How flexible is the principle of causality?

[Alex K]

Will it? Are you sure that randomness isn't really a manifestation of hidden variables? How do you know that unpredictability is true temporal randomness?

I don't, that's why I mentioned Bohm mechanics. I'm saying that specifying the wavefunction isnt enough, and that if it is deterministic, the necessary data are not captured by the copenhagen interpretation

[Alex K]

Although nonlocal hidden variable theories (the only possible kind) tend to have ugly implementations into relativity. Many worlds is stll the interpretation with the fewest assumptions

[bennyboy]

What do you think bennyboy?

I think "randomness" is just a euphemism for "goddammit can't predict it." Since we are limited in the dimensions which we can observe and in which we can interact, we cannot know if the arrangement of properties in another dimension lies behind apparent randomness.

There's an unwritten rule in science that I disagree with: that all mysteries can one day be revealed through scientific progression. I don't think there's any rational reason to believe this to be the case. In fact, we can already see this not to be the case.

[Mudhammam]

What do you think bennyboy?

I think "randomness" is just a euphemism for "goddammit can't predict it." Since we are limited in the dimensions which we can observe and in which we can interact, we cannot know if the arrangement of properties in another dimension lies behind apparent randomness.

There's an unwritten rule in science that I disagree with: that all mysteries can one day be revealed through scientific progression. I don't think there's any rational reason to believe this to be the case. In fact, we can already see this not to be the case.

If the Universe isn't in principle fundamentally random at some level, how does one escape the conclusion of fatalism? That's one thing I haven't been able to grasp--how it is that "hard determinists" can avoid the notion that the only possible Universe is the one that is. In some sense that might be correct but...

It doesn't seem right to me.

[bennyboy]

I think "randomness" is just a euphemism for "goddammit can't predict it." Since we are limited in the dimensions which we can observe and in which we can interact, we cannot know if the arrangement of properties in another dimension lies behind apparent randomness.

There's an unwritten rule in science that I disagree with: that all mysteries can one day be revealed through scientific progression. I don't think there's any rational reason to believe this to be the case. In fact, we can already see this not to be the case.

If the Universe isn't in principle fundamentally random at some level, how does one escape the conclusion of fatalism? That's one thing I haven't been able to grasp--how it is that "hard determinists" can avoid the notion that the only possible Universe is the one that is. In some sense that might be correct but...

It doesn't seem right to me.

Well, from the perspective of us living life in the universe, what's the difference whether it's "truly" random, or apparently random because some inter-dimensional hidden variable is manifesting in ways that are intrinsically obscure to us?

And what does randomness mean in this regard? Since you presumably have no control over the random elements of the universe, you are simply waiting to see how life turns out, EVEN WHEN you feel like an active participant. Whether there are theoretical "other" possible outcomes makes no difference if you are not the one determining which outcome manifests.

[Alex K]

It's a good philosophical question what true randomness is, hm? It's hard if not impossible to define.




All I can say with certainty (I think...) is that the Copenhagen interpretation includes a prescription for interpreting measurements which explicitly says that experimental outcomes are random as far as the theory is concerned, because it specifies only propabilities for them. In the many worlds interpretation, there is a pretty weird mechanism that gives you true randomness, because it makes say 10 copies of yourself, and as which one of them you find yourself after the measurement is truly random. Or is it? Now wrap your head around that.

[Mudhammam]

Well, from the perspective of us living life in the universe, what's the difference whether it's "truly" random, or apparently random because some inter-dimensional hidden variable is manifesting in ways that are intrinsically obscure to us?

I'm not exactly what to conjure up by "inter-dimensional hidden variable" but... I think I take your point. I suppose a real difference could exist, perhaps analogous to color vision or our electrochemical perception of time, which took our species considerable effort and time before we discovered that these weren't innate properties of the external world. Could we discover something similar to laws of nature that are ontologically different than our current models? I'm sure it's theoretically possible but I have no idea what to say from there.

And what does randomness mean in this regard? Since you presumably have no control over the random elements of the universe, you are simply waiting to see how life turns out, EVEN WHEN you feel like an active participant. Whether there are theoretical "other" possible outcomes makes no difference if you are not the one determining which outcome manifests.

I suppose this level of randomness would be something on the quantum level but sure, we could never really measure it because unless I'm incorrect, that would violate the uncertainty principle. I guess my question from there would be, if macroscopic objects behave differently at the microscopic scale, at some point in the past (the Big Bang?), was the future entirely undetermined by the random processes of quantum...fluctuations? Where does that leave us in terms of the law of causality in Newtonian physics though? Did that law in nature itself come about through "undetermined" means?

[Alex K]

I suppose this level of randomness would be something on the quantum level but sure, we could never really measure it because unless I'm incorrect, that would violate the uncertainty principle.

I could be wrong, but I think when you actually know the hidden variables, you are not limited by the uncertainty principle any more. The uncertainty principle is then just a statement what the expected variation in results will be for arbitrary random choices of the hidden variables.

I guess my question from there would be, if macroscopic objects behave differently at the microscopic scale, at some point in the past (the Big Bang?), was the future entirely undetermined by the random processes of quantum...fluctuations?

I think that's a fair statement, if it is random

Where does that leave us in terms of the law of causality in Newtonian physics though? Did that law in nature itself come about through "undetermined" means?

What is the law of causality in Newtonian physics?

[Mudhammam]

I suppose this level of randomness would be something on the quantum level but sure, we could never really measure it because unless I'm incorrect, that would violate the uncertainty principle.

I could be wrong, but I think when you actually know the hidden variables, you are not limited by the uncertainty principle any more. The uncertainty principle is then just a statement what the expected variation in results will be for arbitrary random choices of the hidden variables.

I guess my question from there would be, if macroscopic objects behave differently at the microscopic scale, at some point in the past (the Big Bang?), was the future entirely undetermined by the random processes of quantum...fluctuations?

I think that's a fair statement, if it is random

Where does that leave us in terms of the law of causality in Newtonian physics though? Did that law in nature itself come about through "undetermined" means?

What is the law of causality in Newtonian physics?

Basically, to borrow from Wikipedia, "in classical (Newtonian) mechanics a cause may be represented by a force acting on a body, and an effect by the acceleration which follows as quantitatively explained by Newton's second law." I always took causality to be a fundamental principle, or rather the foundation of classical physics...no?

Also, reverting back to my original question...once the casual chain began and the elements were forged in the first stars...how much "randomness" (as we meant on the quantum level) could exist in the behavior of matter then? Or was it that once the ball got rolling, chemical reactions were just gon'a "do what they do?"

[Alex K]

Basically, to borrow from Wikipedia, "in classical (Newtonian) mechanics a cause may be represented by a force acting on a body, and an effect by the acceleration which follows as quantitatively explained by Newton's second law." I always took causality to be a fundamental principle, or rather the foundation of classical physics...no?

Not to split hairs here, and I don't want to act smarter than Wikipedia, but that sounds not like a well defined principle of causality at all. If you have two point masses approach each other, they repulse and fly on their way, what is then supposed to have caused what?

---

Also, reverting back to my original question...once the casual chain began and the elements were forged in the first stars...how much "randomness" (as we meant on the quantum level) could exist in the behavior of matter then? Or was it that once the ball got rolling, chemical reactions were just gon'a "do what they do?"

So cue say 6 Billion years ago, again, with the same initial quantum state copenhagenously speaking - how different could the world have turned out due to quantum uncertainty? Is that your question?