Causality, fact or fiction?

[steve_bank]

Some appear to question causality, and it is it tied into cosmology.

Can you make a case that causality is not always true, and what kind of unverse would result?

Can some but not all things have causality?

 

[none]

well, that is a nice way to start.
wait for the mind to show up with the infinite.
in the meantime does a stochastic background have any relevance?
from the random came the random...?? it was always there...??

 

[steve_bank]

A stochasric model is statistical/

You are sitting in a restaurant. Evrty time someone nters and leaves you make a note of the time and number.

Over time you can develop a stochastic model that predicts the probable number of people inside at any time. It is called Queing Theory.

In a stochastic model there are a number of sates. Given you are a state, the next sate is based on probabilities.

A probabilistic model does not violate causality, when an event occurs can only be estimated with statistics. A material emitting a particle. Electrical noise in a wire. There are theories of noise, but no demonstrated causal link.

 

[none]

I didn't say model, I said background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_background

 

[steve_bank]

I didn't say model, I said background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_background

'The gravitational wave background (also GWB and stochastic background) is a random gravitational wave signal produced by a large number of weak, independent, and unresolved sources.[1]..'

Same as the restaurant example. It is not possible to predict the arrival of a gravity wave, it is the superposition or summation of a uncorrelated variables sources simultaneously. Think about audio noise like his or white noise. The GWB is gravitational background noise. I suspect the GWB acts with gravity wave detectors like audio hiss interferes with an audio signal.



The occurnce of the background is probabilistic or stochastic. All gravity from stellar objects combined together but each object uncorrelated.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing can be said to be "always" true.

Things can be said to be true under observable conditions.

But you cannot have a progression unless you begin that progression.

If you do not begin to progress you cannot progress.

 

[steve_bank]

Nothing can be said to be "always" true.

Things can be said to be true under observable conditions.

But you cannot have a progression unless you begin that progression.

If you do not begin to progress you cannot progress.

That is one of the main arguments of the Creationists. If causality is true then something must have started the universe, IOW god.

True in a broad sense nothing can be proven in an absolute sense. That gets you nowhere. I can not prove that I will always fall when stepping off a building.

Universe always was and always will be and there is no issue with causality and a prime cause.

Science is about decveloping repeatable causal links, inputs and outputs in a model. Get rid of causality and you are in the supernatural realm.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing can be said to be "always" true.

Things can be said to be true under observable conditions.

But you cannot have a progression unless you begin that progression.

If you do not begin to progress you cannot progress.

That is one of the main arguments of the Creationists. If causality is true then something must have started the universe, IOW god.

I don't see any mention of the gods in anything I wrote.

I said that all we could possibly understand are the conditions we can observe in some way.

We cannot understand conditions we cannot observe.

I can not prove that I will always fall when stepping off a building.

You could make assumptions and predictions knowing how the observable conditions have behaved in the past.

Universe always was and always will be and there is no issue with causality and a prime cause.

"Always was" is not possible. It is gibberish. No amount of evidence could ever demonstrate "always was".

To progress, like events progress, requires a beginning to the progression.

If the progression of events do not begin there can never be a progression.

Get rid of causality and you are in the supernatural realm.

Sure.

But all you are talking about are conditions that are different from the conditions we can observe.

 

[steve_bank]

You are making good arguments in a general sense, but you are sidestepping a major question of causality.

Always was not possible? Then you must think something from nothing is then possible. Yes?

I don't know your position, but you are arguing like a Creationist. If the inverse has not always existed, then where did the starting point come from? For the theist it is an act of god without explaining where god came from. Presumably god always was and will be.

If you postulate a universe with a beginning, how did that starting point come to be?

 

[untermensche]

Always was not possible? Then you must think something from nothing is then possible. Yes?

No.

I think observable conditions arose from conditions we cannot comprehend or make comments on.

 

[ruby sparks]

A stochasric model is statistical/

You are sitting in a restaurant. Evrty time someone nters and leaves you make a note of the time and number.

Over time you can develop a stochastic model that predicts the probable number of people inside at any time. It is called Queing Theory.

In a stochastic model there are a number of sates. Given you are a state, the next sate is based on probabilities.

A probabilistic model does not violate causality, when an event occurs can only be estimated with statistics. A material emitting a particle. Electrical noise in a wire. There are theories of noise, but no demonstrated causal link.

Thank you for an analogy which helps me get my head around stochastic.

 

[steve_bank]

Always was not possible? Then you must think something from nothing is then possible. Yes?

No.

I think observable conditions arose from conditions we cannot comprehend or make comments on.

By your reasoning you cannot say infinite universe is impossible.

You appear closed minded and withhout imagination. Not qualities conducive to philisophical speculation.

Regardless of what we can observe the matter we see today always was, or came from nothing. It is inesxapale. Do you have a third possibility? Throw caution to the wind and speculate, that is in part what philosophy is about. What if.....

 

[untermensche]

Always was not possible? Then you must think something from nothing is then possible. Yes?

No.

I think observable conditions arose from conditions we cannot comprehend or make comments on.

By your reasoning you cannot say infinite universe is impossible.

My reasoning is that to have a progression of events you need to begin that progression.

To move in any direction requires beginning that movement.

 

[steve_bank]

You are still not answering.

Take a wild ass guess. If the unversed had an origin, where did the mass come from? Obviously you can not answer it, it requires you to challenge your conclusion.

If you are not religious either the inverse came from nothing or it always was. It is a binary choice unless you have other alternatives. Do you?

Have the good grace to admit when you lose an argument.

 

[untermensche]

If the unversed had an origin, where did the mass come from?

The universe clearly had an origin. At some moment in time there was no universe and at another there was.

Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

Can you have movement without beginning to move?

 

[steve_bank]

If the unversed had an origin, where did the mass come from?

The universe clearly had an origin. At some moment in time there was no universe and at another there was.

Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

Can you have movement without beginning to move?

And now ladies and gentlemen, my next trick will astound you. I will pull a universe out of my hat....

Substitute change for movement. In an infinite universe by definition change always was and always will be. In an infinite universe change never ends and had no beginning.

I reject your view on your own argument. If the universe was suddenly there, it violates causation. Infinite universe does not.

 

[skepticalbip]

As a compromise, an oscillating universe could be suggested - an infinite series of big bangs (the start the universe but caused by a big crunch that ended the last universe) ending in a big crunch causing yet another big bang so the start of the next universe, ending in another big crunch.....etc. etc. eternally.

 

[untermensche]

In an infinite universe by definition change always was and always will be.

"Always was" is a concept for children that can't think.

For any progression of change to exist the progression must begin.

 

[fromderinside]

So how many grains of sand on any given beach and how many grains change from all the wind driven ripples on that single beach every day? Can you say inf.....?

Oh, and can one call a one time event a process especially when one doesn't know whether one causal event is related to another, or, whether if one is it is so unpredictably, chaotically?

 

[untermensche]

Infinity does not mean uncountable because the job is too difficult.

It means uncountable because there literally is no end to the counting.