Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Causal Paradoxes

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Causal Paradoxes

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

All these causal paradoxes that arise from quantum mechanics, actuality/reality, consciousness, dynamic systems, determinism, stochastic processes etc, well I'm getting a headache.

I'm starting to see that if I want to start thinking deeper into such concepts, I would need to change how I think about the systems themselves. So my question is this.

How does one think differently about a system, that is, without causality.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;73787 wrote:

All these causal paradoxes that arise from quantum mechanics, actuality/reality, consciousness, dynamic systems, determinism, stochastic processes etc, well I'm getting a headache.

I'm starting to see that if I want to start thinking deeper into such concepts, I would need to change how I think about the systems themselves. So my question is this.

How does one think differently about a system, that is, without causality.

And what would cause you to do so? Don't forget that.

@kennethamy,

Haha, very funny. Not the point.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;73787 wrote:

How does one think differently about a system, that is, without causality.

... holistically ... that is, if there is only "the system", then there can be no one thing that can enter into a causal relationship with some other thing ... but this is a trivial solution Wink

Have you tried mutual causality? (e.g., feedback) ... how 'bout a process-oriented metaphysics? (where individual processes can actually overlap in terms of the energy/matter that they currently occupy) ... ... ...

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;73787 wrote:

All these causal paradoxes that arise from quantum mechanics, actuality/reality, consciousness, dynamic systems, determinism, stochastic processes etc, well I'm getting a headache.

I'm starting to see that if I want to start thinking deeper into such concepts, I would need to change how I think about the systems themselves. So my question is this.

How does one think differently about a system, that is, without causality.

Hi,

The way I approached the subject was with an open mind. That means, I had to be willing to let go my most cherished ideas so that new ones can enter. It is not easy, since it is ideas that constitute who we are and to change that is, I feel, very difficult. It is like being someone different. However, I keep in mind Bohr who said:

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
Niels Bohr

So, the question you must ask yourself, I believe, are you open to crazy ideas. In regard to quantum, the spookiness and mysteries that haunt it. :detective:
Rich

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;73787 wrote:

How does one think differently about a system, that is, without causality.

For example, in entanglement when one entangled particle is whisked away to the other side of the universe leaving you with the other entangled particle, don't think of there being two separated particles. In another thread we were discussing an unmeasured particle has no definite properties. With particles that have been produced under the process of entanglement, the particles undefined properties become correlated. Without, for example, the definite property of location, a pair of unmeasured entangled particles do not have to comply with the concept of separation, as separation requires each particle to have a definite position.

I think of it that way, or if the example is truly bizarre, such as quantum erasers, backward causality etc there is a need for causality in the concept of space-time. If you can remove the need for this concept then causality is not needed. Whatever is occurring in these examples could be occurring outside our space-time, perhaps via other, hidden (compacted) dimensions, giving rise to strange behaviour becuase we see part of a total behaviour. I do not know if it is true, but this is how I think of these things.

@validity,

Could it be that entanglement is a medium between actuality and reality? Entanglement is a fuzzy mixing sort of result of being so relatively intrinsic to our normal causation, that is, the typical environment around us.

To reply to your second point, a higher topological dimension could be something looked for when there appears to be non-locality, or even non-euclidean paths?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;74448 wrote:

Could it be that entanglement is a medium between actuality and reality? Entanglement is a fuzzy mixing sort of result of being so relatively intrinsic to our normal causation, that is, the typical environment around us.

To reply to your second point, a higher topological dimension could be something looked for when there appears to be non-locality, or even non-euclidean paths?

Once you get into interpretations, all hell breaks lose. There are so many that have been formalized and written, and who knows how many exist in unwritten form, in the minds of those who contemplate it.

In, what I feel, is a quite torturous attempt to maintain the a concept of a mind-independent reality, Bernard d'Espagnatwrites in his book Physics and Philosophy:

"As we see, my conception finally is that of a "Real" that is structured, concerning which I do not rule out the possibility that poetry, art, and mysticism might yield rare and precious glimpses, but that still us, for us, human beings, basically nonconceptualizable." ...

"We are left with the ... alternative, which is to grant that, there is no absurdity in evoking the idea of a "something" that we cannot conceptualize. To this it may be added that. while the idea that we can get "glimpses" on what human beings cannot conceptualize may seem questionable to many, it gives no shock to the poets. My own conjecture is that, on this point, poets are in the right."

So, basically, in order to hold onto the notion of a mind independent reality, d'Espagnat dismisses the reality that we all know and love as an empirical reality and the Real stuff is safely tucked behind it, unknowable by humans, but glimpses of which might be seen by poets and mystics.

He could be closer to understanding life than I am, but I am more comfortable with my own mind-dependent view of the Universe that needs no such separation.

Rich

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;74448 wrote:

Could it be that entanglement is a medium between actuality and reality? Entanglement is a fuzzy mixing sort of result of being so relatively intrinsic to our normal causation, that is, the typical environment around us.

"wave function collapse is the medium between actuality and reality" would be a more generalised phrase.

Holiday20310401;74448 wrote:

To reply to your second point, a higher topological dimension could be something looked for when there appears to be non-locality, or even non-euclidean paths?

For sure. When the LHC gets up and running there are attempts to do that very thing ATLAS

Relating your post of dimensions into this one would develop into an interesting question. Are these hidden dimensions there before they are looked for? If energy warps space-time does giving extra energy to particles give them the means to transverse these dimensions eg building a bridge or extra energy warps the local space-time in a specific way of creating a new dimension? That is, once again, if saying something exists before it is looked for has any relevance Smile

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Causal Paradoxes

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Causal Paradoxes

Quick Links

My Account

able2know