Science cannot prove causality. Science assumes causality

[Smith_3]

because there are no reproducible accounts of non-causal events and because without causality it would not be possible to draw any conclusions from observations. The problem with religious people is not that they dismiss causality (which would be a valid point of view), the problem is how they choose a particular non-causal scenario out of all the possible non-causal scenarios. One has to respect other people's religions, but not more than one would respect their hypothesis that the sky is pink and pigs can fly.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. But pigs CAN fly! I've seen it on Mythbusters

Granted, they were firing pig carcasses out of a cannon, but still....

[dipsydoodle]

3. Of course they can

[TheCoxwain]

18. I so love your Avatar

[RandomThoughts]

2. In reality

most of the time cause follows effect. Since everything occurs in ones mind, and before a person muses on cause they already have the effect in there mind.

So the cause is a combination of bias and effect, not any real world connection between events.

The cause is an attempt to explain an effect, so the effect must exist first.


If you believe cause happens before effect you are looking at a world that does not exist by changing the flow of thought in ones own mind to fit a linear scale of time to explain the why of the event, most people forget that there own minds are a part of the equation and so do not remove bias when creating cause.

[Smith_3]

4. Einstein also thought time is an illusion.

That it is a function of the human mind to order phenomena in a temporal way.

[RandomThoughts]

8. yup, and it gets in the way quite often.

Think about it, that is how the republicans run the repeated lie propaganda, they know the cause will come from the effect, and the effect will be thought of in the polling booth in 2010, so they want to give a cause to be created after the effect ready to be pulled up when a voter is in the booth a few years from now.

Understanding that the mind can assimilate false cause based on experience of repetition, bias or what one wants to believe, can limit the power of people trying to convince a person something that is not true.

If you think 'why did economy collapse', every time you think that, you will create a cause based on information, the most repeated information, or most recent, or most respected, may be the cause you create, and what many call 'the real' cause becomes irrelevant.

It is this method of thought that allows marketers to take advantage of people outside of 'thinking' Thinking attaches perspective based on an actual flow of occurrence, not based on what a person wants to believe or heard, that being the most recent, or the most often.


Thinking still creates cause after effect, but it tries to do it knowing the limitations of the mind and handicapping different thoughts based on there irrelevant contribution to the equations trying to be solved. And also based on tricks that were used to put those causes closer to the front of the mind. Just because you want to think on a particular cause first and most strongly, does not make that cause the best cause to choose, if you know how that cause got into your head, repetition verses sound thinking, you can discard its attempt to be picked as the cause for the event you think on.

For example:
I want to believe Reagan brought down the wall in Germany, but I also know I create that cause because I have heard it so many times, so I must force myself to think on the other factors of perestroika or glasnost, economic factors, and the new generation of Russians that were challenging old guard in the 80's, and the desires of the people in those areas. Just one example.

[KittyWampus]

16. thanks for bringing some philosophical literacy to DU.

[BlooInBloo]

27. Teh stupid. Won't stop burning.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Wouldn't life be an effect?

By using earth bound 21st scientific standards as a definition of life.

The sun isn't life, the electro magnetic field isn't life, neither is water nor the atmosphere or the rocky planets which formed a matrix for life to develop.

Would the Big Bang itself have been life? If the answer is no wouldn't that be a cause then for life's effect? If the answer is yes wouldn't that still be a cause for life's effect?

Furthermore if life is an effect, doesn't it go to follow that faith is an effect? If nothing else as an evolutionary survival mechanism.

[baldguy]

5. They dismiss causality, but they want science to accept their conclusions as if they didn't.

"The sky only appears to be blue because humanity's inherent sinfulness. It's really pink; this is proven in the Liturgy of St. Pincus of Lower Smoozby. If you say otherwise you're discriminating against my faith."

[Smith_3]

42. Isn't it annoying?

Imagine you were living in a country that had bulletin boards everywhere saying "The sky is pink". And a public debate about whether schools should teach that the sky is pink as an alternative model to the sky being blue. Then you had politicians saying that after living a shameful life they finally came to their senses and acknowledged that the sky is indeed pink. And if you dared to put up a bulletin board saying "The sky is blue you fools!" people would come and question your loyalty to the constitution and accuse you of being a bigot.

Now wait, you already live in one...

[Terran]

6. You're assuming

that all "religious" people think and act in the same way.

[Smith_3]

9. Well, if you define religion as something else as a belief in a non-causal scenario

then my analysis doesn't apply of course.

[Terran]

25. I'm not following your grammar...

Did you mean, "if you define religion as something other than a belief in a non-causal scenario"...?

If the above is correct, then that's not exactly what I meant. I'm not religious in any usual sense, but I do think the idea of causality in a finite universe demands that there be a First Cause, one which itself did not derive from causality as we understand it in the physical universe.

[Smith_3]

30. "if you define religion as something other than a belief in a non-causal scenario"

Yeah, that is what I meant.

Of course the question of a first cause is a very valid one. But most people who identify themselves as religious are not driven by such considerations.

[Terran]

31. Well, I don't know that this is true, exactly.

"...most people who identify themselves as religious are not driven by such considerations."

(sorry, not to sound argumentative)

It's pretty easy to translate 'First Cause' into "God created the universe/world", if one is so inclined to see it that way; philosophically, there's not much difference, since both God and First Cause are unknowable by humans and outside of the constraints of the physical universe. If you accept the existence of a First Cause, that's pretty much the same as religious folk accepting the existence of their God (or gods), and once you accept that, the causality issue sort of melts away, because 'God' becomes causality itself; he/she/it makes things happen.

This is why I don't think there should be a sharp distinction between the way materialists view the universe and the way religious people view it; granted, many religious people have some heavy cultural blinders on that will screw all that up, but materialists can be somewhat blind as well. Any person with mature religious beliefs should be capable of admiting that causality exists and that their deity probably doesn't personally listen to them or act on their behalf as another person might. This is why the evolution 'debate' is so utterly lame; there's nothing in evolution that negates the idea of God.

[Smith_3]

35. I mostly agree with what you say.

The question of the first cause is certainly "an elephant in the room". For now it is considered a philosophical question, but ultimately it is obvious that it is a physical question as well. Probably physics will have to construct a theory in which causality breaks down at some point. That appears to be extremely hard to do, since it goes against everything we are used to. I would never call a person out for debating whether the universe has a purpose or if there is an intention behind it. Before we understand phenomena like human consciousness, I doubt we can make any reasonable sense of the question whether the universe was "created". Thats why I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. The problem I see with religious people is the way they often claim to have all the details worked out already. Not only do they believe the universe was created, they believe that it was a god who had a certain name, who enjoys being worshipped and that he had a son, sent him to earth, his son had a follower named paulus etc. they know everything in detail up to god's favorite color and which jewelry he thinks humans are allowed to wear, while I'm still struggling with the question whether reality exists.

I agree with what you say about mature religious people and about how lame the evolution discussion is.

and a mature materialist these days understands that matter as we perceive it is an illusion.

[Terran]

36. Wow, synthesis!

We are totally on the same page, it seems. This is exactly why *I'm* also an agnostic, basically, and not an atheist. These issues are much too blithely dismissed for my taste by many atheists, and their certainty is just like the certainty of some religious people about, as you say, "god's favorite color and which jewelry he thinks humans are allowed to wear" (lol!)

Great thread, I've enjoyed it.

[Smith_3]

37. Glad I could entertain you.

:)

[Fumesucker]

7. If a tree falls in the forest

And there is no one there to witness it..

Does it really fall?

I think yes.

[RandomThoughts]

11. Good example

So the idea of ideological tax breaks and de-regulation is the lumber jack, the economy is the tree.

Nobody saw it fall because they were thinking of other causes for things happening, then one day all of society looked at a tree on the ground, and that obvious visual information removed all the false causation in a second, and a crash happened, even though the tree fell awhile ago.

The reason a tree does fall in a forest, is not because it was not witnessed, it is because eventually someone will find it. If a tree fell, and nobody though all time ever knew it, then it would not fall, but that is not real, everything eventually becomes known.

[Fumesucker]

13. Shrodinger's Cat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[BlooInBloo]

10. Ow. Stop it.

[RandomThoughts]

12. Side note on Cause not proceeding effect.

In an episode of Stargate Samantha Carter was speaking in front of Air Force cadets on some advanced theory explained on a white board.

In that speech she said "cause does not always proceed effect", just to give some props to the writers of that show.

[Fumesucker]

15. Umm.. that's "precede", not "proceed"..

Time flies like an arrow..

Fruit flies like a banana..

[RandomThoughts]

24. Or is it?

[NoodleyAppendage]

14. They pick "non-causal scenarios" out of their asses.

How else can you account for a belief in a cloud-being that is simultaneously vengeful and kind to explain way the vicissitudes of life.

J

[KittyWampus]

17. True. On the flip side, Reductionists must realize that their world view is not the only valid one

with which to approach the study of nature.

Materialists insist the Physical, 3-D world is all there is, all that's worth studying and even all that's possible to be studied.

They are a manifestation of Patriarchal thought and society.

[Viking12]

20. Yes, it's so valid to study with figments of the imagination to understand unicorns and such

:puke:

[Smith_3]

21. On the contrary.

Some "reductionists" study eleven dimensional brane worlds. And overlapping realities etc.

[TheCoxwain]

19. sky appears blue because of our inherent gender bias favoring men -- if you are biased

towards women then the sky would appear pink .. In reality sky has no color

[TWiley]

22. Religion assumes causality and proves nothing.

You are mistaken about science by the way. Causality is proven daily by science. Consider medical science, including stem cell research, and DNA genetics alone.

Science and math produce strong predictive models. Religon does not. Over 2000 years later, and Jesus still has not popped back up.

[Smith_3]

23. Any number of examples of causality do not prove that the concept is universal.

By observing a large number of causal events and no non-causal events, one cannot draw the conclusion that non-causal events don't exist under any circumstances. In all theories studied by physicists causality is introduced by hand as an axiom.

[xocet]

28. A quick question...

So, according to your argument, causality is introduced by hand in quantum mechanics. Please illustrate your argument to me by specifically showing me this axiom in the relevant mathematics. It is fine if you stick with the non-relativistic description of the hydrogen atom since that is a simple system.

Basically, what is your mathematical definition of causality? Just curious.

[Smith_3]

29. Well...

Normally, one introduces causality by throwing away the advanced greens function of a system and keeping the retarded greens function. This is certainly true in electrodynamics. For the classical hydrogen I think it works the same way. Just solve the Schroedinger equation for the appropriate potential, but plug in a delta inhomogeneity. You get two solutions that describe how a perturbation at one space-time point propagates in space and time. One solution describes the propagation in to the future, the other the propagation into the past. The later is just thrown away as unphysical.

How to define causality exactly in classical quantum mechanics I'm not sure. I think a more general definition then to say that the advanced propagator is zero is unnecessary here, since you don't have to deal with time dilation effects. In relativistic quantum field theory causality means that the commutator of two fields at different space-time points vanishes for space-like distances. This ensures that an observation of a quantum system done at one space-time point can never affect the outcome of another observation outside of the light-cone of that first observation. For fermions the demand for causality leads to the prediction of anti-particles, since normal matter would have wavelengths outside of the light-cone. These are exactly canceled by destructive interference with anti-particles.

[TWiley]

33. Gravity caused the object to fall towards the earth.

Sunlight caused the material to increase in temperature by 3 degrees.
A difference in potential causes electrons to move through a conductor and creates (or causes) an electromagnitic force.

[TWiley]

32. Better explain your theory to Einstein then.

His theory of relativity is highly accurate regarding predictions related to the movement of objects as affected by gravity. In fact, he predicted that light would be affected by gravity (gravity causes light to bend)and photograpic evidence of an eclipse proved his theorm. He even predicted how much it would be displaced on a photographic plate with amazing accuracy. It was something like .0025"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Science proves that tsunamis are caused by earthquakes.

Science proves that planetary orbits are caused by gravity, and botulism is caused by germs.

The whole philosophical discussion of "you can't really prove anything" is all fine and dandy in a navel gazing sort of way.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with science.

[Waiting For Everyman]

34. That's a good point, and succinctly stated.

It's of more interest to me why people believe what they do, than what they believe. Their reasons, I mean, and how they came to their conclusions. But most people don't share that part of it.

[Terry in Austin]

38. Mmm... philosophy

David Hume pretty much blew up the notion that causality is real. Causality is a metaphysical assumption that we make for the sake of convenience; science does, too, except when it's at its most formal -- always with a little disclaimer in the footnote.

You get into philosophy of science, and find that science doesn't do metaphysics -- scientists never "prove" anything, they just support hypotheses with more and more experimental data. A long-standing, well-supported hypothesis eventually becomes "accepted," but never "proven."

It's the lay people who expect proof, ever since they projected priesthood onto the reluctant white-coated ones.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Gawd please make it stop.

[Uncle Joe]

40. I always thought there were three stages in scientific thought.

With degree of certainty in ascending order, and law being as proven of a guarantee as humanly possible.

1. Hypothesis
2. Theory
3. Law

[Terry in Austin]

41. Stages of acceptance in science

Informally, yes, it goes like that.

However, by-the-book scientists will always be modest about any claims to "guarantees." Even when they use the word "law," it's pretty loose. You can usually hear the quote-marks around it. It's a rare scientist who will go so far as to claim "proof" of anything.

For one thing, they want to keep some wiggle room for the next time somebody's "laws" get shredded, sort of like what happened with Newton's tidy world when Einstein came along. Now Einstein's work is getting poked and picked at. Notice it's seldom called "The Law of Relativity." At best, "The theory," and often, "The principle." Twice shy, perhaps.

So hypotheses do go through phases of more and more experimental support, gaining acceptance over time. "Theory," contrary to the popular way the word is used in the sense of "hypothesis," or even "conjecture," actually refers to the model that ties together related hypotheses and observations; after enough experimentation, theory starts accounting for the observed data, and hopefully, starts making predictions.

For instance, there is the wave theory (model) of light and also the particle theory. Both models are used, depending on the circumstance, and both are useful for making valid predictions. Both are explanatory, while neither makes any claim to be "the real one."

It may seem like a cop-out, but the well-schooled scientist, when asked about "proof" and "reality" will quietly point you to the nearest philosopher.

There's a good, short overview called Philosophy of Natural Science by Carl Hempel that I'd recommend highly, if you're interested. Online, you might want to check http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hempel.htm">here. I know it's not everybody's favorite thing, but personally, I love this kind of stuff.

Now, wasn't there a bottle of red wine around here somewhere?

[Uncle Joe]

44. Thanks for the info and links, Terry in Austin,

I will check those books out.