GENIUS FORUMS

I am trying to define causality precisely.

As a first shot my definition of causality is the following: Being a closed system is equivalent to causality, i.e. a system which does not interact with anything else, is self determined, and hence its changes are dependent on itself, and is thus causal.

This does not hold true, if the state of the system is not the sole determinant of its future configuration, and other influences are present. In that case on has to include all of these causes to make a larger system, etc.

However if some changes in the system occur, without any reason at all, then the system is not causal. However, this can never be established, that something happens without any reason at all.


One problem is that time enters in the picture implicitly, does this mean that causality cannot be defined independent of time?

Also causality has to be apriori assumed, why cannot things happen without any cause?

I am trying to define causality precisely. ~ maestro

For heaven's sake, why? What is the relevance to your spiritual path? What is the practical application in your daily life?

Carl G wrote:

I am trying to define causality precisely. ~ maestro

For heaven's sake, why? What is the relevance to your spiritual path? What is the practical application in your daily life?

Second the motion :-)

.

Carl G wrote: For heaven's sake, why? What is the relevance to your spiritual path? What is the practical application in your daily life?

Precise definitions are necessary to clear up the perceptual mess, which is the cause of suffering.

Causality is very important, it is the key that unlocks all of the eastern philosophy.

To each his own, I guess. Personally, I could care less about the precise definition. I do like to observe cause and effect, though.

maestro wrote:why cannot things happen without any cause?

Your problem might be that you haven't clearly defined what a 'thing' is.

If you get clearer on what you mean by a thing, then defining causality should be easier for you.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Your problem might be that you haven't clearly defined what a 'thing' is.

Alright let me reformulate, assume two closed universes with identical current state: can it happen that the future states of the universes are non-identical.

If two things are perfectly identical and they have the exact same conditions present, then logically, they'd stay the same, unless a condition changed, but in order for a condition to change, the original conditions couldn't have been the same. Maybe they were the same in a closed system, for instance: a vacuum - something comes along (a scientist) and let's air into one vacuum capsule and not the other. We had two of the same closed environments within a random environment and therefore different conditions acted on the two different closed systems and therefore, one changed while the other did not.

If two thing were perfectly identical then they would be in the same place at the same time, and in fact there would only be one thing.

If they're not in the same place at the same time, they're not really identical.

Kevin Solway wrote:If two thing were perfectly identical then they would be in the same place at the same time, and in fact there would only be one thing.

They could be at the same place at the same time but on different place on another axis.
I know that youre point still stands that they wouldnt be identical but it would be up to you to prove that while occupying the same space and time "later on", they would be any different apart from the difference in position on the extra axis.

Kevin wrote:If two things were perfectly identical then they would be in the same place at the same time, and in fact there would only be one thing.

The Totality?

If they're not in the same place at the same time, they're not really identical.

Two separate water molecules are identical.

TowardsProgress wrote:

Kevin wrote:If two things were perfectly identical then they would be in the same place at the same time, and in fact there would only be one thing.

The Totality?

No, if you see two identical things in the same place and time then you have double vision.

If they're not in the same place at the same time, they're not really identical.

Two separate water molecules are identical.

They share the same molecular structure but they differ. In addition to being located in separate places and times, the subatomic molecules in their atoms will have different states.

What happened to TowardsProgress's reply?

What about a Bose-Einstein condensate?

One problem is that time enters in the picture implicitly, does this mean that causality cannot be defined independent of time?

Time is the perception of change, and causality cannot be defined independant of the perception of change.

Also causality has to be apriori assumed, why cannot things happen without any cause?

What is a 'happening' if it is not a perceived change? What is the state prior to change if not a cause?

I think trying to define causality is a tough endeavor.


I have now a fully logical argument about the absence of any choice (will) whatsoever, which avoids causality.

Consider a system, a change in the system occurs through its internal dynamics or thorough an external agent, by definition a closed system is one, in which any change can only occur through its internal dynamics. In other words the next state of the system is fixed by its previous state.

The universe by definition is a closed system. Therefore all change must occur through internal dynamics. If there is any choice, that implies that the internal dynamics, are not sufficient to determine its next state which is a contradiction. Therefore either the universe is not closed or there is no choice at all for anything.

brad walker wrote:What happened to TowardsProgress's reply?

Did you like it?;) ~ It was deleted along with his username, because he posted a website on his thread which had a sage-look-alike wearing lady's undergarments and some nude chicks... (whatever...)

Anyway, Brad, answer this: is the "thing" within a vacuum capsule considered a thing? (it might very well be considered the exact opposite of a thing, but I guess that depends on how you define a "thing"?) If so, then if we take our current understanding into consideration, one "vacuum" is the exact same thing as another vacuum. Or in the same sense one subatomic particle such as a proton is considered perfectly identical to another proton. Moreover, if such things aren't considered perfectly identical because they're not in the same place, then... how do you argue that? Furthermore, in order for something to be the same as another something it needs the same kind of causes or conditions backing it up, why would that be impossible within such a soup of interconnectedness...

I can accept how two identical things such as two identical twins aren't perfectly identical because they had different causes (or different experiences) acting on them even if they seemed to live within the same environment (they weren't in the same "position", of course).

maestro wrote:Consider a system, a change in the system occurs through its internal dynamics or thorough an external agent, by definition a closed system is one, in which any change can only occur through its internal dynamics. In other words the next state of the system is fixed by its previous state.

A petri dish is an example of a closed system environment within another closed system environment. The act of a scientist (external factor/s) opening up the glass dish and having an influence on the bacteria (or whatever) doesn't make it any less of a closed system environment. I can't think of any such environment (Earth is another one) that doesn't have external influences acting upon it. However, the Totality maybe thought of as a "real" type of closed system, but then again... It's "Infinite" and doesn't exist in time - time being a part of it, within it. Anyhow... we're still dealing with thoughts and models within our heads that are based on the real thing (Earth and things we can sense would be "real" for me, but not, the Totality and its surrounding "mystic").

The universe by definition is a closed system. Therefore all change must occur through internal dynamics. If there is any choice, that implies that the internal dynamics, are not sufficient to determine its next state which is a contradiction. Therefore either the universe is not closed or there is no choice at all for anything.

Well, what created the universe, then? Even the example of a petri dish has external factors, all we know has both external and internal factors acting upon it and those external factors give rise to the internal ones, ...and so on (ex. the spaceship in the movie "Armageddon" traveled outside of its closed environment and influenced the external one). We can correctly assume that all internal environments were created by an external environment (it's infinity!) and both sorta play off each other.

Btw, maestro, how does the universe being not-closed affect whether or not we have choice? In all fairness, I agree that we have the illusion of choice... But the universe being closed or not doesn't seem to make a difference for me - In fact, the universe being a closed-system seems irrational.

2ndBtw, does this make sense: an infinity within an infinity <- that would make sense, but then there'd have to be different natures of infinity (which there are...).

Kevin,

If two thing were perfectly identical then they would be in the same place at the same time, and in fact there would only be one thing.

If they're not in the same place at the same time, they're not really identical.

I once read a theory in physics that introduced the possibility of an infinite number of parallel universes, but a small minuscule number of those universes could be considered twin universes, and so every event is unfolding exactly the same as another simultaneously, so my question is how can you be certain that such an occurrence is impossible?

And In affect, if such an occurrence was possible, then you could have two perfectly identical universes unfolding the same, and therefore every causal event would match up perfectly…so two things could be identical, but occur in different places in space/time. - if the theory is correct.