[extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;)

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> >Marc, please explain why you think there are three
> >kinds of causality. As far as I know, even the
> >"physics causality" you speak of is contentious in
> >that temporal ordering of events is dependent on ones
> >inertial frame of reference in relativity. On the
> >other end of the scale, there are experiments that
> >seem to violate causality in quantum mechanics (e.g. ,
> >EPR paradox, quantum erasure, etc). In light of this,
> >on what basis do you contend that not only is standard
> >causality real but that there are two other kinds?
> >After all any number of angels can be conjectured to
> >dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn, yet without
> >proof of angels or unicorns, the conjecture is
> >baseless. 
> >
> >
> >
> >The Avantguardian 
> 
> The notion of causality is not based on the time ordering of events
> as such.  It's based on cause and effect - how causes are correlated
> with effects.  Clearly causes *are* connected to effects to some
> degree.  There's no problem with causality in relatively theory,
> since events which can be observed to be temporally reserved are not
> causally connected.  All observers must see the same ordering of
> events when these events *are* causally connected, even in relatively
> theory.  EPR is not a problem either, because quantum correlations of
> this kind are not causal in nature.
>  
> It's true that the notion of 'causality' does start to become
> problematic when you bring in qauntum events.  But even there,
> there's still a *statistical* correlation between cause and effect.

"Correlation is not causation" is the mantra of statistical scientists.
In actuality, one must be able to demonstrate via a Feynman-style
reaction path how a prior event could be caused by a future cause.

>  
> See my discussion of causality in the other thread.  My proposed 3
> kinds of causality were:
>  
> "The first is physical causality - motion of physical objects through
> space.
> 
> The second is mental causality   - agents making choices which effect
> agents

physical causality also applies to information. Your delineating
between informational and physical objects is meaningless.

> 
> The  third is what I call 'Multiverse causality', a sort of highly
> abtsract 'causality' close to the notion of logical
> consistency/consilience - that which ensures that knowledge has a
> certain ordered 'structure' to it ."

Consilience is not consistency of any sort, it is the
merging/dovetailing of disciplines or technologies. You are waving
buzzwords in the air.

>  
> My third kind of causality may be equiavlent to Stephen Hawking's
> notion of 'Imaginary Time', a definition of which can be found at the
> link below:
>  
> http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm

Hawkings imaginary time is a creation of his imagination to simplify
the understanding of the possible boundlessness of a finite universe.
It is not real.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com