Causality and Determinism
Causality and Determinism
Hi,
This is my first topic for the forum. I have recently joined.
My background is physics, and one of my passions is philosophy.
I want to open a discussion on causality (C) and determinism (D). I
After long thinking about the relations between the two C and D; at first, they look the same from common sense definition, but they are not.
Determinism defines a system where the output is known from the initial conditions we insert, 100%. Does input precede output? We cannot say that
until we have certainty of the system.
Causality tells us that the cause precedes effect but does not say anything about the system's output. Is cause the input and effect the output of the system ?!
Can D be a function of C; D(C)?
or
Can C be a function of D; C(D)?
In some way, D defines C, but also C is implicit in D. Or C defines D, but also D is implicit in C?!
Am I misinterpreting the definitions or is there something to dig into here to deeply understand the nature of causality and determinism?
Florian
This is my first topic for the forum. I have recently joined.
My background is physics, and one of my passions is philosophy.
I want to open a discussion on causality (C) and determinism (D). I
After long thinking about the relations between the two C and D; at first, they look the same from common sense definition, but they are not.
Determinism defines a system where the output is known from the initial conditions we insert, 100%. Does input precede output? We cannot say that
until we have certainty of the system.
Causality tells us that the cause precedes effect but does not say anything about the system's output. Is cause the input and effect the output of the system ?!
Can D be a function of C; D(C)?
or
Can C be a function of D; C(D)?
In some way, D defines C, but also C is implicit in D. Or C defines D, but also D is implicit in C?!
Am I misinterpreting the definitions or is there something to dig into here to deeply understand the nature of causality and determinism?
Florian
Re: Causality and Determinism
How would 'we' KNOW if 'you' are misinterpreting the 'defintions' or not, if 'you' do NOT provide the 'definitions', which you are "using" here?fmillo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:46 am Hi,
This is my first topic for the forum. I have recently joined.
My background is physics, and one of my passions is philosophy.
I want to open a discussion on causality (C) and determinism (D). I
After long thinking about the relations between the two C and D; at first, they look the same from common sense definition, but they are not.
Determinism defines a system where the output is known from the initial conditions we insert, 100%. Does input precede output? We cannot say that
until we have certainty of the system.
Causality tells us that the cause precedes effect but does not say anything about the system's output. Is cause the input and effect the output of the system ?!
Can D be a function of C; D(C)?
or
Can C be a function of D; C(D)?
In some way, D defines C, but also C is implicit in D. Or C defines D, but also D is implicit in C?!
Am I misinterpreting the definitions or is there something to dig into here to deeply understand the nature of causality and determinism?
Florian
At the moment those 'definitions' are existing within that head ONLY.
Re: Causality and Determinism
Causation is implicit in determinism.
However, the converse is not true.
That is, a causal event is not necessarily deterministic.
That is, a causal event may occur that could not be determined, not even in theory.
There is often confusion between indeterminism and randomness.
But indeterminability does not mean real randomness at all.
In fact, it can only be due to the impossibility of determining the effect.
However, there is always the cause.
Authentic randomness, on the other hand, has no cause other than breaking into the cosmos of chaos.
However, the converse is not true.
That is, a causal event is not necessarily deterministic.
That is, a causal event may occur that could not be determined, not even in theory.
There is often confusion between indeterminism and randomness.
But indeterminability does not mean real randomness at all.
In fact, it can only be due to the impossibility of determining the effect.
However, there is always the cause.
Authentic randomness, on the other hand, has no cause other than breaking into the cosmos of chaos.
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Causality and Determinism
Causality is the relation between causes and effects.fmillo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:46 am Hi,
This is my first topic for the forum. I have recently joined.
My background is physics, and one of my passions is philosophy.
I want to open a discussion on causality (C) and determinism (D). I
After long thinking about the relations between the two C and D; at first, they look the same from common sense definition, but they are not.
Determinism defines a system where the output is known from the initial conditions we insert, 100%. Does input precede output? We cannot say that
until we have certainty of the system.
Causality tells us that the cause precedes effect but does not say anything about the system's output. Is cause the input and effect the output of the system ?!
Can D be a function of C; D(C)?
or
Can C be a function of D; C(D)?
In some way, D defines C, but also C is implicit in D. Or C defines D, but also D is implicit in C?!
Am I misinterpreting the definitions or is there something to dig into here to deeply understand the nature of causality and determinism?
Florian
Determinism is an ontological claim about causality, what it is, that nothing else is involved in resulting outputs.
Though I may have misunderstood the question/issue.
D is a philosophical explanation/description of C is (and other things). Other beliefs could posit C differently. Or even say there is no C. Like in a block universe.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Causality and Determinism
Your definition of determinism is correct. Causation is equal to determinism when there is only one available option. A deterministic system cannot evolve further when there are equally like options though. That is the duty of the mind to overcome such a conflict and choose one option by causing it.fmillo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:46 am Hi,
This is my first topic for the forum. I have recently joined.
My background is physics, and one of my passions is philosophy.
I want to open a discussion on causality (C) and determinism (D). I
After long thinking about the relations between the two C and D; at first, they look the same from common sense definition, but they are not.
Determinism defines a system where the output is known from the initial conditions we insert, 100%. Does input precede output? We cannot say that
until we have certainty of the system.
Causality tells us that the cause precedes effect but does not say anything about the system's output. Is cause the input and effect the output of the system ?!
Can D be a function of C; D(C)?
or
Can C be a function of D; C(D)?
In some way, D defines C, but also C is implicit in D. Or C defines D, but also D is implicit in C?!
Am I misinterpreting the definitions or is there something to dig into here to deeply understand the nature of causality and determinism?
Florian
Re: Causality and Determinism
Were you MEANT to say; that SOME causal events may occur, which WERE or COULD NOT be determined?
Or, do you REALLY MEAN; that ALL causal events may occur, which COULD NOT be determined, OR, if you MEAN that there is A causal event that MAY occur, that COULD NOT be determined, THEN, which causal event is THAT, which you are referring to here?
There was OFTEN a LOT of confusion ABOUT MANY things, among 'you', adult human beings, hiterto when this was being written.
Is there, REALLY, ALWAYS 'the cause'?
If yes, then the Universe is eternal.
But if no, then the Universe MAY have BEGUN.
Is absolutely ANY one able to provide a list of 'effects' that exist WITHOUT a 'cause'? (Even if that 'list' is of just one).
We will have to WAIT and SEE.
Will you PROVIDE an example of?
Re: Causality and Determinism
If so, then 'determinism' only came into Existence AFTER 'we' did. Now all 'you' have to do is EXPLAIN who or what the 'we' IS, EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:45 pmYour definition of determinism is correct.fmillo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:46 am Hi,
This is my first topic for the forum. I have recently joined.
My background is physics, and one of my passions is philosophy.
I want to open a discussion on causality (C) and determinism (D). I
After long thinking about the relations between the two C and D; at first, they look the same from common sense definition, but they are not.
Determinism defines a system where the output is known from the initial conditions we insert, 100%. Does input precede output? We cannot say that
until we have certainty of the system.
Causality tells us that the cause precedes effect but does not say anything about the system's output. Is cause the input and effect the output of the system ?!
Can D be a function of C; D(C)?
or
Can C be a function of D; C(D)?
In some way, D defines C, but also C is implicit in D. Or C defines D, but also D is implicit in C?!
Am I misinterpreting the definitions or is there something to dig into here to deeply understand the nature of causality and determinism?
Florian
Is this BEFORE or AFTER 'we' came into Existence?
The Universe seemed to evolve further, PERFECTLY. That was; UNTIL the 'we' came into Existence, anyway.
Are you saying or suggesting then that so-called "equally like options' did NOT exist, well at least UNTIL the 'we' came along?
And, what does "equally like options" even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
What happens when there is NO 'mind'?
And, if you want to CLAIM that there has ALWAYS been A 'mind' or at least TWO 'minds', then WHO or WHAT OWNED that 'mind' or those 'minds', EXACTLY?
Re: Causality and Determinism
Say that we have a theory for which a particular universe is an interpretation.
If the theorem of soundness is provable from this theory, then every claim that is predicted by this theory will be true in that universe but also in all the other universes that interpret this theory.
However, the reverse is not necessarily true.
Not all true facts in such universe will necessarily be predictable (provable) from this theory.
In other words, there exist facts in such universe that cannot be explained by the theory. Since causality would be an explanation for such fact, there will be no causality for these facts either.
This is exclusively a feature of the theory at hand.
If a theory contains Robinson's fragment Q of arithmetic theory, then there will be facts in every one of the universes that interpret this theory which are true but not predictable (provable) from this theory.
Furthermore, if a universe is potentially of infinite size (not necessarily of actual infinite size), and its theory can be expressed in first-order logic, then it will always be a multiverse. This is guaranteed by the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem in arithmetic theory.
Causality provides an explanation for a fact while there may very well exist true facts that cannot be explained.
Concerning the physical universe, if a first-order logic theory of the physical universe contains Robinson's fragment Q, then the physical universe necessarily contains fundamentally unpredictable and chaotic facts. The theorem of soundness then guarantees that some facts can be explained by causality but not all.
If the theorem of soundness is provable from this theory, then every claim that is predicted by this theory will be true in that universe but also in all the other universes that interpret this theory.
However, the reverse is not necessarily true.
Not all true facts in such universe will necessarily be predictable (provable) from this theory.
In other words, there exist facts in such universe that cannot be explained by the theory. Since causality would be an explanation for such fact, there will be no causality for these facts either.
This is exclusively a feature of the theory at hand.
If a theory contains Robinson's fragment Q of arithmetic theory, then there will be facts in every one of the universes that interpret this theory which are true but not predictable (provable) from this theory.
Furthermore, if a universe is potentially of infinite size (not necessarily of actual infinite size), and its theory can be expressed in first-order logic, then it will always be a multiverse. This is guaranteed by the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem in arithmetic theory.
Causality provides an explanation for a fact while there may very well exist true facts that cannot be explained.
Concerning the physical universe, if a first-order logic theory of the physical universe contains Robinson's fragment Q, then the physical universe necessarily contains fundamentally unpredictable and chaotic facts. The theorem of soundness then guarantees that some facts can be explained by causality but not all.
Re: Causality and Determinism
If this WAS TRUE, then the 'theory', OBVIOUSLY, would NOT be a 'theory'.godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:06 am Say that we have a theory for which a particular universe is an interpretation.
If the theorem of soundness is provable from this theory, then every claim that is predicted by this theory will be true in that universe but also in all the other universes that interpret this theory.
Are you AWARE that there are MORE than One Universe is just A 'theory', and therefore is, relatively speaking, NOTHING more than just a GUESS or an ASSUMPTION.godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:06 am However, the reverse is not necessarily true.
Not all true facts in such universe will necessarily be predictable (provable) from this theory.
In other words, there exist facts in such universe that cannot be explained by the theory. Since causality would be an explanation for such fact, there will be no causality for these facts either.
This is exclusively a feature of the theory at hand.
If a theory contains Robinson's fragment Q of arithmetic theory, then there will be facts in every one of the universes that interpret this theory which are true but not predictable (provable) from this theory.
Furthermore, if a universe is potentially of infinite size (not necessarily of actual infinite size), and its theory can be expressed in first-order logic, then it will always be a multiverse. This is guaranteed by the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem in arithmetic theory.
WHY do 'you', human beings, NOT just LOOK AT what IS IRREFUTABLY True, like, for example, the Universe IS infinite, spatially, AND, eternal, temporally.
Like, for example?
Like, for example?godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:06 am Concerning the physical universe, if a first-order logic theory of the physical universe contains Robinson's fragment Q, then the physical universe necessarily contains fundamentally unpredictable and chaotic facts. The theorem of soundness then guarantees that some facts can be explained by causality but not all.
Re: Causality and Determinism
An example:Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:25 amLike, for example?godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:06 am Concerning the physical universe, if a first-order logic theory of the physical universe contains Robinson's fragment Q, then the physical universe necessarily contains fundamentally unpredictable and chaotic facts. The theorem of soundness then guarantees that some facts can be explained by causality but not all.
It is certainly true that the hydra will always die, but this fact cannot be explained from the theory that generates the universe in which it happens. The proof rests on the use of transfinite ordinals defined in a connected transcendental universe.Wikipedia on "Paris-Hamilton theorem" wrote: The "Hydra" (named for the mythological multi-headed Hydra of Lerna) is a rooted tree, and a move consists of cutting off one of its "heads" (a branch of the tree), to which the hydra responds by growing a finite number of new heads according to certain rules. Kirby and Paris proved that the Hydra will eventually be killed, regardless of the strategy that Hercules uses to chop off its heads, though this may take a very long time. Just like for Goodstein sequences, Kirby and Paris showed that it cannot be proven in Peano arithmetic alone.
Re: Causality and Determinism
Randomness is nothing more than difficult to predict. It is like everything in the universe caused by previous events. It can be difficult to predict because starting conditions are difficult to measure.bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:24 pm Causation is implicit in determinism.
However, the converse is not true.
That is, a causal event is not necessarily deterministic.
That is, a causal event may occur that could not be determined, not even in theory.
There is often confusion between indeterminism and randomness.
But indeterminability does not mean real randomness at all.
In fact, it can only be due to the impossibility of determining the effect.
However, there is always the cause.
Authentic randomness, on the other hand, has no cause other than breaking into the cosmos of chaos.
Re: Causality and Determinism
This is what we want to believe.
Because authentic randomness is unacceptable to our mind.
Its actual manifestation would mean the eruption of chaos in the cosmos.
However, we cannot entirely deny its reality.
Because randomness is the denial of necessity. And every negation has its raison d'etre in what it denies.
And besides, aren't we here now by pure chance?
Re: Causality and Determinism
You say Authenic.
WHo is the author?
Not really.
Its actual manifestation would mean the eruption of chaos in the cosmos.
Chaos is the direction of energy where all "information" finally gets dissipated in to the heat death of the universe.
Shit from nowhere we can deny.
However, we cannot entirely deny its reality.
Just like I can deny any fantasy you have.
No. Randomness is simply a statement of complexity. Nothing more.
Because randomness is the denial of necessity. And every negation has its raison d'etre in what it denies.
No. completely the reverse.
And besides, aren't we here now by pure chance?
We are the result of a selection process.
Re: Causality and Determinism
There is a lot of literature on this.
Might I suggest you start with this...
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fra ... type=image
Since when 80% of biological literature has been concerned with this, and if not mentioning it.
These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.