The direction of Causation

[geordief]

Common sense tells us this is a one way street. Are there any sensible theories as to regions in time or space where this might not be true?If so are there any theoretical tests (thought experiments?) that might allow one to show this one way or the other.

 

I am not suggesting that such a " reversal of causation" could be in any way possible but wonder if anything has been said on the subject as I have not really read much about the subject

 

 

[studiot]

Feedback?

[KipIngram]

There are papers out there that talk about retro-causality at the quantum level. Things like antiparticles being mathematically equivalent to the equivlalent "non-anti" particle traveling backward in time. I think it's one of those things that you can choose to embrace or not - it just depends on how you interpret the equations. And I also think that such retro-causality is limited to quantum situations.

[geordief]

Feedback?

I don't understand**. You think feedback might not be just an oscillatory to and fro following a one way street in space and time under certain conditions?

 

** that is not a high bench mark

There are papers out there that talk about retro-causality at the quantum level. Things like antiparticles being mathematically equivalent to the equivlalent "non-anti" particle traveling backward in time. I think it's one of those things that you can choose to embrace or not - it just depends on how you interpret the equations. And I also think that such retro-causality is limited to quantum situations.

Any of these papers that are accessible to a lay level of understanding?

[KipIngram]

Well, I read a couple recently and could at least follow. I'm not well enough trained in the area to comment on the science quality of the paper I read, though. Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can find a link.

[studiot]

If you watch an oscillator starting ie before it 'settles' (settling time is an important feature of oscillators) you will see an initial non oscillatory output, which is fedback by a regenerative path this inturn boosts the ouput, which regenerates more until the oscillator is operating correctly.

 

So the cause of output lies in part at any rate in the presence of feedback.

But you can't have something to feed back until there is an output.

Edited May 19, 2017 by studiot

[geordief]

If you watch an oscillator starting ie before it 'settles' (settling time is an important feature of oscillators) you will see an initial non oscillatory output, which is fedback by a regenerative path this inturn boosts the ouput, which regenerates more until the oscillator is operating correctly.

 

So the cause of output lies in part at any rate in the presence of feedback.

But you can't have something to feed back until there is an output.

Thanks. I will have to look into (ie learn about) oscillators.Can they under certain conditions operate for an infinite length of time or does the system (as I suppose it must) eventually decay?

Edited May 19, 2017 by geordief

[KipIngram]

Here is the paper I read. Like I said, I'm not qualified to comment on whether this is good science or not, but it seemed at least reasonable on first reading. I'll leave it to others to make a deeper commentary.

 

http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/1/190/pdf

[geordief]

Here is the paper I read. Like I said, I'm not qualified to comment on whether this is good science or not, but it seemed at least reasonable on first reading. I'll leave it to others to make a deeper commentary.

 

http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/1/190/pdf

Thanks.

[Strange]

Any of these papers that are accessible to a lay level of understanding?

 

 

You could start with Good'Ole Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

 

And this (rather long) essay: https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance

(I have only skimmed through that, but it looks interesting.)

[swansont]

I have a vague recollection of seeing some talks in the 90's about atomic two-state excitations that happened when the photons were sent in in the "wrong" order. That is, you have an excitation from the ground state to state 1 and then to state 2, with energy differences E1 and E2. But if you send in a photon with energy E2 first, and then send in a photon with E1, you will still get atoms with electrons in state 2.

 

But I don't recall enough to know what to search for to find papers on this.

[geordief]

 

 

You could start with Good'Ole Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

 

Plenty there for a layman.

[Darko]

I don't understand**. You think feedback might not be just an oscillatory to and fro following a one way street in space and time under certain conditions?

 

** that is not a high bench mark

Any of these papers that are accessible to a lay level of understanding?

 

This should be an easy read: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.06712

 

Also, videos of the 2014 Retrocausality Conference in University of Cambridge: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4JIEAfu0friyN-DfwmC_Zw

[geordief]

Can the concept of a "unit of causation" have any validity or usefulness?

 

It would ,in my head represent the smallest (or at least identical) mathematical interval between a causative/effected pair of "events"

 

I did a search for the term and found only one instance of it being used

 

https://books.google.ie/books?id=_fSmBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%22unit+of+causation%22&source=bl&ots=WBDPp6x2ID&sig=mPn1IFoIJJIPLFWaR8QB2mA1lXo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjexZ2gnP7TAhVsIMAKHbmhC9QQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=%22unit%20of%20causation%22&f=false

 

I don't think I would be able to read /follow that (or whether it would be interesting reading)

 

EDIT: actually it does look interesting (but still very hard for me)

Edited May 20, 2017 by geordief

[studiot]

Can the concept of a "unit of causation" have any validity or usefulness?

 

 

 

I don't know what you made of my last comment but I would suggest you might ask

 

What validity does the concept of causation have ?

 

 

Here is more on my last comment.

 

All the presentation so far is' linear' or 'sequential'

 

But can you still establish 'causation' and what does it mean if

 

1. The same set of circumstances can lead to different effect if repeated. That is one cause can have multiple effects.

2. The process is non linear as in a tunnel diode so the effect depends upon path you approach through.

3. There is Hysteresis in the system.

Edited May 20, 2017 by studiot

[geordief]

 

 

 

I don't know what you made of my last comment but I would suggest you might ask

 

What validity does the concept of causation have ?

 

 

Here is more on my last comment.

 

All the presentation so far is' linear' or 'sequential'

 

But can you still establish 'causation' and what does it mean if

 

1. The same set of circumstances can lead to different effect if repeated. That is one cause can have multiple effects.

2. The process is non linear as in a tunnel diode so the effect depends upon path you approach through.

3. There is Hysteresis in the system.

 

Sadly you are trying to educate a dolt. I do appreciate your, and others' efforts though(I am also finding the Nature of Light and the Quantum Mechanics split off threads fascinating).

 

Your question "What validity does the concept of causation have ?" is food for thought, with the immediate (perhaps erroneous) assumption that it may be a macro phenomenon and the second thought that it may be a question without an immediate application (the 3rd that I have just misunderstood).

 

I don't know enough about oscillatory systems to be able to properly address your points and to understand how they seemingly fit into the melding of cause and effect (if that is what you were saying)

 

Do you have a particular elucidating example for your point "The same set of circumstances can lead to different effect if repeated. That is one cause can have multiple effects." ?