3 of 3
3
Causation
Posted: 05 January 2010 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
Write4U - 03 January 2010 06:08 PM

Webster’s defines (among others) Potential as “That which may become reality” This struck me as a profound definition.

This is why it seems like a tautology to me. It seems to me that your statement says “The more of ‘that which may become reality’ there is, the higher the probability it may become a reality.” Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding your position.

In my paradigm of Universal Potential I am trying to find a philosophical common denominator of everything (real and unreal) in the universe and in principle is not so different from the philosophical hypothesis of Universal Relativity (as a common denominator).
Thus, “while not all Potential becomes reality, all reality, past, present and future, was, is, and will be preceded by Potential”. (including the BB)
(following are quotes from Wikipedia which I believe support my paradigm.)
(W) “One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.
‘The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.” Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal
(W) “When Bohm’s resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality”.
(W4U) Does this support “string theory”?
(W) “Bohm’s breakthroughs in quantum physics have opened the way for a new and productive relationship between ancient wisdom and modern science because, for the first time, they establish Fullness rather than a Void as the ground state of the universe. The implications of this discovery are immense, not only because it offers science a new conceptual paradigm which may hold the key to grand unification but it lays the foundation for a new cosmology in which the polarities of Spirit and Matter may finally be joined in an integral synthesis harmonizing the various expressions of mind, life and matter”.
(W4U) see also the thread “God=Potential Potential=God” (p.s. I am an atheist)
(W) The broadest definition of the Universe is found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that exists and everything that does not exist. Time is not considered in Eriugena’s definition; thus, his definition includes everything that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist. This all-embracing definition was not adopted by most later philosophers, but something not entirely dissimilar reappears in QUANTUM PHYSICS, perhaps most obviously in the path-integral formulation of Feynman.[11] According to that formulation, the probability amplitudes for the various outcomes of an experiment given a perfectly defined initial state of the system are determined by summing over all possible paths by which the system could progress from the initial to final state. Naturally, an experiment can have only one outcome; in other words, only one possible outcome is made real in this Universe, via the mysterious process of quantum measurement, also known as the collapse of the wavefunction (but see the many-worlds hypothesis below in the Multiverse section). In this well-defined mathematical sense, even THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST (all possible paths) CAN INFLUENCE THAT WHICH DOES FINALLY EXIST (the experimental measurement). As a specific example, every electron is intrinsically identical to every other; therefore, probability amplitudes must be computed allowing for the possibility that they exchange positions, something known as exchange symmetry. This conception of the Universe embracing both the existent and the non-existent loosely parallels the Buddhist doctrines of shunyata and interdependent development of reality, and Gottfried Leibniz’s more modern concepts of contingency and the identity of indiscernibles

(W4U) Potential is the single common denominator in all of the Universe in that it is the only true constant in all of created and uncreated reality. Therefore, Potential is the most fundamental causality for every single event in the universe.

This is a lot of stuff to address W4U. I’m probably in no position to address all these big names, especially with my limited knowledge of their work and their specialized fields. A couple points:

-“That which does not exist” is being spoken of as something that exists, which doesn’t make sense to me. Unless you’re talking about it in the sense that it does exist “potentially”, as in potential is an actual entity of reality.
-I tend to shy away from the idea that mathematics is a product of some transcendent reality, whatever that means. A seemingly more reasonable account of it (I think), considering occam’s razor, would be that mathematics is a human construct based on our experience of the behavior of the universe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 05:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
Kaizen - 05 January 2010 07:43 PM

[
This is a lot of stuff to address W4U. I’m probably in no position to address all these big names, especially with my limited knowledge of their work and their specialized fields. A couple points:

-“That which does not exist” is being spoken of as something that exists, which doesn’t make sense to me. Unless you’re talking about it in the sense that it does exist “potentially”, as in potential is an actual entity of reality.
-I tend to shy away from the idea that mathematics is a product of some transcendent reality, whatever that means. A seemingly more reasonable account of it (I think), considering occam’s razor, would be that mathematics is a human construct based on our experience of the behavior of the universe.

Let me say that my paradigm may not be falsifiable, and may be more philosophical than mathematical at this stage.

small correction: I did not say “That which does not exist”  I said, Potential; “That which may become reality”.
I believe there is a difference in those terms. That which does not exist in reality, does indeed not exist at this time (but may have existed in the past or will exist at some future time).
But, That which may become reality, is the deterministic choice among the latent possible outcomes, from which only one becomes reality. Thus , That (Potential) is the deterministic condition preceding the next reality. The word Potential (in all respects) is perfectly suited for this condition.

I believe a case can be made that mathematical (orderly) functions and progressions have existed, from the beginning, throughout the universe as an inherent quality of Natural Laws (gravity, relativity), independent of a human observer. Mathematics is the system we have devised to record and express our observations and analysis of the way these universal functions act and express themselves. But these Laws existed as an intrinsic universal condition before every single quantum event since the beginning. Thus, Universal Laws and their functions are part of universal potential and are present and required before an event can happen.

As to the transcendental aspects, many prominent scientists, including Einstein, have implicitly acknowledged the presence of such a metaphysical mathematical construct. Expressions such as, string harmonics, spooky action at a distance, universal hologram, a universal storehouse, fractal universe, and my favorite, a binary universe (where half of reality does not exist yet), have been used to describe some basic, underlying condition which makes reality possible in the first place, but which we have not yet been able to test, and I grant that it would be hard test something which is not yet real. However, there is quantum suspension and the collapse of the wave function, where I believe Potential is causal to the next Reality.  This is about as far as I can comfortably go at this time.

[ Edited: 06 January 2010 05:43 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
Write4U - 06 January 2010 05:14 AM

Let me say that my paradigm may not be falsifiable, and may be more philosophical than mathematical at this stage.

I’m okay with this. If reduce back far enough on anything, we seem to reach axioms that are both unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Though, I don’t think all axioms are equal, which to me points to some chance of demarcating between “reasonable” axioms from “unreasonable” ones.

small correction: I did not say “That which does not exist”  I said, Potential; “That which may become reality”.
I believe there is a difference in those terms. That which does not exist in reality, does indeed not exist at this time (but may have existed in the past or will exist at some future time).

For clarity, I was not saying that you said that “potential is that which does not exist.” I was however pointing to specific phrases that you used in a previous post:

thus, his definition includes everything that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist.

THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST (all possible paths) CAN INFLUENCE THAT WHICH DOES FINALLY EXIST (the experimental measurement)

I was referring to these statements and was saying that the use of them in this way seems to refer to them as existent things. I then conceded that that might make some sense if you meant that they existed potentially rather than not at all, if you mean to say that potential is ultimately something that exists.

But, That which may become reality, is the deterministic choice among the latent possible outcomes, from which only one becomes reality. Thus , That (Potential) is the deterministic condition preceding the next reality.

If it is deterministic, in what sense are the other “possibilities” actually possible? In other words, if we were to “rewind the tapes of life” to 5 minutes ago, and nothing changed in any sense or way, would there be a legitimate opportunity for something else to occur other than what actually happened?

The word Potential (in all respects) is perfectly suited for this condition.

This may be due to my misunderstanding, but it still seems like a tautology to me.

I believe a case can be made that mathematical (orderly) functions and progressions have existed, from the beginning, throughout the universe as an inherent quality of Natural Laws (gravity, relativity), independent of a human observer. Mathematics is the system we have devised to record and express our observations and analysis of the way these universal functions act and express themselves.

My account seems to address this. The only difference would be that rather than say that the mathematics itself has intrinsically existed, I would say that the underlying behavior that we have modeled through mathematics is what has existed. And I wouldn’t go so far as to say that these specific behaviors necessarily have existed since the beginning, though I might say that it appears likely based on what we know.

But these Laws existed as an intrinsic universal condition before every single quantum event since the beginning. Thus, Universal Laws and their functions are part of universal potential and are present and required before an event can happen.

I may be wrong here, but you seem to be begging the question.

As to the transcendental aspects, many prominent scientists, including Einstein, have implicitly acknowledged the presence of such a metaphysical mathematical construct.

That’s interesting, but they seem to be delving heavily into the realm of philosophy at that point.

Expressions such as, string harmonics, spooky action at a distance, universal hologram, a universal storehouse, fractal universe, and my favorite, a binary universe (where half of reality does not exist yet), have been used to describe some basic, underlying condition which makes reality possible in the first place, but which we have not yet been able to test, and I grant that it would be hard test something which is not yet real. However, there is quantum suspension and the collapse of the wave function, where I believe Potential is causal to the next Reality.  This is about as far as I can comfortably go at this time.

Again interesting stuff, but these wildly mysterious interpretations do not have the same authority as say evolutionary biology or classical mechanics. The highly theoretical realm of physics starts to leak over into philosophy and abstract guesswork to come up with explanations that make sense based on what we know. Not suggesting that you’re doing this, but we shouldn’t confuse that with more reliable scientific models.

[ Edited: 06 January 2010 05:29 PM by Kaizen ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2010 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
Kaizen - 05 January 2010 07:43 PM
Write4U - 03 January 2010 06:08 PM

Webster’s defines (among others) Potential as “That which may become reality” This struck me as a profound definition.

/

This is why it seems like a tautology to me. It seems to me that your statement says “The more of ‘that which may become reality’ there is, the higher the probability it may become a reality.” Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding your position.

Yes, precisely. On the other hand, when there is not sufficient potential present for an event to happen, that event will not happen, on a graduated scale of probability. Probability for an event increases or decreases, proportional to the combined values of reinforcing potentials.
(I have been toying with the idea of “units of potential” (uop), to be able to assign a relative latent value to potential. 
illustrative example (on a scale of 100):  UP (universal potential) yields available reinforcing potentials for 100 possible future paths of which only one path will garner sufficient potential to becomes reality. Thus, 100 uop = 100% probability = reality, and 10 uop = 10% probability = unlikely to become reality). Possibly, this may also explain the uncertainty effect. A photon has equal potential to become real as a wave or as a particle, depending on the type of measurement (reinforcing potential which determines the result).

[ Edited: 07 January 2010 08:15 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2010 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
Kaizen - 06 January 2010 05:18 PM
Write4U - 06 January 2010 05:14 AM

Let me say that my paradigm may not be falsifiable, and may be more philosophical than mathematical at this stage.

I’m okay with this. If reduce back far enough on anything, we seem to reach axioms that are both unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Though, I don’t think all axioms are equal, which to me points to some chance of demarcating between “reasonable” axioms from “unreasonable” ones.

I agree. I hope that my paradigm is at least reasonable (if not scientific). I am not inventing anything new, but I am trying to make that which is known fit into a general concept and/or definition.

small correction: I did not say “That which does not exist”  I said, Potential; “That which may become reality”.
I believe there is a difference in those terms. That which does not exist in reality, does indeed not exist at this time (but may have existed in the past or will exist at some future time).

For clarity, I was not saying that you said that “potential is that which does not exist.” I was however pointing to specific phrases that you used in a previous post:

thus, his definition includes everything that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist.

THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST (all possible paths) CAN INFLUENCE THAT WHICH DOES FINALLY EXIST (the experimental measurement)

I was referring to these statements and was saying that the use of them in this way seems to refer to them as existent things. I then conceded that that might make some sense if you meant that they existed potentially rather than not at all, if you mean to say that potential is ultimately something that exists.

I understand and I do not agree with that particular quoted statement (is why I placed emphasis on my definition). In my definition it is not possible for potential to “never exist”. Universal Potential (UP) is infinite and includes the potential for every possible event past, present, and future. I will stipulate that not all potential becomes reality, but the potential is present, even if it yields a low probability factor. But the potential for something which does not exists (at present), may still be influential as a reinforcing potential in the determination of another possible outcome. There is a symantic problem with the word “exist”. I prefer to say that potential is a condition which is present independent of reality.

But, That which may become reality, is the deterministic choice among the latent possible outcomes, from which only one becomes reality. Thus , That (Potential) is the deterministic condition preceding the next reality.

If it is deterministic, in what sense are the other “possibilities” actually possible? In other words, if we were to “rewind the tapes of life” to 5 minutes ago, and nothing changed in any sense or way, would there be a legitimate opportunity for something else to occur other than what actually happened?

Other possibilities are present, but with lower probability. When reinforcing potentials are added, they may apply to several possible paths, but ultimately only one path garners sufficient reinforcing potentials to become reality. Example: a row of buckets, each of different size. The first bucket to fill up, will tip and spill its contents (each bucket has the potential to be the one that fills first). A moving spigot alternately distributes random amounts of water into each bucket. When a bucket receives an amount of water, its potential for being the first to fill up increases. But because of the uneven distribution of water, it is by no means certain that the smallest bucket will be the first to fill, though it started which a higher potential index that a larger bucket. Ultimately it is the bucket that receives the greatest amount of water, relative to its size, will be the one that tips over. But until that moment, the outcome is by no means certain. If we were to rewind the tape, the random water distribution does not insure that the original outcome would be repeated.

The word Potential (in all respects) is perfectly suited for this condition.

This may be due to my misunderstanding, but it still seems like a tautology to me.

I use the word Potential (in place of cosmic storehouse…etc), because it describes exactly the condition which is present. No need to use any other descriptive method. 

I believe a case can be made that mathematical (orderly) functions and progressions have existed, from the beginning, throughout the universe as an inherent quality of Natural Laws (gravity, relativity), independent of a human observer. Mathematics is the system we have devised to record and express our observations and analysis of the way these universal functions act and express themselves.

My account seems to address this. The only difference would be that rather than say that the mathematics itself has intrinsically existed, I would say that the underlying behavior that we have modeled through mathematics is what has existed. And I wouldn’t go so far as to say that these specific behaviors necessarily have existed since the beginning, though I might say that it appears likely based on what we know.

Ill accept that, but I don’t think it is incorrect to reverse the equation and say that Universal Laws are mathematical in nature. This is why we have been able to quantify and record them through our mathematical coding system. 

But these Laws existed as an intrinsic universal condition before every single quantum event since the beginning. Thus, Universal Laws and their functions are part of universal potential and are present and required before an event can happen.

I may be wrong here, but you seem to be begging the question.

I was trying to make the point that Potential must be present (in greater or lesser degrees), for the possibility of an event to occur at all. In addition, I believe that universal laws are part of the greater concept of Potential.

As to the transcendental aspects, many prominent scientists, including Einstein, have implicitly acknowledged the presence of such a metaphysical mathematical construct.

That’s interesting, but they seem to be delving heavily into the realm of philosophy at that point.

Yes, and to me it proves that even prominent scientists are forced to acknowledge (at this point anyway), that there is an unreal metaphysical aspect to the workings of the universe, which can only be addressed in a philosophical way.

Expressions such as, string harmonics, spooky action at a distance, universal hologram, a universal storehouse, fractal universe, and my favorite, a binary universe (where half of reality does not exist yet), have been used to describe some basic, underlying condition which makes reality possible in the first place, but which we have not yet been able to test, and I grant that it would be hard test something which is not yet real. However, there is quantum suspension and the collapse of the wave function, where I believe Potential is causal to the next Reality.  This is about as far as I can comfortably go at this time.

Again interesting stuff, but these wildly mysterious interpretations do not have the same authority as say evolutionary biology or classical mechanics. The highly theoretical realm of physics starts to leak over into philosophy and abstract guesswork to come up with explanations that make sense based on what we know. Not suggesting that you’re doing this, but we shouldn’t confuse that with more reliable scientific models.

I agree in principle, but the fact that it is prominent physicists who use these expressions does give it a certain weight of authority, even though they may be speculative and more philosophical than scientific.

[ Edited: 07 January 2010 08:52 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2010 01:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5944
Joined  2006-12-20
Kaizen - 06 January 2010 05:18 PM

If it is deterministic, in what sense are the other “possibilities” actually possible? In other words, if we were to “rewind the tapes of life” to 5 minutes ago, and nothing changed in any sense or way, would there be a legitimate opportunity for something else to occur other than what actually happened?

 

Yes, this is the problem with causal determinism which occurs to me. We are told that there being non actual possibilities is compatible with determinism.

Surely in truth it isn’t.

Possible means could be actual.

David Lewis’s other possible worlds are spacially and temporaly (not sure of spelling, no time to check) unconnected. Trouble is there is no sense in which one of these other possible worlds could be the actual world in a deterministic universe, as far as I can see.

We seem to know that non actual possibilities are necessary in order for anything to be caused. We seem to know that there are causes.

Can’t we, just using logic alone, conclude that the universe cannot be deterministic, without doing any empirical tests?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2010 03:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
StephenLawrence - 08 January 2010 01:38 AM
Kaizen - 06 January 2010 05:18 PM

If it is deterministic, in what sense are the other “possibilities” actually possible? In other words, if we were to “rewind the tapes of life” to 5 minutes ago, and nothing changed in any sense or way, would there be a legitimate opportunity for something else to occur other than what actually happened?

Yes, this is the problem with causal determinism which occurs to me. We are told that there being non actual possibilities is compatible with determinism.
Surely in truth it isn’t.
Possible means could be actual.
David Lewis’s other possible worlds are spacially and temporaly (not sure of spelling, no time to check) unconnected. Trouble is there is no sense in which one of these other possible worlds could be the actual world in a deterministic universe, as far as I can see.
We seem to know that non actual possibilities are necessary in order for anything to be caused. We seem to know that there are causes.
Can’t we, just using logic alone, conclude that the universe cannot be deterministic, without doing any empirical tests?
Stephen

I must confess that I used the word determinism without sufficient knowledge. I should have qualified its use.

But, I can’t recall me using the term “non actual possibilities”. By its very definition Possibility is an indicator of the potential for a future event and as Universal Potential contains the potential for all possible events (past, present, and future), nothing is truly impossible (perhaps “uncertainty effect” is relevant here). I don’t believe we can call this Deterministic.
However this does not apply to Probability. We can have degrees of probability which are deterministic to the eventual outcome. Determinism is directly linked to probability. Thus: there may be several possibilities, of which one ultimately has the greatest probability of becoming real. In other words, the final .0000000000000001% provided by a reinforcing potential may be the deterministic factor to the final outcome. Inherent potential of a condition plus reinforcing potentials are deterministic in the formation of the next event. It seems reasonable to say that every event is caused by previous reinforcing conditions and may or may not be deterministic to the next event, depending on its usable potential. Perhaps one might say that Determinism is established at the time an event occurs and is “fluid” in nature up to that point. Possibility and Probability are aspects of Universal Potential and Determinism is the result of Potential becoming reality. Actually, using logic and our understanding of “cause and effect” and “action/reaction”, can we not conclude that the Universe is Deterministic (caused by the combination of reinforcing potentials) until we find an example to the contrary?

[ Edited: 08 January 2010 05:36 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2010 12:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5944
Joined  2006-12-20

Hi Writer4U

Write4U - 08 January 2010 03:27 AM

I must confess that I used the word determinism without sufficient knowledge. I should have qualified its use.


Well I wonder how you would qualify it?

I think a good working definition is given the world is the way it is at T1 (for this pick any time you like) there is only one possible way it can be at any other time.

If this is the case and if every event has a cause, it seems there is no way that anything else could be actual other than what is.

But, I can’t recall me using the term “non actual possibilities”. By its very definition Possibility is an indicator of the potential for a future event and as Universal Potential contains the potential for all possible events (past, present, and future), nothing is truly impossible (perhaps “uncertainty effect” is relevant here).

I think potential and non actual possibilities are the same thing, things that can happen but don’t. Edit: No that’s not quite right. I think when you refer to potential you refer to possibilities, I’m simply dividing possibilities into those that do happen and those that don’t (no actual)


I don’t believe we can call this Deterministic.


I agree and that was one of the two points I wanted to make. Determinists in general believe that potentials, non actual possibilities, counterfactuals, other possible worlds, call these things what you will, are compatible with determinism. I can’t see the justification for that.

However this does not apply to Probability. We can have degrees of probability which are deterministic to the eventual outcome. Determinism is directly linked to probability. Thus: there may be several possibilities, of which one ultimately has the greatest probability of becoming real. In other words, the final .0000000000000001% provided by a reinforcing potential may be the deterministic factor to the final outcome. Inherent potential of a condition plus reinforcing potentials are deterministic in the formation of the next event. It seems reasonable to say that every event is caused by previous reinforcing conditions and may or may not be deterministic to the next event, depending on its usable potential. Perhaps one might say that Determinism is established at the time an event occurs and is “fluid” in nature up to that point. Possibility and Probability are aspects of Universal Potential and Determinism is the result of Potential becoming reality.

I think you are saying causes raise probabilities, rather than necessitate effects. That’s the conclusion I find myself forced into. And that was my second point, I seem to be forced into it just sitting in my airmchair, once armed with a few basic facts (supplied by Doug) and yet many would disagree (I used to) and so I wonder why?

Actually, using logic and our understanding of “cause and effect” and “action/reaction”, can we not conclude that the Universe is Deterministic (caused by the combination of reinforcing potentials) until we find an example to the contrary?

I think we can say that when something happens it is pretty much always caused.

But I think it is not necessary for something to be caused in order for something to happen. There are infinite possibilities at any time and one of them must happen. It so happens that almost always that one thing has been made highly, highly probable by prior causes.

I think interestingly one thing this view of causation does is takes away any need for a first cause.

Stephen

[ Edited: 09 January 2010 01:07 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2010 07:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
StephenLawrence - 09 January 2010 12:31 AM

Hi Writer4U

Write4U - 08 January 2010 03:27 AM

I must confess that I used the word determinism without sufficient knowledge. I should have qualified its use.


Well I wonder how you would qualify it?

I might have said that the word itself triggers a symbolic mental response, plus finding the definition in websters which seemed to confirm my first impression. But I did not study the philosophy of Determinism, thus would be speaking from a position of having a general direction in an unknown territory.

I think a good working definition is given the world is the way it is at T1 (for this pick any time you like) there is only one possible way it can be at any other time.
If this is the case and if every event has a cause, it seems there is no way that anything else could be actual other than what is.

I agree and is why I previously asked if we could say that the universe is deterministic, until we can find evidence to the contrary.
However, the question is not if anything else is actual (existing in fact or reality), the question is there is an underlying law or condition which is/was/will be causal to every event, past, present, and future. I call this metaphysical condition, Universal Potential
 

But, I can’t recall me using the term “non actual possibilities”. By its very definition Possibility is an indicator of the potential for a future event and as Universal Potential contains the potential for all possible events (past, present, and future), nothing is truly impossible (perhaps “uncertainty effect” is relevant here).

I think potential and non actual possibilities are the same thing, things that can happen but don’t. Edit: No that’s not quite right. I think when you refer to potential you refer to possibilities, I’m simply dividing possibilities into those that do happen and those that don’t (no actual)

Yes, Universal Potential (“The Implicate”) contains the memory/knowledge of every event, past, present, and future, realized or unrealized. Those that are unrealized at any given T1, may have been realized in the past or will be realized in the future.
While universal potential is infinite and timeless in its unrealized state, it does requires time for potential to become real, which establishes a timeline and a deterministic progression becomes possible.

I think interestingly one thing this view of causation does is takes away any need for a first cause.

Stephen

Ah, there’s the crux of the matter (pun intended). I believe a philosophical case for an ultimate causality can be made as follows.
I believe we can agree, that the beginning must have been the first quantum event, which created physical reality, a timeline, and a deterministic universe (according to the laws of causality). This first quantum event was the Big Bang, created from a singularity, containing all the potential (latent) energy of the universe. Universal Potential is infinite, timeless, chaotic, and is the sum total of all potentials for every future event (before BB). While each potential by itself had/has a very low probability factor of becoming real,  the compression of an infinite amount of potential into an infinitely small singularity, forced each potential to collapse into one, creating an instantaneous reinforcing effect of all potentials simulataneously, resulting in probability factor of 100% for every reinforcing potential at the same time, resulting in a massive simultaneous quantum event and the physical creation of all universal matter/energy…. Big Bang!
Thus, while Potential preceded reality, the creation of reality itself was Inevitable. It can not be deterministic, because there was not a single result (unless you want to call a chaotic, infinitely fast expanding universe a single result). It was the first and probably the last event where everything unreal was causal to everything real at the same time and in a non deterministic way. Of course, one might argue that all this speculation is still only an explanation of causality.
Thank you Stephen for your indulgence, hehe…..you forced me to spend about 6 hours on this little missive.

[ Edited: 09 January 2010 04:38 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2010 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26

My own question about Potential is if eventually all potential becomes reality or if some potential may always be relegated to a supporting (reinforcing) role. But then can we say that any potential which is, was, will be instrumental in the creation of reality, even in a reinforcing role, is in fact realized? If universal laws are part of Universal Potential, can we say that after the beginning, Determinism itself is a result of natural laws forcing the realization of reinforcing potentials (result) to act in a predetermined fashion?

[ Edited: 09 January 2010 04:31 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2010 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
Write4U - 09 January 2010 04:04 PM

My own question about Potential is if eventually all potential becomes reality or if some potential may always be relegated to a supporting (reinforcing) role. But then can we say that any potential which is, was, will be instrumental in the creation of reality, even in a reinforcing role, is in fact realized? If universal laws are part of Universal Potential, can we say that after the beginning, Determinism itself is a result of natural laws forcing the realization of reinforcing potentials (result) to act in a predetermined fashion?

Unless someone can find a way to account for the result of causes that “don’t go anywhere(?)”, any existent entity needs to have some outlet and determinism appears to be the only reasonable conclusion as far as I can tell.

And given your post W4U, I’d say we may need a better word for this use of “potential.” This reminds me of a quote we discussed some time ago, “Untapped potential (ie potential with zero effect upon reality in any sense) is equivalent to not having the potential at all.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2010 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
Kaizen - 09 January 2010 08:20 PM
Write4U - 09 January 2010 04:04 PM

My own question about Potential is if eventually all potential becomes reality or if some potential may always be relegated to a supporting (reinforcing) role. But then can we say that any potential which is, was, will be instrumental in the creation of reality, even in a reinforcing role, is in fact realized? If universal laws are part of Universal Potential, can we say that after the beginning, Determinism itself is a result of natural laws forcing the realization of reinforcing potentials (result) to act in a predetermined fashion?

Unless someone can find a way to account for the result of causes that “don’t go anywhere(?)”, any existent entity needs to have some outlet and determinism appears to be the only reasonable conclusion as far as I can tell.

Universal potential does not need to do anything, it is infinite and timeless. Unused potential remains unused until it is used.

And given your post W4U, I’d say we may need a better word for this use of “potential.” This reminds me of a quote we discussed some time ago, “Untapped potential (ie potential with zero effect upon reality in any sense) is equivalent to not having the potential at all.”

yes, I remember, and I believe that I disagreed with that quote. Untapped potential remains untapped until used. Example: a car with the ability to go at 100 miles p/hr, moving at only 60 miles p/hr. While not all its potential is used at that time, it is still present and available when the driver desires to go 100 miles p/hr at a later time.

I believe the following does support my use of the word Potential.

Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal
‘The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.”

edited: afterthought; it occurred to me that if universal potential is the “warehouse of potentials” for every possible event which might become reality and every event existed in latent form prior to the BB, then nothing changed in its most basic sense. The BB was only causal to the manifestation of the universe, but nothing really changed in the process. What was created was already present in latent form prior to creation. If there was no change then there can not have been a causality, unless it was self-caused. If it was self-caused, can we say that the BB and the creation of the physical universe was inevitable? And is inevitability the same as determinism?

[ Edited: 10 January 2010 05:57 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 06:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5944
Joined  2006-12-20
Write4U - 09 January 2010 04:04 PM

My own question about Potential is if eventually all potential becomes reality or if some potential may always be relegated to a supporting (reinforcing) role.


It seems clear that some or rather in fact most potentials don’t become reality. I’ll quote you to explain.

yes, I remember, and I believe that I disagreed with that quote. Untapped potential remains untapped until used. Example: a car with the ability to go at 100 miles p/hr, moving at only 60 miles p/hr. While not all its potential is used at that time, it is still present and available when the driver desires to go 100 miles p/hr at a later time.

The car may never be driven at 100mph. And at every moment that it isn’t being driven at 100 miles per hour it has the potential to be driven at that speed.

I don’t see how potential “reinforces” what happens, if the car is parked on the driveway, then how is it’s potential to be driven at 100 mph reinforcing that happening?

Stephen

[ Edited: 10 January 2010 06:38 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6012
Joined  2009-02-26
StephenLawrence - 10 January 2010 06:04 AM
Write4U - 09 January 2010 04:04 PM

My own question about Potential is if eventually all potential becomes reality or if some potential may always be relegated to a supporting (reinforcing) role.

It seems clear that some or rather in fact most potentials don’t become reality. I’ll quote you to explain.

yes, I remember, and I believe that I disagreed with that quote. Untapped potential remains untapped until used. Example: a car with the ability to go at 100 miles p/hr, moving at only 60 miles p/hr. While not all its potential is used at that time, it is still present and available when the driver desires to go 100 miles p/hr at a later time.

The car may never be driven at 100mph. And at every moment that it isn’t being driven at 100 miles per hour it has the potential to be driven at that speed.

I don’t see how potential “reinforces” what happens, if the car is parked on the driveway, then how is it’s potential to be driven at 100 mph reinforcing that happening?

Stephen

Correct, my paradigm of potential confirms your observation. “While not all potential becomes reality, all reality is, was, and will be preceded by potential”.

While the car’s potential is latent, reinforcing potentials may be provided from many related external sources. Thus the car may never be driven at 100 m/p/hr, but its potential to do so remains. That potential must be reinforced by a driver who decides(*) to go faster and delivering more fuel to the engine. Thus the reinforcing potential of additional fuel releases the full potential of the car.
But I will stipulate that the phrase “relegated to reinforcing potential” may not be correct. Maybe the fact that potential is infinite and timeless makes it irrelevant at which time a potential is used and how it is used. Moreover, when potential is used it is not “used up”. The car’s original potential remains (even after it has been driven @ 100m/p/hr) and remains part of universal potential, the “implicate order’, regardless if it is used or not.

(*) related to causality and the ability of an observer /participant to influence an outcome? I see at least three causes for the car to go 100 m/p/hr. The ability of the engine, the decision to go faster, the additional fuel delivered to the engine. These are all reinforcing potentials, but which one is the primary deterministic causality?. Maybe the driver is late for a wedding, in which case the time of day may be the primary causality for the car to go at 100 m/p/hr.

[ Edited: 11 January 2010 01:35 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
‹‹ Infinite regress of causes      Ad hominem ››