Probability and causality

Post Reply New Topic

1. If all outcomes of events were equally likely, the world would dissipate into chaos.
2. Our world is not chaotic.
3. Therefore, some outcomes must be more likely than others.

Do you think this is a valid argument? Could it be used to prove that the law of causality is real?

Of course its valid; it's just modus tollens.


Define "law of causality".

The argument that the world is not chaotic is valid, although I probably wouldn't phrase it the same way as you would, as if "all outcomes of events were equally likely", then the entire idea of "the world" could break down.

I do not think it has the necessary premises to prove that causality is real. Certainly not nearly enough to prove that there is a law of causality.

I disagree with the second statement. Chaos mathemetics says to me that the world and universe are fairly chaotic.

I think chaos has to be defined first. Mathematically, chaos is real and is everywhere. From the common use of the word, many would say the world is descending into chaos (and has been as long as history is recorded).

Chaos does not deny that some outcomes are more likely than others - chaos theory does not deny probability is a useful tool in some situations, and chaos itself involves 'strange attractors' that influence the universe and have a causal effect ... but the causality of strange attractors is not simple, which is how most people think of causality.

Thats what I was getting at. But I'm not sure I'd conclude our world is not chaotic with any definition of the word I'm familiar with.

Not a valid argument.

I don't see that either of your assumptions are correct, and thus the conclusion is likely false.

Well, I'd think that the only real weakness that I could see people getting at is the choice of words, but the argument basically works. It is just that "chaos" is a term that is too squishy to be desirable to use, and perhaps instead a term with a different connotation would be better, or an explanation of what is meant would be better.

Contrary to popular belief, chaos and order are not terms that apply to the world or universe, not matter how much the unschooled nerds that read QP books will disagree with me. Chaos and order are subjective judgments we make about behavior. It's easy to use the word "random" to judge a behavior for which we don't understand the method of its working, but that doesn't mean anything in the universe is actually random.

Randomness (the seed of chaos) is nothing more than the label we place on systems which are too complex for us to either understand with our current models, or too time consuming to do the math necessary. The fact is everything in our universe is deterministic. You may say there's a 0.017% chance a raindrop will fall in a specific area in this circle during a rainstorm, but the fact is there is only one place that raindrop will fall--the place it falls. There is not a 1 in 6 chance to get a certain outcome of a die roll, there is a 100% chance that the momentum imparted upon the die combined with myriad physical factors like gravity, air resistance, form and properties of the surface it contacts, etc, will make the die land on one side (and there's a 0% chance it'll land on any other side).

I'm not saying that probability and randomness is not a useful tool--it's EXTREMELY useful. But if ever talking in a meta sense, you must realize that randomness and probability don't exist and are wholly subjective heuristic constructs of the human mind. Therefore the argument is moot in the first place. There is no such thing as a more likely event when observed from an objective meta-standpoint. Indeed, the so-called Law of Causality that you reference demands that everything is deterministic, that there is and always has been a 100% chance that the outcome that happened would happen, and any other possible outcome had a 0% chance of happening. There is only the state in which the universe will exist.


-----
Begin flames about how much I don't know, and how many more books that are written for laypersons that I need to read.

Note that before you throw chaos theory in mathematics, etc. at me, note that, again, chaos and randomness are terms that are wholly subjective. Chaos theory completely acknowledges the strict, hard determinism of initial conditions toward it supposed "chaotic" outcome. It's like Big Bang theory... Big Bang does not describe an explosion in any useful definition of the word.

Apparently you missed out on quantum physics. At the subatomic level processes are NOT deterministic at all. Consult any beginning textbook on quantum physics for the details. Reality, at its most basic level is not deterministic. Large scae average behavior of physical systems has the appearance of being deterministic.

And even where the physics can be taken to be deterministic, there are processes so sensitive to initial or boundary conditions that the outcomes cannot be predicted since all measurements have an implicit or explicit error bound. That is why we cannot predict weather accurately thirty days in advance.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theo ... c_dynamics

ruveyn

Evidence, please?

Without this sentence, your post would be defensible if confused from some kind of eternalistic position. With it it becomes utter balderdash. Randomness can be understood as a subjective state of knowledge yes; however, there is no reason at all to think that the future is determined from the past which is necessary for determinism. Future events may be certain given the occurance of said future events, but the future event itself may simply be a simply brute fact rather than the result of any possible model of the world's behavior. Given that it cannot be known from any model that the model will in fact yield an appropriate prediction (as an a priori fact of the universe being an external thing), it hence follows that there may exist a sequence of events which we cannot under any circumstance from prior knowledge predict; it cannot be concluded a priori that the world behaves comprehensibly, let alone predictably. Given the failure thus far of hidden variables theories to be worth anyone's time, the conclusion that there are events undetermined except to a probability from from prior events is thus far strong.


Eternalism is irrelevant; unless you are seriously proposing a hidden variables interpretation to teh QP (evidence, please?), your argument resolves itself in not being prima facie relevant. Cause and determinism are both time dependent words; to imply that one or its negation applies due to an eternalistic perspective is wrongheaded. Hence you have missed the point of the OP; think of a generated pattern using a randomized rule. Although exactly one pattern exists, the use of a randomized rule implies something about the structure or lack there of of said pattern. If the universe were generated using a randomized rule, even though there is one universe and one outcome, the rule being randomized has implications for the structure of the universe.

The post accomplishes the mighty task of being simultaneously arrogant and vacuous.

Several points:

1. Hidden variables which are deterministic causative factors imply the Bell's Inequalities hold. Experiment shows that Bell's Inequalities are violated. Hence no hidden variables. Reality is not local and it is not deterministic.

2. An electron going through a Stern-Gerlach magnet has a 50-50 chance of spin up or spin down. This has been verified experimentally. It is truly probablistic behavior. This is the basic fact that quantum physics teaches us: the basic physical process may obey definitive laws but they are NOT deterministic.

ruveyn

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that argument only refute local hidden variable theories? Bohm's interpretation is still plausible.

I cannot claim any familiarity with the indeterminate mathematics involved in subatomic particle observations but just on the macro cosmic level if the world was totally indeterminate no predictions of any kind could be made as to cause and effect. That we can predict at least a good body of action-reaction phenomena indicates that there is a strong determinist element in normal life. Obviously the existence of natural laws indicates that there is enough determinism in effect to permit enough long term predictions to make life livable. That the positions of astronomic bodies can be made with reasonable accuracy centuries in advance indicates a strong determinist element active in nature, whatever the indeterminate nature of atomic particles.

Yes that is true, which is great if you like faster than light speed interactions. Bohm's theory runs right into relativity which has been very well verified, so far.

ruveyn

For systems with very large masses, the quantum "jitters" average out. Non-relativistic quantum physics converge to Newtonian physics on the average. The indeterminateness required by Heisenberg's principle does not manifest itself too much in systems that move slow (compared to light) and have large mass.

Classical physics breaks down completely at the atomic and subatomic level. Classically, stable atoms are impossible. If it were not for quantum indeterminateness, an atom would collapse in about 10^-11 seconds (apply Larmour's formula) . But atoms don't collapse, so the classical theory is wrong.

Classical theory cannot account for the periodic table, but the Pauli Exclusion principle does. Classical physics cannot account for electron or orbital spin, nor does it account for tunneling.

The completely deterministic physics based on purely mechanical principles is empirically incorrect. That is why relativity and quantum theory turned physics on its head at the dawn of the 20-th century.

ruveyn