The significance of this is that probabilties are an admission that we have multiple outcomes for no apparent cause. — Gary Enfield
The question we should ask is - what does this apparent lack of cause represent? — Gary Enfield
Now do not get me wrong - the use of probabilities in these circumstances applies the best tool that we have available, but by failing to provide an true single outcome, this type of mathematics becomes a description rather than an explanation. — Gary Enfield
The question we should ask is - what does this apparent lack of cause represent? — Gary Enfield
Is it just a hidden cause - ie. a factor within Matter/Energy that we have yet to discover?
Could it be factors that lie outside the realm of our physical Matter/Energy - ie. a different type of stuff that could interact with it to preserve causality?
Or could it be that there is true randomness and spontaneity in the Universe? — Gary Enfield
Now do not get me wrong - the use of probabilities in these circumstances applies the best tool that we have available, but by failing to provide an true single outcome, this type of mathematics becomes a description rather than an explanation. — Gary Enfield
Quantum mechanics *is* backwards deterministic, that is: the cause of a measurement is fully determined by the outcome. It's the other way round that's problematic: the effect is not predictable. — Kenosha Kid
I was beginning to get worried that this subject, which is a fundamental underpinning to most philosophical debates, would not be taken seriously. — Gary Enfield
The Laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated through the use of traditional mathematics that provide only one specific outcome for any precise starting point/cause. — Gary Enfield
Yet in recent years younger scientists have tried to argue that true randomness does exist in the world due to the findings of Quantum Mechanics. — Gary Enfield
Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed? — javra
Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed?
If (A) - if the effect ontologically determines its cause - by what means can the notions of cause and effect retain their cogency? — javra
Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed? — javra
Thanks for your well considered responses. — Gary Enfield
“Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.” — counterpunch
I’m not sure what that means. What do you regard as ‘the causal focus’? — Gary Enfield
Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. That may include both ontological and epistemic determination. — litewave
You might have been better served pointing me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser - something I've been acquainted with almost since the time of the first experiment. As it is, the wiki article is a shorter read than the thread you've linked to and, it seems to me after skimming the thread, more to the point here addressed. — javra
Seeing how QM is a posteriori, I find that referencing QM does not address the a priori issue of causality I've previously asked about. — javra
Causality pertains universally, but quantum objects are so small - they are only partially effected. — counterpunch
Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. — litewave
In reality there are plenty of probabilistic relationships and equations in physics, chemistry and other sciences. — SophistiCat
Even if the generality were correct, I don't see how you could partially affect causality, even at the sub-atomic level. — Gary Enfield
That is why the loophole free Bell Test experiments were so important. — Gary Enfield
Looking back in time, there could be many ways to achieve the result "2" but only one will be correct. — Gary Enfield
Its a very unique way of defining both effects and causes as "states of the world". A billiard ball's motion as cause for another billiard ball's motion as effect is not "a state of the world at time t" unless one equates the billiard ball's motion at time t to the state of the world at time t - which we don't do in practice. — javra
But more to the point, to logically derive a cause is to epistemically determine what the cause was. To be clear about what you're saying, are you by the underlined sentence affirming that logically deriving what a particular cause was is - or at least can be - what determines (sets the limits or boundaries of) the given cause's occurrence ontologically? — javra
I don't deny this, and the use of probabilities in applied science is well known even in schools. They cover scenarios where events happen in uncontrolled conditions, but they still use Laws which I understood to be formulated on a deterministic basis.... which is why the senior scientists that I have heard lecturing default to a deterministic viewpoint, even if they acknowledge the experimental results show multiple outcomes for the factors they are monitoring. — Gary Enfield
You asked me about my response to Gary's OP. Whatever you might have been discussing beforehand or since is irrelevant to that. It's not all about you, dude :rofl: — Kenosha Kid
Well, dude, I asked you about what on Earth your statement of backwards determinacy was supposed to mean in terms of causation. Making my two posts to you mostly about you. The vacuousness of you sending me to read your entire thread on QM as a followup reply seems to be lost on you, righteous one. But you’re not one to be bothered with explaining your extraordinary statements on a philosophy forum; in this case, that of quantum causes being fully determined by their effects; fine, got it. — javra
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.