Jump to content

Causality, The Universal Truth?


tylers100

Recommended Posts

After a lengthy time of reasoning about the nature of causality itself, I have come to conclusion that it must be the universal (or absolute, ultimate) truth behind everything.


The evolution, life and death, laws of physics (universe)... each of all is the product of causality.


The causality definitely must be the guiding truth behind everything.


Everything is inherently confined to causality.


It is conceivable that there could be something called the "asymmetrical energy" which always has existed and it is chaos. It must be the origination of causality.


If it was symmetrical one, it wouldn't have produced a causality at first place. If one is to say symmetrical energy somehow produced a causality of sort, that would mean breaking the "law" of causality. Why? The symmetrical energy as the origination of causality IMPLIES magic of sort. The magic obviously doesn't exist.


Asymmetrical energy altogether is term words which I sort of made up to conceptually describe something where the causality could originated from.


It is possible that the causality is the only one that is "logical and conceivable" way to make universe (and possibly multiverse?) by asymmetrical energy itself (ie by accidents)?


The universe is fine-tuned for life because of... a lucky accident by causality, perhaps from asymmetrical energy.


Evidences of causality are everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asymmetrical energy altogether is term words which I sort of made up to conceptually describe something where the causality could originated from.

 

 

 

This seems to imply some sort of cause of causality, whereas the rest of the post seems to deny that.

 

So what do you want to discuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dimreepr: Hmm. I'm interested in discussing about the origin of causality and other things related to causality. See my comments a bit further down below.


Strange: I was being a bit too bold in saying "evidences of causality are everywhere." I do not fully know or understand in depth about the decay of radioactive atoms and fundamental particles, ..but I think as science progresses with more time and resources (ie newer technologies, etc) then surely the causes of things will be known? It's just that to me (as far my limited understanding) is that... the particles (even fundamental or elementary ones) randomly decay without any cause of sort: this implies magic. The magic is simply......... so illogical. Without a cause of sort = implies magic which is unacceptable.


MigL: I'm still learning a bit more about quantum mechanics along with classical physics (at this moment, just concepts) but I still do not fully understand it. Truthfully, I think I was a bit too confident about causality... something that even quantum mechanics is no strange to it. But at this moment, I still think it is though.. but perhaps I will change my mind as I learn in depth more about quantum mechanics.


The reason for this discussion about causality is... I'm thinking that if I know and have understanding of the truth (eg causality), then it might could act as guide to make the rest of things to be easier to understand for me.


Additional comments about magic: Something that does action without a cause implies magic. The magic is self-contradiction thing which cannot exist at first place. For magic to exist, it requires... you guess it: causality. But.. since if the magic is the product of causality and it have properties that could break laws of physics, that would mean it also can override its own... origination (ie causality)? That doesn't make sense to me. Therefore magic absolutely cannot exist at all at first place. This paragraph reminds me of the paradox: Could one with omnipotent power make an object that is too heavy to lift for him/her? I honestly think that he or she simply cannot do it (ie making it be so) because of causality.


The origin of causality... I said asymmetrical energy could be that. Hmm. It's just that my reasoning says that symmetrical energy (order) would not allow a causality to happen because it wouldn't need to do so at first place because.......... it is already (or timeless) "oneness." It is perfection thing and has all... possibilities figured out (eg that is something the Borg would want lol :) [from Star Trek: The Next Generations])


Asymmetrical energy as chaos would continually produce possibilities into infinity. The asymmetrical energy could be an infinity place itself. But one of infinite numbers of possibilities could be causality itself, but yet it STILL would require a causality to even exist at first place!! See? Causality is inherently required for anything or everything to exist at first place.


But the ultimate question is... What made the causality itself to exist at first place? I said asymmetrical energy.. but when I mentioned it, another question arised: what cause it to exist at first place before that and so on? Anyway, I want to talk about the sole origination... the only one and simplified thing that originated the causality itself at first place. One of possible answers is magic, but remember what I said about magic? Well, what else could it be?


Maybe my reasoning is somehow flawed? To help clarify things, I'm basing the entirely of my reasoning on the premise that causality must be made by "what" origination, not "who" which is kind of difficult. I said difficult because......... of this understanding: an absolutely primitive "object" thing (without any intelligence of sort OR additional properties that can produce any causality of sort) can't possibly produce the causality at first place. This denies the entirely of my post, but I'm trying to somehow... override its logic? :confused:

Edited by tylers100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randomness is impossible to prove Strange.

You can only prove that an event is NOT random.

 

But you are right there are some Quantum Mechanical events that violate causality.

Only a scenario with an infinite possible number of outcomes could be described as truly random; is that correct? Given a limited set, there must be a limited number of permutations. Once one exceeds the number of possible outcomes in a limited set, a pattern must develop eventually ...therefore, not random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a misinterpretation of the difference between causality and random here.

 

An event can be causal or acausal, and still be random or non random.

 

 

 

We know that a radiactive atom will eventually decay, the cause being its inherent instability.

The timing of that decay is purely random.

We also know that when it does decay that decay will follow a particular course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a misinterpretation of the difference between causality and random here.

 

An event can be causal or acausal, and still be random or non random.

 

 

 

We know that a radiactive atom will eventually decay, the cause being its inherent instability.

The timing of that decay is purely random.

We also know that when it does decay that decay will follow a particular course.

If decay is random, why are the half-lives different between elements? What defines the limits of randomness between them to give their half-life values? In my ignorance, they should all be the same; yet they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

String junky

If decay is random, why are the half-lives different between elements? What defines the limits of randomness between them to give their half-life values? In my ignorance, they should all be the same; yet they are not.

 

 

Random is an adjective.

 

You have applied it to a noun (correctly), but the difficulty is that a noun may have many properties and the applied adjective applies to some or even only one of them.

 

That is the case with random that I was trying to make.

 

Does this help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Random is an adjective.

 

You have applied it to a noun (correctly), but the difficulty is that a noun may have many properties and the applied adjective applies to some or even only one of them.

 

That is the case with random that I was trying to make.

 

Does this help?

Yes, I know what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that a radiactive atom will eventually decay, the cause being its inherent instability.

The timing of that decay is purely random.

We also know that when it does decay that decay will follow a particular course.

 

The reason is its instability. The cause for it decaying at a particular point in time is non-existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

dimreepr: Hmm. I'm interested in discussing about the origin of causality and other things related to causality. See my comments a bit further down below.
Maybe my reasoning is somehow flawed?

 

 

 

Yes your reasoning is flawed, causality seems works at the macro-level but not at the quantum level; which may be counter-intuitive.but essentially makes it an accident the origin of which is meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Quantum correlation can imply causation (Update)"

I changed my mind about asymmetrical and symmetrical energies.
I just realized that the asymmetrical energy implies pure random and magic. So it is unacceptable.
Also the asymmetrical energy as chaos cannot exist at first place by itself in absolute sense. Chaos is merely a word describing something that is seemingly complex and random. But chaos is actually the product of causality.
It might be the symmetrical energy that caused the causality at first place.
"in" the symmetrical energy, the amount and type of energy is kind of unknown to me, I only could say it is kinda omnipotent.
If it is omnipotent, it could "mechanically" produce infinite number of possibilities (eg chaos, etc).
Anyway, I'm sure the more I learn about quantum mechanics I might will change my mind.
Have a good day, guys. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Flawed for sure, eh.. No problem at all.. better to attempt reasoning than none at all.
Well, off to learn more about classical and quantum physics. Thumbs up. :)

 

 

 

 

The idea most worth having is the one you learn from. +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.