datapad
Thursday, March 02, 2006
a really random mish-mash of thoughts inside my head right now, foremost amongst which is the thought that rene descartes has a really messed up kind of worldview. anyway, i was just thinking about the nature of causation, and since i think i'm getting sick of structuring my essays to the point where they can be as persuasive as possible, i think i'll just write down whatever i think. what is the nature of causation? What do we mean by: a causes b?. .: if a, then b. is it possible that in the natural world, all microscopic sequences of events are tied in such a way that A <=> B? like the deterministic nature of particle physics experiments, perhaps? according to quantum physics and the uncertainty principle... A might not necessarily result in B (only high probability gradient)... A might result in B' instead Also, there could be other events which could conceivably result in B, albeit with very low probability... such as A'=>B? however, through statistical analysis of very large sample sizes, we are able to determine that there is a general trend of A <=> B. when the sample size tends to infinity, so would the probability that A <=> B tend to 1. so it seems that the only principle undermining our ability to guarantee a definite link between the occurences of A and B is the uncertainty principle. but even given that, is there any "logical" explanation why A <=> B? or have we reached the foundations of our knowledge about the physical world? like how 1 + 1 will always give you 2? are these the most fundamental physical laws of the universe, then? actually, given the discrete nature of time itself, there is no reason for the "contemporary" definition of a "causative link" to exist. since time is discrete in nature, not continuous, and divided into many small indivisible quanta of time, which are incidentally the Planck's units of time, what would a singular event such as A have to do with the subsequent event in the next time quanta at all? for they are seperated by the indivisible gap in time! strictly speaking, there is absolutely no continuous form of interaction between event A and event B at all. event b is simply almost always placed next in line after event a on the timeline, and likewise, event a will almost always precede event b on the timeline. almost, because of the uncertainty principle. however, if we were to suppose that a certain event c shares the same kind of one-one relationship as shared by events a and b, and another event d with event c, event e with event d... and so on... we could eventually come up with a series of events that would connect the first event in the universe (the big bang) to the last event (big crunch/big rip/big yawn/whatever). it would be as though all these interconnected events are in fact actually a single matrix of events, a single fourth-dimensional event, if you will, that are merely seperated in time. it would seem, then, that the ultimate and most fundamental set of rules that govern the very workings of our universe would be the nature of the relation between any two successive events. if we were to be able to derive what exactly it is that would make any particular event y succeed any particular event x, and likewise, what is it that makes any particular event x precede any particular event y... we could theoretically plot a graph showing the probability gradient of any and all events happening in our universe across all points in time, from the time of the first event to the time of the last event. as for now, our current knowledge of particle physics already allows us to do the same with fundamental particles such as quarks, hadrons, mesons and leptons. given specific knowledge of an event in relation to a specific particle, for instance, given knowledge of the particle's instantaneous velocity/momentum/location (which is impossible to derive all at once due to uncertainty principle), one could then predict with a high degree of accuracy the same specific traits that would be present in the subsequent event that would occur in relation to that same particle, i.e. the subsequent instantaneous velocity/momentum/location/whatever. And the reason why we are unable to do the same thing with all the other macroscopic and microscopic events occurring in our universe right now is because our knowledge of all the other particles in the universe, as well as how they interact with one another, is in itself far from complete. but will it ever be complete? it might be that there is some particular aspect about the fundamental nature of our universe that can never be observed by us mere human beings, given that our sensory and intellectual faculties cannot possibly be considered as perfect and infallible. But if given a sufficient amount of time for us humans to evolve, i believe that it is only a matter of time before human beings would be able to attain that level fo understanding about our universe. after all, just because the universe is infinite (and that is assuming that the universe is so), does not mean that the rules governing its very workings have to be infinitely complex. for if they were infinitely complex, we would never be able to figure out anything about them at all. and the fact that we have already figured out rules about our universe in certain fields of knowledge that allow us to predict future events related to those particular fields of knowledge to a reasonably high degree of accuracy, shows that there is indeed a definite likelihood that mankind, or whatever incarnation of "mankind" might exist generations from now, would be able to figure out the rules of the universe in all it's complexity in time to come. we must bear in mind, though, that just because we've worked out all the rules does not mean that we are able to totally predict, let alone control, all the events of our universe. this is due to the apparently immutable nature of the uncertainty principle itself, which not only governs the manner in which particles behave such that we can never tell with complete accuracy how they would behave in another point in time, but also governs the very evolution of the human species itself, and as such placing limits on the extent through which the human body, with all its physical limitations, would be able to control his environment. with all that said and done, i wish to address another pertinent question: why are the rules of the universe created as such? why is the fundamental rule A like this and not like that? why does the uncertainty principle exist like it does and not in some other way? some people might say that that is evidence enough for the presence of an external, infinitely intelligent creator that must have designed the universe in a way that functions to such an elegant degree. but no, it does not require intelligence so much to create, as to make sense of what has been created. for intelligence itself is already complexity, and infinite intelligence would equate infinite complexity. if something exists that is already infinitely complex, what more is there to create? besides, creation, by itself, is very simple, and can happen as long as there is energy in the universe out of which any kind of system can be created. Creation of complex systems, such as life, however, is comparatively far more difficult, which is why the probabilities of finding lifeforms of any kind in our known universe is indeed very low. For parallel universes where the fundamental constants might have been generated even more unfavourably, the probabilities of life occurring would be even lower. and whatever it is that the big bang might have created, regardless of how elegant it may or may not appear to us, regardless or whether or not it makes sense to us... it does not have to be "specially tailored" in any particular way in order for events to unfold in a timely fashion. it would have to work, to "function", in some way or another in order for events to be able to unfold successively. we should not be questioning WHY it works, because whether it works in this way or that, it will "work". it works by virtue of the very definition of "work" in the sense that it allows for things to happen. as such, whether you think the manner in which it works makes sense or not, whether it's very intricate and complex or it's totally random and there seems to be no link between any series of events, the fact that something is happening, the fact that things are changing, are in a state of flux.. means that the universe is "working". "how" it is working, though, is another matter. if it doesn't work, then nothing will happen at all, and if nothing would happen at all, i.e. nothing would be moving, nothing would be passing through time, nothing would be in motion... then energy wouldn't exist. and because as far as we know, everything in the universe consists of energy at the most fundamental level, if energy didn't exist, then nothing would exist. as far as we know, energy is the only thing that permeates our entire universe. as far as we know... energy is everything. only with energy can there be concepts such as motion, space, time.. etc. etc. and because of the indubitable fact that energy does exist in the universe, since well, because energy is everything, anything that is in existence would have to be energy, energy has to work, in some way or another, in order to cause events to appear one after another, in order for motion- which in itself, is a product of time which is a product of energy, to occur. Questioning why energy works in the elegant way that it appears to be is irrelevant, as no matter how we may choose to interpret the manner in which energy in the form of an event a will result in energy in the form of an event b in the next time quanta on the timeline, such interpretations would merely be our own way of perceiving the very way in which the energy in our universe works, and as i've mentioned before, the energy in our universe doesn't choose to work in any sort of specific manner, it simply works, works because of the fact that it is energy and it will always be in motion, and it is entirely up to us how we want to interpret that sort of motion. and it is only the case that us humans, ourselves products of energy, interpret the very manner in which energy works as "elegant", "well-designed", and "complex". For it is the truth that according to our definitions, the relationships between all the fundamental particles and constants in our universe is indeed very complex, so needlessly and inexplicably and unecessarily complex that it could only have arose out of the sheer simplicty of pure randomness... out of the sheer simplicity, complete chaos and utter randomness of the big bang, where the only possible step from total simplicity in which the universe could develop was to move towards the levels of complexity that are responsible for the appearance of our universe as it is today, with all its galaxial, celestial, solar and planetary systems. i know this entry is far from complete. i also know that i'm damn tired and need to sleep. please refer to links section under "multiverse bla bla.." for stuff written in sec1-3 for further elaboration on some of the points brought up.. that is, if you really are seriously bored and have no tutorials to do. |