Does Causality Exist?

[EclecticWheel]

Does causality exist?  Does A cause B?  Or is this just a useful construct for explaining apparent relationships between events?

If we assume causality and trace causal effects all the way back to the Big Bang then we no longer have space-time in which to situate causal connections.  It is as though the initiator of a chain of apparent causes was itself causeless or based only on probability which would seem to imply a contradiction: causeless causality, or in other words an ultimately causeless chain of causal events.

A similar problem arises when we consider that space-time according to current scientific thought is a part of the physical universe.  If from an outside point of view of the universe all of time, past, present, and future is equally present and part of the universe how can we ever determine that A caused B?  The universe simply exists and the same contradiction arises: causeless causality.

What do you think?  Does causality exist?

[RandallS]

Does causality exist?  Does A cause B?  Or is this just a useful construct for explaining apparent relationships between events?

Science answer: It certainly appears to exist, but might only be an "illusion". If it does not exist, however, reality is much stranger than we think.

[EclecticWheel]

Science answer: It certainly appears to exist, but might only be an "illusion". If it does not exist, however, reality is much stranger than we think.

 
If it does exist it probably does not exist in the way we perceive it.  It would be a causal loop instead of a causal chain.  Even tracing it through time the chain breaks down.  The chain itself is causeless.  And an eternal causal loop breaks down our notions of it in a similar way.  It's bizarre.  If this is true it would also totally undermine our notions of continuity and selfhood and free will.

[Sefiru]

It is as though the initiator of a chain of apparent causes was itself causeless or based only on probability which would seem to imply a contradiction: causeless causality, or in other words an ultimately causeless chain of causal events.

 
Two things:

It is my belief that causality exists, but is not universal. The universe is neither wholly deterministic, nor wholly chaotic (note: I am not any kind of physicist).

Second (and this is definitely Kemetic thought process here), why can't the universe exhibit contradictory characteristics simultaneously? Causelessness AND causality, rather than causelessness OR causality.

[EclecticWheel]

Two things:

It is my belief that causality exists, but is not universal. The universe is neither wholly deterministic, nor wholly chaotic (note: I am not any kind of physicist).

Second (and this is definitely Kemetic thought process here), why can't the universe exhibit contradictory characteristics simultaneously? Causelessness AND causality, rather than causelessness OR causality.

Can you elaborate?

[EclecticWheel]

Two things:

It is my belief that causality exists, but is not universal. The universe is neither wholly deterministic, nor wholly chaotic (note: I am not any kind of physicist).

Second (and this is definitely Kemetic thought process here), why can't the universe exhibit contradictory characteristics simultaneously? Causelessness AND causality, rather than causelessness OR causality.

 
I am going to take a go at how I could find example of this in my worldview.

Causality - at least as a causal loop rather than a causal chain - exists within the whole, but the whole itself is uncaused.

Is that the kind of example you're thinking of?  Because that would make sense to me although it is different from common conceptions of causality.  It would be a way that both causality and acausality could exist, though.

[Sefiru]

Can you elaborate?

Well, I've been thinking about this some more, and read the article you posted in another thread about the "block universe" thing. Much of my thoughts here will be responding to that.

(Thought 1)
The "block universe" model is elegant and logically consistent, but is neither anything new nor particularly useful. It's just another way of depicting the idea of a wholly deterministic universe with an immutable future (more about why this bugs me below). There is no difference between saying "the universe is expanding" and "the shape of the block universe varies along the Time axis". It's an exercise in jargon. Also, it renders the answer to the question, "how is it that there is a universe at all?" as "uh, it's just kind of there."

(Thought 2)
The whole notion of the universe as a whole being without cause, relies on the premise that nothing exists outside of the material universe, a premise which may in fact be false. Also this depends a lot on the meaning of terms such as "universe" and "exist". It is my personal belief that our physical universe is not the full extent of existence.

(Thought 3)
If the universe is a static 4-dimensional block, and time is an illusion, and the past, present and future are equally existent, why then does the universe exhibit evidence of causality and entropy at all? And why does everyone apparently experience the flow of time the same way?

(Thought 4)
What is up with the insistence that the universe is entirely deterministic, and that the future is fixed? Why do we never hear about theories where the roll of the die really is random? "If only we had accurate enough data, we could know exactly what the future holds!" To me, this sort of hypothesis says less about the structure of the universe and more about the scientist's discomfort with uncertainty. (Or it could be the science journalists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty.) I had this same beef with the many-worlds theory of probability. "Which possibility will occur? All of them - in different universes! See? We know exactly what will happen in the future!"

It is my personal belief that chance is real and that the future is unknowable.

(Thought 5)
That said, if time travel is possible, the stable-time-loop version is more consistent with causality as we know it. However, I doubt that time travel is possible in the first place.

(Thought 6)
Try this one out: The universe is a 4-dimensional block, but not a static one. It is growing along its time-axis like a phenomenally complex crystal; what we experience as "now" is the wavefront, the active surface where new time comes into existence. The structure that already exists -- the past -- dictates much of how each new "now" forms, but there is also the chance of random variations, most very small.

Our consciousness, being a component of the "now" wavefront, can neither return to the past or leap ahead to the future, but we can act on and affect the new "now" that is forming.

And at some point, the universe will reach its complete size and shape, no new time will form, and the universe will be without motion and still.

(Conclusion)
Thus, the universe according to Sefiru. YMMV.
Also, English grammar does not function well for discussing the nature of time.

[EclecticWheel]

Also, it renders the answer to the question, "how is it that there is a universe at all?" as "uh, it's just kind of there."

I don't see the problem with that.  Trying to find the cause of the universe leads to an infinite regress.  What caused the first cause?  Who made God, if you're talking to a theist.  At some point that's all we get back to: it's just here.

(Thought 2)
The whole notion of the universe as a whole being without cause, relies on the premise that nothing exists outside of the material universe, a premise which may in fact be false. Also this depends a lot on the meaning of terms such as "universe" and "exist". It is my personal belief that our physical universe is not the full extent of existence.

I think it is without cause because there was no time "before" the Big Bang to cause anything in - it was a quantum event, a matter of probability.  That doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of other universes, but I imagine those universes would contain their own space-time (if they had it at all) without interfering with our own.

(Thought 3)
If the universe is a static 4-dimensional block, and time is an illusion, and the past, present and future are equally existent, why then does the universe exhibit evidence of causality and entropy at all? And why does everyone apparently experience the flow of time the same way?

I don't think time is an illusion, just that the apparent flow of time is an illusion, it is not how we perceive it.  Also it may be that causality does exist, just within the universe.  The Big Bang itself still would not have been a causal event.  I would imagine we experience time similarly because we are in the same universe but it is not held in the broader scientific community that we all necessarily experience it in the same way.  Someone traveling near the speed of light would experience it differently than me.

(Thought 4)
What is up with the insistence that the universe is entirely deterministic, and that the future is fixed? Why do we never hear about theories where the roll of the die really is random? "If only we had accurate enough data, we could know exactly what the future holds!" To me, this sort of hypothesis says less about the structure of the universe and more about the scientist's discomfort with uncertainty. (Or it could be the science journalists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty.) I had this same beef with the many-worlds theory of probability. "Which possibility will occur? All of them - in different universes! See? We know exactly what will happen in the future!"

It is my personal belief that chance is real and that the future is unknowable.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with a fear of uncertainty.  Even if the future is fixed we still wouldn't know what it is.  The theory of relativity suggests that space-time are a part of one another.  Time is a location in space.  Thus the idea goes that all moments are equally real, equally present somewhere in the universe.  Space-time is part of the universe, not something outside of it.  That is pretty mainstream scientific thinking anyhow.

(Thought 6)
Try this one out: The universe is a 4-dimensional block, but not a static one. It is growing along its time-axis like a phenomenally complex crystal; what we experience as "now" is the wavefront, the active surface where new time comes into existence. The structure that already exists -- the past -- dictates much of how each new "now" forms, but there is also the chance of random variations, most very small.

Our consciousness, being a component of the "now" wavefront, can neither return to the past or leap ahead to the future, but we can act on and affect the new "now" that is forming.

And at some point, the universe will reach its complete size and shape, no new time will form, and the universe will be without motion and still.

(Conclusion)
Thus, the universe according to Sefiru. YMMV.
Also, English grammar does not function well for discussing the nature of time.

 
I'm not really sure how the universe could be a 4D block with a time axis, and yet the future is still being created, that it doesn't exist in some location of the universe already.

[Sefiru]

Someone traveling near the speed of light would experience it differently than me.

Though presumably with their past and future in the same relative orientation. I wonder, people have theorized up to a dozen higher spatial dimensions, is anyone discussing higher temporal dimensions?

Even if the future is fixed we still wouldn't know what it is.

We would know that it is something in particular, even if we didn't know what. But I don't think the future is anything in particular.

Time is a location in space.  Thus the idea goes that all moments are equally real, equally present somewhere in the universe.  

So, space-time is neither created nor destroyed?

I'm not really sure how the universe could be a 4D block with a time axis, and yet the future is still being created, that it doesn't exist in some location of the universe already.

 
I'm kind of riffing on the article you linked to in the other thread, where it talks about tensed and tenseless time. About tensed time it said:

"If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not."

And I thought, something can move with respect to itself if it's growing. (Clearly I'm coming down on the side of tensed time here, where you seem to support tenseless time).

True, I can't quite grasp what it means to say "time is growing," any more than I can really imagine an entity that behaves like both a wave and a particle. I'll go with J.B.S. Haldane on this: "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose".

Considering this further, it seems to me that we assume that motion (or change in general) must occur within time, since our perception of change is so closely linked to our perception of time. What if it was the other way around? What if time was dependent on change?

I suppose I'm just speculating on a number of questions, which go off the deep end of cosmology and into metaphysics:
- Does anything exist beyond space-time? (if multiple universes have there own space-times, what is "between" them?)
- What is the nature of "existence"?
- What is the nature of "nonexistence"?
- Can the "nonexistent" become "existent" or vice versa? (Is space-time created or destroyed?)
- Is change dependent on time?

I admit, a lot of my views on this stuff come from my understanding of the Kemetic view of the universe, especially the bits about the relationship between existence and non-existence.

[EclecticWheel]

Though presumably with their past and future in the same relative orientation. I wonder, people have theorized up to a dozen higher spatial dimensions, is anyone discussing higher temporal dimensions?

My point is that they perceived the seeming flow of time differently.  We don't always necessarily experience it the same way, as you said.

We would know that it is something in particular, even if we didn't know what. But I don't think the future is anything in particular.

Whatever the limitations of the scientific method, it's not fair to presume the bias of scientists and then criticize a theory based on that presumption.  The theory could be flawed, that's just not a good way to criticize it.  Scientists have to attempt to disprove their theories all the time, that's part of the job.  That doesn't strike me as appealing to someone who is very attached to certainty.

So, space-time is neither created nor destroyed?

Possibly not although relative to our position within space-time we could say its beginning was the Big Bang.


 

I'm kind of riffing on the article you linked to in the other thread, where it talks about tensed and tenseless time. About tensed time it said:

"If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not."

And I thought, something can move with respect to itself if it's growing. (Clearly I'm coming down on the side of tensed time here, where you seem to support tenseless time).

True, I can't quite grasp what it means to say "time is growing," any more than I can really imagine an entity that behaves like both a wave and a particle. I'll go with J.B.S. Haldane on this: "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose".

Considering this further, it seems to me that we assume that motion (or change in general) must occur within time, since our perception of change is so closely linked to our perception of time. What if it was the other way around? What if time was dependent on change?

I suppose I'm just speculating on a number of questions, which go off the deep end of cosmology and into metaphysics:
- Does anything exist beyond space-time? (if multiple universes have there own space-times, what is "between" them?)
- What is the nature of "existence"?
- What is the nature of "nonexistence"?
- Can the "nonexistent" become "existent" or vice versa? (Is space-time created or destroyed?)
- Is change dependent on time?

I admit, a lot of my views on this stuff come from my understanding of the Kemetic view of the universe, especially the bits about the relationship between existence and non-existence.

 
If the future is growing or not yet real then you don't have a block universe.  A block universe contains all time including the future.

I don't know the answers to your other questions.  I'm mainly just exploring ideas in this thread.  I do think change, at least what we perceive as change, is dependent on time and that time and motion are related.

I don't believe in the concept of non-existence.  "Nothing" is a concept we invented to describe what it would be like if reality didn't exist which is not the case.

I am not sure if causality is real or an illusion, either, but on the quantum realm I have read that particles are governed by probability.  Ultimately we are composed of those particles, so perhaps on the macroscopic realm when we are looking at so many particles we see apparent causality because most particles are taking the most probable course.  But some particles could be doing something else.  When you're just looking at one electron it might do something really weird.  I don't know for sure.

[RandallS]

About tensed time it said:

"If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not."

The problem I have with this is that is treats the time dimension very differently from the three space dimensions. It assumes that some external (to the universe) reference is needed for time to be measured, but does not seem to feel one is needed for the three spacial dimensions to be measured. To that I ask, "Why?"

[EclecticWheel]

The problem I have with this is that is treats the time dimension very differently from the three space dimensions. It assumes that some external (to the universe) reference is needed for time to be measured, but does not seem to feel one is needed for the three spacial dimensions to be measured. To that I ask, "Why?"

 

Well, I don't know that time cannot be measured.  For instance, distance is a spacio-temporal location relative to another.  The same can be said of time.  This is what separates past and future.  But consider a river: if I am in a boat in a river traveling at 10 mph I am still relative to the flow of the river, but moving relative to land.  If I were on the land, I am still relative to land, but the river is moving.  Time could be measured in terms of distance, but to be measured we need a point of comparison, as with distance (space).  If we are viewing the whole universe, we might still measure time somehow, but how could we measure the speed of its flow?  For example, speed=distance traveled/time traveled.  Again, I could measure the distance of time if I'm comparing two locations relative to another, but the measurement of speed depends on an object being within time.  So how could I even measure the "speed" of the "flow" of time?

[RandallS]

Well, I don't know that time cannot be measured.  For instance, distance is a spacio-temporal location relative to another.  The same can be said of time.  This is what separates past and future.  But consider a river: if I am in a boat in a river traveling at 10 mph I am still relative to the flow of the river, but moving relative to land.  If I were on the land, I am still relative to land, but the river is moving.  Time could be measured in terms of distance, but to be measured we need a point of comparison, as with distance (space).

Everything is relative to everything else -- the Special Relativity shows there is no master frame of reference that everything else is measured against. There is no preferred frame of reference for spacetime. In your river analogy, for example, you are making the land the preferred/master frame of reference. Spacetime does not actually work that way. There is no master frame of reference -- and not just for time, but for the three spacial dimensions as well. (BTW, a "frame of reference" is simply a selection of what constitutes a stationary object.)

[EclecticWheel]

Everything is relative to everything else -- the Special Relativity shows there is no master frame of reference that everything else is measured against. There is no preferred frame of reference for spacetime. In your river analogy, for example, you are making the land the preferred/master frame of reference. Spacetime does not actually work that way. There is no master frame of reference -- and not just for time, but for the three spacial dimensions as well. (BTW, a "frame of reference" is simply a selection of what constitutes a stationary object.)

That's kind of what I'm getting at.  Once we step outside of it there is nothing against which to measure the perceived flow.

[Sefiru]

That's kind of what I'm getting at.  Once we step outside of it there is nothing against which to measure the perceived flow.

Well, just because there isn't an absolute reference point for the spatial dimensions, we don't say that motion is an illusion. So why would lacking an absolute temporal reference point make the flow of time an illusion?