for quantum phenomena! We *know* from the violation of Bell's theorem that there is no underlying mechanism in, for example, Aspect's experiment. if there were, the observed correlations would be different.

Now, your claim seems to be that none-the-less, we rely on some aspect of causality to even perform the measurement.And to an extent that is true: we need the subsequent events to be highly correlated to those we are trying to measure. But even there, we don't need causality. In fact, it is only required that there be high probability of detection to get the results we need. An error rate or even a fairly high rate of non-detection (so, non-causality) is tolerable.

And, I disagree that high correlation is the same as causality: causality requires that subsequent events be determined by the cause. High correlation does not.