On a theoretical level sure. But on the practical level no. We don't calculate as if the behaviour of individual particles mattered. We deal with global level variables - pressure, temperature, etc. which we claim/assume to arise from the behaviour of the particles. That's why my initial answer was yes and no. I didn't say I disagree with what you're saying. What you're saying isn't wrong, just not the full story.Obviously they cannot. But the behavior of the gas is understood to be the result of the interactions of the particles that constitute it. — John
That's because you, like other physicists, are using muddled up notions of causality. I've explained for example, how radioactive decay, a phenomenon widely taken to be uncaused in physics is actually caused, and can be explained and understood perfectly by Aristotle's fourfold causality metaphysics. — Agustino
It all depends on what you mean by 'random' I suppose. From Wikipedia:
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, — John
Well, all that the free-will theorem proves, if anything, is that quantum mechanics is indeterministic. That isn't to say that it is acausal. Science views indeterminism with something being uncaused, but this isn't true at all. With regard to the spin-1 boson. Taking QFT as true, the material cause is the field, the formal cause is the boson, the efficient cause is whatever gave energy to the field to move into the higher state and produce the boson, and the final cause is whatever interaction the boson has (which may indeed be an indeterminate interaction - because it is in the nature of the boson to interact, even randomly if you want, with other particles).Any spin-1 boson will suffice. For details, consult the Free Will Theorem. — tom
Yeeeees >:O just like at any point I may become Bishop of Rome!Nothing about this relationship is necessarily to the world though. At any point, gas might behave differently or cease to exist at all. The gas laws are not a constraint on the world, but rather than expression of the world as we've found it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, they are necessary. The world couldn't be otherwise. This world couldn't. Maybe some other world could.The gas laws are not a constraint on the world, but rather than expression of the world as we've found it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Look to what mumbo-jumbo crazy assumptions you have to resort to just because you're worried about the consequences of final causality with regards to God. You have to accept that the laws governing this universe could entirely change tomorrow, and be completely different! Gravity could start repelling us from the Earth rather than attracting us! So crazy...As such, there is no "final cause." Gas that behaves to the gas model laws is not necessary at all. It's only so when gas behaves in that way. No doubt gas that is modelled by the gas laws necessarily behaves in that way, but that is an expression, an instance of being, rather than a cause. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Maybe... I'm reluctant to say it is metaphysical.Second law of thermodynamics is partly metaphysical. The arrow of time isn't just a distinction of one state of existence from another, but a identification of a logical difference between the past and future. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Practically it seems impossible.The perpetual motion machine — TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, all that the free-will theorem proves, if anything, is that quantum mechanics is indeterministic. That isn't to say that it is acausal. Science views indeterminism with something being uncaused, but this isn't true at all. With regard to the spin-1 boson. Taking QFT as true, the material cause is the field, the formal cause is the boson, the efficient cause is whatever gave energy to the field to move into the higher state and produce the boson, and the final cause is whatever interaction the boson has (which may indeed be an indeterminate interaction - because it is in the nature of the boson to interact, even randomly if you want, with other particles). — Agustino
You don't understand what uncaused means. Uncaused means that there is no particle there even. If there is a particle there, then that particle has a certain nature, a certain way of behaving. That way of behaving may be indeterministic in nature. It may be random, it may be spontaneous. All that doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It means there is a cause - that cause is the nature of the particle. It's in the nature of the particle to move, for example, spontaneously. It's in its nature - it's what it means to be that kind of particle.Nope, the response of the particle is un-caused — tom
You don't understand what uncaused means. Uncaused means that there is no particle there even. If there is a particle there, then that particle has a certain nature, a certain way of behaving. That way of behaving may be indeterministic in nature. It may be random, it may be spontaneous. All that doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It means there is a cause - that cause is the nature of the particle. — Agustino
No, they are necessary. The world couldn't be otherwise. This world couldn't. Maybe some other world could. — Agustino
You have to accept that the laws governing this universe could entirely change tomorrow, and be completely different! Gravity could start repelling us from the Earth rather than attracting us! So crazy... — Agustino
Yeah the particle behaves spontaneously. So what? That doesn't mean that it's uncaused. It is caused, because something, namely a field, produces that particle, for once, and secondly because that particle has a certain nature, a nature which causes it to be spontaneous. In other words, doesn't its nature cause its free response? Its nature is such that it has a free response. Nothing uncaused about that. So no - sorry to burst your bubble. There's nothing uncaused about indeterminism :DNope, the response of the particle - more precisely the Reality in the proximity of the particle - is not a function of the past. The particle is free - nothing causes, or can possibly cause its response. All loopholes are closed. — tom
I was using it in the ordinary sense as it is used in that Wikipedia article. If you are doubtful about what sense a term is being used in you can always ask, instead of assuming it is being used in some other sense you intend; and without giving any explanation of your own usage. — John
Practically it seems impossible. — Agustino
Yeah the particle behaves spontaneously. So what? That doesn't mean that it's uncaused. It is caused, because something, namely a field, produces that particle, for once, and secondly because that particle has a certain nature, a nature which causes it to be spontaneous. In other words, doesn't its nature cause its free response? Its nature is such that it has a free response. Nothing uncaused about that. So no - sorry to burst your bubble. There's nothing uncaused about indeterminism :D — Agustino
If you can precisely model it in terms of mathematics or mechanistic causal process then you have something that is a matter for science. Anything that cannot be so modeled falls outside its ambit. — John
CAUSATION is entirely outside the realm of science. Even immediate causation can only be stated in terms of "we see this, and then we see that. it seems to always happen in this order." — taylordonbarrett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.