Causality, the law of cause and effect

In summary: They are just unknown to us. In the same way, the laws of nature may be deterministic, but our limited knowledge and understanding of them may lead us to see them as probabilistic or indeterministic.In summary, the concept of causality has been the dominant way of understanding reality. However, with the rise of modern physics and quantum mechanics, this view has been challenged. While it may apply to the macroscopic world, it is difficult to prove in the subatomic world. Both determinism and indeterminism are unprovable assertions, and our current models and experiments can only provide probabilities and predictions. Yet
  • #1
heusdens
1,738
0
Causality

Causality, the law of cause and effect, is the most general law used to describe the (physical) reality. The common conviction was that causality holds everywhere, at all time and in all cases.

Since modern physcics and quantum mecahnics, this concept of reality has been altered in a fundamental way, although it only applies to the sub atomic world.

The fundamental question is however, if we can really proof that an underlying material reality, not only just shows up to be acausal and indeterministic due to the way we observe it (which also means interference with the thing we want to observe) but can proof also that the material reality in nature is acausal and indeterministic.

My argument would be that there is no experiment that can be performed, that could ever proof that. We only "proof" by way of our mathematical and physics models of reality, that the approach of indeterminism and probability, makes sense for practical purposes.

So, this would mean we would not all by all have to give up the idea that nature is deterministic and causal everywhere and at all time.

But same as in some macroscopic events, which we also think of as deterministic in nature, we will in all practical cases deal with it in a probabilistic and indeterministic way. Like for instance weather forecast, has to deal with the fact that the weather system is so complex, that we can only use indeterministic and probabilistic models. But this does not claim that the airmolecules itself would not act deterministic and causal.

Although my argument is only a point from philosophical perspective, and would not change the way we deal with it in experiment, I think that the current argument that a wave function itself is indeterministic in nature, is an unprovable assertion. In fact same unprovable as the opposite, that this wave function is deterministic.
The point is of course that there is no experiment that could show the difference. This means that both interpretations are both unprovable.

My argument for still holding on to causality in all these cases, as a general outlook and perspective on reality, is because we have no reason to assume, and neither can proof, that the material reality at the quantum level is with respect to causality in any way different as the macroscopic reality.

But the dominating viewpoint in physics seems to be, to interpret quantum events as indeterministic and acausal in nature.

Is that justified?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I believe that it might be best to make a slight distinction in the wording, quantum events are not indeterministic, or acausal, they instead do rely on what happened before, but what happened before can only influence the probabilities of what is about to happen.

For instance, let's say a gamma ray leaves a radioactive isotope with a specific amount of energy, such that it has a 50% chance of pentrating a lead wall that is a meter from it. Now if we add more energy to that gamma ray, it increases the probability that the gamma ray can pentatrate the lead wall. Although the gamma ray could still act in an acausal manner by not penetrating the wall, it is more likely to act in a causal manner and penetrate the wall. Thus in the quantum world, the cause does not ensure the effect, but it makes the effect more likely.

Now, if millions of gamma rays left this radioactive isotope and headed towards the wall and we added energy to all of them so that they had a 75% chance of penetrating the wall, we would see a classic cause and effect situation set up as the probabilities ballance out. You would now see the cause and effect situation where adding energy to increase the liklihood that the rays would penetrate and thus more did. So microworld indeterminancy is determinant in the larger world.
 
  • #3
Lyuokdea:

Thanks for the response.

Do you conceive of it that a certain threshold value must be reached, before effects come visible?

And aa what was my main question, do you conceive that nature at all levels still is strictly deterministc and causal, and that no phenomena in fact proofs otherwise?

This in itself does not contradict the fact that there are threshold values. For instance, a wind consists of moving molecules, and when strong enough, can cause for instance the lifting of a body.
But this requires a certain magnitude of the force of the wind, before this effect is observable.
 
  • #4
Causation as a Folk Science

Causation as a Folk Science

Here is an articale that argues exactly against the common point of view of causality.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001214/" [Broken]

And here is more related stuff on http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/determinism-indeterminism.html" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
I can't see why nature can't be deterministic and probabilistic at the same time.

If you compare a sub-atomic event to the roll of a dice. When you make a measurement, you throw the dice. That doesn't mean that the dice isn't deterministic while it's being rolled.
 
  • #6
i think it is hard for us humans to think that our world isn't detreministic because we ourselves determinstic predetermined, and thus can't comprehend indeterminism.
 
  • #7
Isn't the alternative unthinkable? If it were indeterministic how can there then be any laws of nature at all, or anything else for that matter. It would be too weird if nature was only "slightly deterministic" or "deterministic enough to create the universe". :)
 
  • #8
Our uncertainty and Nature's determinism.

My current personal opinion is that nature is deterministic, but that there are just too many variables in an event for us to track down and determine their physical consequences.

For example, imagine a set of dice being tossed on a flat surface. There are many variables that will determine the outcome of the toss such as the orientation of the dice before toss, gravitational pull, the manner in which they are tossed, etc. We do not know what all the variables are, so we just know a probability of how they will affect the outcome. The variables, of course, affect the outcome in a way based on their different properties.

Just because we don't know what the variables are does not mean that they don't exist.

My main point is that Nature is not bound by the Uncertainty Principle, but we are.
God does not play dice.- Albert Einstein
 
Last edited:
  • #9
reply

So, isn't anybody going to reply.
 
  • #10
Your wrong...

I think it's up in the air at this point. Modern physics has strayed so far from the classical standpoint that we only can theorize about the true nature of reality. I prefer a unifying viewpoint, so I believe the universe is interconnected (no ftl hidden variables; Bell's Theorem). As to what all the implications of that are, I don't know. Quantum events appear to be truly random, that is to say, probablilistic, but I still think macro events are determined.
 
  • #11
I'm fond of the hypothesis that "position" & "momentum" are the wrong way to interpret the universe; they are only approximations. They work great on large scales, but not on small scales, and we've inserted indeterminacy into our theories in an attempt to preserve the position/momentum view.
 
  • #12
Greetings !

heusdens, what's with this thread ?

I mean no offense, but this sounds like one of those
ridiculous no evidence for God/lack of God threads.
It's simple really: "If it walk like a duck...".

You say that: "...we have no reason to assume, and
neither can proof, that the material reality at the
quantum level is with respect to causality in any way
different as the macroscopic reality."

Well, first of all it's just wrong. If a photon from
a distant quasar or supernova splits its WF on its
way to Earth due to some space-time distortion then
repeating the double slit experiment without a detector
will give us an interference pattern, but adding a detector
aimed at one of the possible directions will allow us to
collapse the WF of a photon and decide which path it took
"just now" despite the fact that it existed before our Sun
was even formed.

Second, what exactly do you mean when you talk about proof ?
I can invalidate ANY proof to ANYTHING you could ever tell
me if I wish to, because there's apparently no absolute proof.
But, there are certain levels of proof which we consider
acceptable.

For example, if we can collapse a WF in the past or at
different locations instantly (for us) then we either have
to assume that causality is wrong or that we are dealing
with something that can communicate instantly between any
incredibly "distant" space-time coordinates.

This evidence or any other for that matter can never make
us absolutely certain of something but it can certainly
show us what's more and what is less likely, occasionaly,
like in this case, even if that conclusion is in violation
of our basic premises about the Universe.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I'm fond of the hypothesis that "position" & "momentum" are the wrong way to interpret the universe; they are only approximations. They work great on large scales, but not on small scales, and we've inserted indeterminacy into our theories in an attempt to preserve the position/momentum view.

I don't see why indeterminacy couldn't remain, even in the absence of a "position/momentum" view.

However, I do see how Relativity (completely independent of quantum indeterminacy) would lose much of it's creditability (and eventually be completely replaced) if it could be proven that position and momentum don't really exist.

I think you should start a thread about this idea, Hurkyl.
 

What is causality?

Causality is the concept that every event has a cause or multiple causes. It is the principle that states that every effect has a specific and identifiable cause or set of causes.

How does causality relate to the law of cause and effect?

The law of cause and effect is a fundamental principle of causality. It states that every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. This means that for every event or action, there is a reason or cause behind it.

What is the difference between causality and correlation?

Causality and correlation are often confused, but they are different concepts. Causality refers to the relationship between cause and effect, while correlation refers to a relationship between two variables. Just because two things are correlated does not necessarily mean that one caused the other.

Why is understanding causality important in science?

Causality is crucial in science because it helps us understand and explain the natural world. By identifying the causes of events, we can make predictions and understand how things work. It also allows us to identify and control the factors that lead to certain outcomes.

Can causality be proven?

Causality cannot be proven definitively. It is a fundamental principle that we use to understand the world around us, and it has been supported by countless observations and experiments. However, there is always a possibility of unknown or unobserved causes, so causality can never be proven with absolute certainty.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
991
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
782
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top