The Law of Cause and Effect.

[DavidFirth]

Hmmm...pretty much what I would say about the universe.



A nice theory. I am waiting for specifics of the detailed process by which a universe and time is created. What laws are applicable in this context? Does causality make sense in this situation?

This reminds me that the belief in the ability of God to intervene at any point was part of the reason Islamic science faltered: why look for natural laws if their very existence negated the freedom of God to do as He wills?

Well, God is so much more superior to Man intellectually that I doubt strongly any man could possibly understand the universe the way scientists attempt to understand it. Even if God explained it to you, you would be astounded at your inability to understand the concepts involved.

Pride is a controlling factor. Because of pride Man brings himself down.

 

[Grandliseur]

And I agree that causality works at the macroscopic level, at least most of the time (there are ways of magnifying quantum events to macroscopic levels, but hose are specialized). We even generally understand how that macroscopic causality comes about from the lack of causality at the quantum level (it is a type of law of averages and the fact that there are a LOT of atoms in any macroscopic sample).

But, if anything, that makes the basic question even more interesting: what is the law of cause and effect? What does it mean to be a cause? What does it mean to be an effect? How, if at all, is this law just an application of natural laws to the situation?

Nice to see your agreement to this degree. We still are only two-year-olds as far as understanding many things, time and what you mentioned included. When then you include the seeming effect that observation by a conscious being has on some things, we come to a place where our common logic doesn't always work. Since I am a theist, this naturally colors my interpretation of things observed. However, I am a meat and potatoes kind of person who believes that what is - is, and what is not - isn't. Thus when the quantum world is investigated using tools from our macro classical reality, we have to be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

 

[Thief]

Well, God is so much more superior to Man intellectually that I doubt strongly any man could possibly understand the universe the way scientists attempt to understand it. Even if God explained it to you, you would be astounded at your inability to understand the concepts involved.

.

I agree.

Imagine you would explain to an eighty year old man....several thousand years ago....
the fusion process that forms light

the closest item to hydrogen would be ...water

and firmament is the closest notion to substance

hence the terms of Genesis

 

[Polymath257]

Well, God is so much more superior to Man intellectually that I doubt strongly any man could possibly understand the universe the way scientists attempt to understand it. Even if God explained it to you, you would be astounded at your inability to understand the concepts involved.

Pride is a controlling factor. Because of pride Man brings himself down.

And yet the scientific method has done wonders for our understanding of the universe around us. At this point, essentially every physical effect that affects the everyday world is covered by the standard model of particle physics together with general relativity. To get to phenomena that are fundamental that we don't understand requires going very far away from the 'ordinary' world of humans here on Earth.

I think that the study of the universe is one of the best ways to cure pride that there is. We realize that the Earth, and human concerns are a very, very minuscule piece of the universe. We realize that the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life, that even our galaxy, let alone our solar system, let alone this small planet we live on, are irrelevant on the grand scheme of things.

But, what I have found is that pride is a HUGE issue with theists: because they think that a deity is on their side, they feel willing to claim they know what they cannot, criticize what they do not understand, and laugh at the accomplishments of people who have made life easier on this small, backward planet.

 

[gnostic]

The heavens are declaring the glory of God. Now present your evidence that matter, energy and life are eternal or can be produced out of nothing or what ever fairy tale is included in your theology.

Man, omega. Where in the bloody seven hells that you are getting all this?

In your 2nd paragraph, you have made 3 straw man claims about WHAT I DIDN'T WRITE OR SAY!!!!

Working backwards, you wrote "...or what ever fairy tale is included in your theology.

I don't have any "theology".

Theology is the study of god or gods, or of divine nature. The problem with your claim, is that I don't have any god, so it is false accusation. That's straw man #1.

Straw man #2: You wrote "...or can be produced out of nothing..."

Clearly you mean "matter, energy and life" being made out of nothing.

Well, I have never claim that anything being made "out of nothing".

I don't believe in creatio ex ninilo; I don't support it now, I don't support this any time in the past.

So that another false statement, about what I didn't write or say.

Straw man #3: You wrote: "Now present your evidence that matter, energy and life are eternal".

Again, I have never wrote anything was "eternal". So I getting more false claim from you, in which you accuse me of believing in something that I have never believe in.

So 3 false statements from you, false accusing me of thing that I didn't write or don't believe in.

You have just revealed to me, that you were born, a big fat liar.

Can you not write anything with some honesty?

Lastly, I don't need to show any evidence to you, for something that I don't even believe in.

 

[Polymath257]

Nice to see your agreement to this degree. We still are only two-year-olds as far as understanding many things, time and what you mentioned included. When then you include the seeming effect that observation by a conscious being has on some things, we come to a place where our common logic doesn't always work.

Consciousness by the observer is known to not be the relevant aspect: it is more complexity of the environment (and human observers are complex).

Since I am a theist, this naturally colors my interpretation of things observed. However, I am a meat and potatoes kind of person who believes that what is - is, and what is not - isn't. Thus when the quantum world is investigated using tools from our macro classical reality, we have to be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

Most of the problems people have with the quantum world happen when attempts are made to understand it using classical concepts. But that is precisely backwards: we dont' explain the better theory in terms of the old one, but instead should do the reverse.

 

[Thief]

And yet the scientific method has done wonders for our understanding of the universe around us. At this point, essentially every physical effect that affects the everyday world is covered by the standard model of particle physics together with general relativity. To get to phenomena that are fundamental that we don't understand requires going very far away from the 'ordinary' world of humans here on Earth.

I think that the study of the universe is one of the best ways to cure pride that there is. We realize that the Earth, and human concerns are a very, very minuscule piece of the universe. We realize that the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life, that even our galaxy, let alone our solar system, let alone this small planet we live on, are irrelevant on the grand scheme of things.

But, what I have found is that pride is a HUGE issue with theists: because they think that a deity is on their side, they feel willing to claim they know what they cannot, criticize what they do not understand, and laugh at the accomplishments of people who have made life easier on this small, backward planet.

we are irrelevant?

please speak for yourself

 

[Polymath257]

It is not the electricity. It is the mind of man who invented such a device that is the cause.

And what do you mean by the word 'cause' here? How is a mind a cause of a physical event? Is it the only cause, or should we allow for physical causation also?

Don't forget that the only reason that mind is able to design and construct anything is because of the physical laws and the knowledge of those laws. You can design all you want, but if the physics and chemistry don't work, nothing will happen.

 

[Grandliseur]

Consciousness by the observer is known to not be the relevant aspect: it is more complexity of the environment (and human observers are complex).



Most of the problems people have with the quantum world happen when attempts are made to understand it using classical concepts. But that is precisely backwards: we dont' explain the better theory in terms of the old one, but instead should do the reverse.

I have read about the subject many times, but after a few months I tend to forget the details. However, the quantum soup of 'empty' space (not really empty, just used for brevity) clearly belongs to the space-time field that permeates our reality. I do believe that before our reality came to be, this field had to be present for anything else to exist. The question is, how did this field become established and spread out? Guessing here, but I think that black holes keep this field active, or, in place. I do not know, of course. Dark matter, if it exists, might also be involved perhaps.

 

[Thief]

And what do you mean by the word 'cause' here? How is a mind a cause of a physical event? Is it the only cause, or should we allow for physical causation also?

Don't forget that the only reason that mind is able to design and construct anything is because of the physical laws and the knowledge of those laws. You can design all you want, but if the physics and chemistry don't work, nothing will happen.

there it is......you do not believe in the power of creation

so therefore......substance created...it's 'self'

at what point does life take hold?

I'd like you to demonstrate a substance that moves without 'something' to move it

all of motion had a beginning
substance would have to be self starting in a big way
as in big bang

no cause for that?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, God is so much more superior to Man intellectually that I doubt strongly any man could possibly understand the universe the way scientists attempt to understand it. Even if God explained it to you, you would be astounded at your inability to understand the concepts involved.

Pride is a controlling factor. Because of pride Man brings himself down.

I am not sure what your saying her 'the way scientists attempt to understand it.' The superiority of God is not an issue with science. The limits of science are simply well defined as the understanding of our physical existence, and science does that extremely well. From the human perspective is there any other way we can investigate and understand objectively the nature of our physical existence other than science?

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd like you to demonstrate a substance that moves without 'something' to move it.

The movement and decay of the basic particles of matter in the Quantum World have no known cause other than the nature of the Quantum World itself.

all of motion had a beginning
substance would have to be self starting in a big way
as in big bang

no cause for that?

It is unknown whether or not the event called the Big Bang is self starting. Most physicists and cosmologists believe it is a product of preexisting matter and/or energy in one form or another.

In the view of science the concept of 'self starting' is a 'non-sequitur.' It is unknown one way or the other, but it is possible that our physical existence is self existing and physically eternal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Cause and effect is something some scientist dreamt up.

Cause and effect are irresistible intuitions apparently hardwired into our thinking. My dogs implicitly understand causality. They attempt to make things happen. What they lack that man created was an explicit concept that can be described and named linguistically.

 

[viole]

Cause and effect went out with Newtonian physics. Modern physics deals with relationships and how things behave, like in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Funny thing is: at fundamental level there seems to be no way to distinguish between a cause and its effect. It is an asymmetry that is nowhere to be found in the laws of physics.

If I show you a movie of a fundamental interaction, you have no way to say whether I am not playing the movie in reverse.

If I show you a movie of an egg smashing to the floor, then you might be able to say which direction the movie should be played.

Therefore, causality can make some sense only in a Universe that is not in statistical equilibrium. For sure, it is not applicable to the universe when it was subject to fundamental law. Unless, we are ready to accept the equally valid interpretation that God is an effect thereof, and not a cause, if we do not wish to beg the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

phd?.....

I was taught in grade school.....cause and effect
and they cannot be separated

ALL experiment relies on that relationship
the effect must be linked to the cause

What caused God?

Remember, if you claim God has no cause, you shoot your above quoted post in the foot and leave it hobbling for life.

*crickets chirping*

 

[Polymath257]

Funny thing is: at fundamental level there seems to be no way to distinguish between a cause and its effect. It is an asymmetry that is nowhere to be found in the laws of physics.

If I show you a movie of a fundamental interaction, you have no way to say whether I am not playing the movie in reverse.

While this is true of *most* fundamental reactions, it isn't true for all of them. The weak nuclear force violates this. It *is* possible to determine the direction of time from, say, the decay of a neutron, by looking at the handedness of the emitted electron.

There are actually three symmetries involved here, called C,P, and T: Charge (replace matter by anti-matter), Parity (look at the reaction in a mirror), and Time (reverse the direction of time). In *every* quantum field theory, doing all three together (CPT) gives a valid symmetry of the physical system. But, with the weak force, each individual one of these is violated.

If I show you a movie of an egg smashing to the floor, then you might be able to say which direction the movie should be played.

This is an entropy effect, yes.

Therefore, causality can make some sense only in a Universe that is not in statistical equilibrium. For sure, it is not applicable to the universe when it was subject to fundamental law. Unless, we are ready to accept the equally valid interpretation that God is an effect thereof, and not a cause, if we do not wish to beg the question.

Essentially, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that closed systems go from less probable to more probable as time passes. Technically, there is a description of the entropy in terms of the probabilities and occupation of the different possible states.

 

[viole]

While this is true of *most* fundamental reactions, it isn't true for all of them. The weak nuclear force violates this. It *is* possible to determine the direction of time from, say, the decay of a neutron, by looking at the handedness of the emitted electron.

There are actually three symmetries involved here, called C,P, and T: Charge (replace matter by anti-matter), Parity (look at the reaction in a mirror), and Time (reverse the direction of time). In *every* quantum field theory, doing all three together (CPT) gives a valid symmetry of the physical system. But, with the weak force, each individual one of these is violated.

Sure. Just keeping things simple, since all causality relationships seem to ultimately reduce to time directionality. At least that is what intuition dictates to most folks. But we are free to apply any symmetry we want, as long as there is one. And parity and charge do not seem to help to break the cause/effect symmetry either.

Essentially, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that closed systems go from less probable to more probable as time passes. Technically, there is a description of the entropy in terms of the probabilities and occupation of the different possible states.

Yes, but that probability thing is only due to our ignorance. Strictly speaking, the Universe today has the same exact information it had several billions years ago. Its state entails perfectly the "probability" state it had back then. I am not entirely sure that our state today is more probable then the state 13 billions, and change, years ago.

Ciao

- viole

 

[DavidFirth]

I am not sure what your saying her 'the way scientists attempt to understand it.' The superiority of God is not an issue with science. The limits of science are simply well defined as the understanding of our physical existence, and science does that extremely well. From the human perspective is there any other way we can investigate and understand objectively the nature of our physical existence other than science?

This is where physical science fails. There are no physical rules or laws for beyond the physical. Spirit is something we can't understand and I doubt we ever will understand it. Many just deny it.

The human perspective gets us in trouble. That is why I believe we ought to concentrate on God's perspective instead.

 

[DavidFirth]

Cause and effect are irresistible intuitions apparently hardwired into our thinking. My dogs implicitly understand causality. They attempt to make things happen. What they lack that man created was an explicit concept that can be described and named linguistically.

But is everything based on cause and effect? I think not.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is where physical science fails. There are no physical rules or laws for beyond the physical. Spirit is something we can't understand and I doubt we ever will understand it. Many just deny it.

That is rule of science and science does not fail. It is the strong point of science, and it is not biased by metaphysical thesis outside our physical existence.

Still waiting . . .

What is the alternative to science for understanding the nature of our physical existence?

That is why I believe we ought to concentrate on God's perspective instead.

I can agree and disagree with you here because I believe in God, and I am a Baha'i. I do doubt that as fallible humans we could actually know God's perspective.