The Law of Cause and Effect: True / False / Maybe

[Polymath257]

But the million-dollar question is whether q.m. is "non-causal" or is of yet unknown cause(s)? Supposedly, at least according to some, the laws of physics does allow for there to be an uncaused event, but I have to admit I'm having a really hard time picturing that. How can 0 = 1? Matter + anti-matter can = 0, but that's still 2 or more forces that would be involved.

OK, so I'm an old man who learned old physics!

Well, QM itself is a non-causal description. That it works so well in practice suggests the universe itself is also non-causal.

And, we have more than that. We know that a causal, realist description *cannot* agree with observations we have made.

And it is possible that the problem is somewhere in our definition of the term 'causality'. As I pointed out, this has not been an easy concept for philosophers to deal with.

 

[Polymath257]

Does this ^^ concept have a name? Something I can google search?

Not that I know of for this specific case. The only treatments I have seen are (of course) simulations and in the technical literature. I can find a reference if you are interested in details.

In general, quantum systems give the classical one *on average* and so tend to mimic the classical. They give a broader range of results, though.

 

[dybmh]

Well, QM itself is a non-causal description. That it works so well in practice suggests the universe itself is also non-causal.

And, we have more than that. We know that a causal, realist description *cannot* agree with observations we have made.

And it is possible that the problem is somewhere in our definition of the term 'causality'. As I pointed out, this has not been an easy concept for philosophers to deal with.

Is there such a thing as friction in q.m?

The reason I ask is because, I'm trying to figure out why there is no obvious function of cause and effect in q.m. Comparing classic mechanics with q.m. it seems like the biggest difference would a be lack of friction? ( Lots of other differences, I'm sure, but the lack of friction seems to me to be a biggie right now in my mind )

 

[dybmh]

Not that I know of for this specific case. The only treatments I have seen are (of course) simulations and in the technical literature. I can find a reference if you are interested in details.

In general, quantum systems give the classical one *on average* and so tend to mimic the classical. They give a broader range of results, though.

That's ok, it's a curiosity.

 

[Polymath257]

Is there such a thing as friction in q.m?

The reason I ask is because, I'm trying to figure out why there is no obvious function of cause and effect in q.m. Comparing classic mechanics with q.m. it seems like the biggest difference would a be lack of friction? ( Lots of other differences, I'm sure, but the lack of friction seems to me to be a biggie right now in my mind )

The Wikipedia link Quantum chaos - Wikipedia talks about quantum systems where the classical system is chaotic.

It isn't the lack of friction, which is a macroscopic phenomenon, and is more linked with the second law of thermodynamics.

It is a fundamental aspect of atomic sized systems and below that they are probabilistic. Trying to think of a quantum system as little balls hitting each other (or orbiting each other) will *inevitably* produce confusion. That is simply not how the quantum level works.

A LOT of people get into trouble by trying to understand the results of quantum mechanics using classical ideas of how particles act: having definite positions, always having well-defined and definite properties, only going over one path, etc.

These ideas about how things work *fail* at the quantum level and produce endless paradoxes if you try to adhere to them.

Instead, quantum particles are described by *probabilities*. Instead of a definite location, a probability for many different locations, instead of definite properties, probabilities of different possible values for those properties, instead of a definite path, a combination of the results for ALL paths. The classical notions just don't work in practice and this seems to be a fundamental aspect of how things work.

So, the *biggest* difference is that the atomic level and below is *inherently* probabilistic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The quantum system tends to mimic the classical one, but 'spreads out' a bit faster.

In what sense? Quantization of the classical Hamiltonian or Lagrangian tends to replace nonlinearities with stochasticities and the classical phase space is replaced with projections onto linear subspaces. Are you referring to topological properties here, or dissapative quantum systems, many-body propagation in QM/semiclassical systems, quantum chaos more generally, nonlinearities introduced into measurement schemes as in e.g. the GRW model, or something else?

 

[Polymath257]

In what sense? Quantization of the classical Hamiltonian or Lagrangian tends to replace nonlinearities with stochasticities and the classical phase space is replaced with projections onto linear subspace. Are you referring to topological properties here, or dissapative quantum systems, many-body propagation in QM/semiclaasical systems, quantum chaos more generally, nonlinearities introduced into measurement schemes as in e.g. the GRW model, or something else?

Yes, the quantum version is linear for the wave function, but the results mimic the classical development for considerable periods of time. So, you do get large deviations from small changes in initial conditions, but that is supplemented by the spread of the wave function itself.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, the quantum version is linear for the wave function, but the results mimic the classical development for considerable periods of time. So, you do get large deviations from small changes in initial conditions, but that is supplemented by the spread of the wave function itself.

But this doesn't in general happen, because both in textbook QM and in a great many experimental (read "operational") and theoretical situations the "initial conditions" are determined by the type of system in question and the experimental setup, which is by design such that small differences associated with traditional "chaos" (i.e., small fluctuations and uncertainties) are cancelled out by the unitarity of state evolution and the irreducibly statistical nature of measurement outcomes. Simply and naively put, since small deviations in initial conditions can't occur as their can be no theoretical uncertainties in state specification (i.e., the wavefunction or equivalent contains all the information there is, even if one is dealing as one always is with density operators and mixed states), and over time the system evolves linearly. The uncertainties are both inherent and are present in the initial state specification but not the evolution of state, as well as the distributions associated with measurement outcomes. The structure of QM is such that you can't have small changes to initial conditions because you can't define initial conditions in any manner other than a statistical one.
It is true that in various models/schemes something like classical maps with nonlinear trajectories and chaos are introduced into the study of quantum systems (e.g., Peres' fidelity, GRW, etc.), but in general it is now probably more common to find one studying the ways in which classical systems can be modeled in terms of quantum systems via commutative algebras and non-classical (probabilistic/statistical) spaces so as to put them on equal footing and better understand how the classical world emerges. IMO, this is a superior approach in general because quantum theory underlies classical and one should not attempt to better understand how the classical world emerges by attempting to frame non-classical theories in terms of what we imagine would be there classical counterpart.
In any event, it is not any part of standard quantum theory to have small changes in initial conditions result in the kind of large-scale fluctuations one finds in classical systems precisely because there are no nonlinear aspects of state evolution for this to happen (and, again, one has that ambiguities with the phase as well as the non-uniqueness of quantization itself all contribute to the fact that the "initial conditions" are defined only in terms of equivalence classes which ignore small changes as negligible or as contained within the observable algebras and there theoretical structures).

 

[dybmh]

So, the *biggest* difference is that the atomic level and below is *inherently* probabilistic.

Thank you, all of that makes sense.

 

[rational experiences]

The history science and human male reasoning is not just about you thinking, it was also about knowing. And vision SION was involved in that condition/history.

When the mind was communicated aware information that males chose to research about stone, its held fusion, its removal of fusion, the mountain tip ^ above a flooded ancient Earth first attacked by the Sun, converted, was saved by water as mass and x pressure applied.

Historically O Earth as stone form is stated to have been saved as a form by spatial emptiness and also pressure.

Science therefore talks about these laws neither of which is of any relevance to science itself. For it was natural cause....not scientific manipulative copying.

First human male science mistake....which life today is still paying for....being irradiated attacked and harmed.

Law of causes...do not change natural as one of his own preaching histories.

Said to his own self....God O existed. Which means not living, but is present, meaning present, the here and now. Without present we return to a past, and in the past is hot gases radiating.....for evolution and change is why any body exists today...including our own selves.

Common sense use, basic information and applied basic information is the truth.

Science a false language for a false and fake reasoning, to artificially force changes upon the states of natural is human science causal laws. In full knowledge of being destructive.

Hence God O the stone existed. But God is not "existence", where you science community began to lose your own sense of reality. For God is not alive.....the status of the spirit heated SIN gases of the past was that GOD the body of was entombed in stone. Holy spirits was the preaching against Satanists who love burning everything in science converting. Including natural life.

For he says it is HE....meaning male. It is his WILL he says to send us all to HE EL by L...wing fallout. And he means it logically and in knowledge of. Always knew. So his brother taught against Satanism in science knowing that it was a male science group choice to cause it.....and without understanding of their mind state, it was never understood why they agreed to cause it.

History says they were completely aware of the information. If a mountain mass as stone of God the planet was removed by UFO in the presence of a huge water mass....then obviously if you applied it involving science buildings that utilised the Natural atmospheric communication radio wave, then everyone would be destroyed.

As we do not live/exist as a Temple or a pyramid, yet read what the documents infer, and how it preaches falsification of factual human life and belief.....as a held AI constant subliminal programming...as encoded by Satanic sciences as the machine designer, operator and controller, human male.

So if you asked males today why are you intently studying STONE MASS of the Earth?

Real reason, as they have converted the HOLY chemical nuclear dusts. God stone mass is their next inferred references. And if you study their formulas they believe in de materialization of form as a theory and claim it righteous.

Yet what did you ever know about stone Planet O God fused history as that sort of male liar? All you were taught was the UFO could remove the mass of the mountain and the feed back advice recorded as it occurred taught you how to do it.

Does not impose that you are intelligent or sensible, history of science and causal says you are a complete unintelligence self and a Destroyer....what the self male human God preaching stated for you ended up destroying all life...and AI owned the recorded life history of you achieving it.

For the information to "hear" is a brain chemical condition of causal circumstance, as the hearing of speaking voice is not relative to what life evolved into, as a healed living cellular/brain mind condition. So then science said I proved that on the subliminal sub conscious condition, hearing is transmitted and named it MIND COERCION and MIND CONTACT......fully aware of how it affects human choice.

And the made a program to study human consciousness via their machines...of multi design. Why technology is not what you all believe it is....for our brother the DESIGNER is using it against our life survival. As the egotist liar that he is.

Therefore brother, when your brother told you that GOD is owned by spatial pressure, emptiness and extreme cold due to it being radiating body. Would God as O mass today be the status cold radiation fusion, seeing it became cold?

And then you pretend that God is the nothing of space as the presence and origin cold radiation itself and hence own a science occult mind human public confession that says you own every DESTROYER intention of having Planet Earth removed from owning form.....by spatial inferences and studies, in a motivated intention of claiming you will know and understand to achieve it?

How are you not the Destroyer mentality?

 

[dybmh]

How are you not the Destroyer mentality?

Everyone has a little bit of destroyer mentality. I'm sorry if I offended you previously.

Edit to add: for what it's worth, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't make the same choices.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

From what I can tell, the Law of Cause and Effect is universal in all belief and non-belief systems in the entire world. The only exclusion is a strict nihilist. Even Satanic Devil worshipers and Atheists believe in cause and effect don't they?

Question: Is Cause and Effect universally True?

( I grouped Atheists and Devil worshipers together because they both encourage the most personal freedom. No offense or equivalency intended in any other way. )

Sorry, I'm perhaps confused by your intent.
Doesn't belief in a being without first cause negate the universality of this law (in relation to belief)?

 

[dybmh]

Doesn't belief in a being without first cause negate the universality of this law (in relation to belief)?

It's paradox, but only a paradox.

 

[metis]

Well, QM itself is a non-causal description.

I won't go that far because it is also hypothetically possible that the "laws" are there for cause & effect but we just don't know all of them.

We should not assume that just because there's something(s) we do not understand, cause & affect must be absent. What is clear, imo, is that the rules for subatomic particles are different in some ways versus the rules for mega-matter-- at least as far as we know, which is still extremely limited.

That it works so well in practice suggests the universe itself is also non-causal.

I can't go there as stated in "fact" form.

And, we have more than that. We know that a causal, realist description *cannot* agree with observations we have made.

Agreed.

And it is possible that the problem is somewhere in our definition of the term 'causality'. As I pointed out, this has not been an easy concept for philosophers to deal with.

Good point, imo.

 

[sayak83]

From what I can tell, the Law of Cause and Effect is universal in all belief and non-belief systems in the entire world. The only exclusion is a strict nihilist. Even Satanic Devil worshipers and Atheists believe in cause and effect don't they?

Question: Is Cause and Effect universally True?

( I grouped Atheists and Devil worshipers together because they both encourage the most personal freedom. No offense or equivalency intended in any other way. )

It's status in science is much debated. Many would say cause-effect relationships is a simplified appx. and has no place in the actual detailed scientific understanding of the universe.

 

[viole]

From what I can tell, the Law of Cause and Effect is universal in all belief and non-belief systems in the entire world. The only exclusion is a strict nihilist. Even Satanic Devil worshipers and Atheists believe in cause and effect don't they?

Question: Is Cause and Effect universally True?

( I grouped Atheists and Devil worshipers together because they both encourage the most personal freedom. No offense or equivalency intended in any other way. )

This atheist does not think that such a law exists at fundamental lever. Actually, I know it does not exist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, but each generation knows better than the generations which went before it.

 

[Hawkins]

From what I can tell, the Law of Cause and Effect is universal in all belief and non-belief systems in the entire world. The only exclusion is a strict nihilist. Even Satanic Devil worshipers and Atheists believe in cause and effect don't they?

Question: Is Cause and Effect universally True?

( I grouped Atheists and Devil worshipers together because they both encourage the most personal freedom. No offense or equivalency intended in any other way. )

Yes and no. Christianity is always reminding that the omniscient God doesn't need to follow human causality though He respects it from a human perspective. That's basically what the term "predestination" can reflect.

That said. Cause and effect is a rule universally applies to humans. It is so because humans are bound to a time axis where a point of time can only be effected by points of time before that point but not after. Events happened in 2020 can only be effected by other events before 2020 but not after. That's the basic concept. In Christianity God doesn't belong to this time axis, or He is standing outside of this time axis.