Dear Raphael, I think you cannot answer these questions without asking first what causality is (and where it is situated between our minds and the world). Traditional (and I think reasonable) approaches start with the former question and then "bend" the notions like necessity to fit the favorite answer.

Dear Alexander Bochman, exactly this is the difficulty I find. Metaphysicians and logicians do no seem to be capable of standing their ground merely with a notion of necessity (and possibility and other such) without one of causality. Just take the case of modal ontologies and logics. Whenever I take a look into such works (e.g., David Lewis) I find this problem present all over.

But if you put the question to any analytic philosopher or logician, the man begins to jeer at you as if you knew nothing of their branch of philosophy. Is this not dogmatism?

Would you please tell me what exactly is the notion of necessity in modal logic and its ontology? I ask because my expertise is mostly in the philosophy of physics and philosophy of cosmology (both my doctoral works) -- not in modal logic.

Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil

To begin with, one of the basic, original claims of most positivist and analytic approaches is that there is no "natural" necessity in the world (and hence no causality there). On a modern logical version, necessity is defined roughly as truth in all accessible worlds (and this could be viewed as a surrogate "ontology" of necessity), but this is an empty vessel unless you determine the relevant accessibility relation. David Lewis has attempted to define causality in this "ontology" using a particular three-place accessibility relation (and counterfactuals), but I think nobody believes in this reductive definition anymore.

Alexander Bochman, interesting reply. First of all, if necessity should not be based on causation in nature (and its ubiquity or not), then logic and its ontology will have to be independent of content. I believe that logical and mathematical principles are to be defined as "as if independent".

Secondly, the "as if" does presuppose Nature and hence its causal nature. Somehow, in my opinion, fixing the notion of causation is a fine way of delimiting the imarinary necessities that modal logic throws open as possibly necessary or as fully necessary.

And thirdly, definitions of necessity based on SOME arguments that seem to be really true based on the very foundations of such "nature-independent logics" are not necessity. Similarly, definitions of causality based on SOME arguments that seem to be really true based on the very foundations of such "nature-independent logics" are not causality as such.

In short, some kind of objectual objectivity should be accepted even in logic and analytic philosophies. The moment causation is being spoken of, the nature of Nature and the conditions for the possibility of existence of Nature and its parts must be spoken of. This makes discussion of the manner of existence of things (in general) becomes necessary as a manner of dixing the conditions for the possibility of discourse.

Without these, we may have many logics. But all of them have some sort of axioms of necessity (even the first principles) without foundation in existent reality. This has created terrible lack of clarity in analytic-philosophical and pragmatic-philosophical logics.

I say this seriously. I believe we need to construct a more Nature-adequate concept of truth, reality, necessity, etc.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael, I believe I understand your position, and even agree with significant parts of it. Still, I think a note of warning is in order here. Many other notions and relations are important/fundamental for physics (such as gravitation), but analytic philosophy does not have any problems with them; in particular, they obviously do not create the need of augmenting our logic and reasoning to "gravitation-based" logic. The situation is profoundly different with causation, and this difference should be taken into account.

Thanks, Alexander. If fact, my concept of causation is not based on gravitation. I attempt to create a physics-and-cosmology-compatible, and biologically-and-human-science-compatible concept of CAUSALITY.

But one thing is sure: My primary concerns are cosmology and humanities. I do not have much expertise in the biological sciences.

If you would be happy to have a very short document from me on the new general concept of causation, I can make it -- just a few pages.

Ich spreche auch Deutsch. Aber es wäre besser, auf Englisch das Dokument zu machen, damit es durch viele gelesen wird. Nur einige Seiten.

I know that what I now say about CAUSALITY is going to be taken as a haughty over-statement. I would only keep silent on such remarks. Still, I would suggest that you please take a look at a few simple statements about a new concept of CAUSALITY.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael, I believe you can attach a file to this discussion. I am afraid, however, that you need a more philosophically/physically oriented expert than I am to properly evaluate your position. Still, I am glad if I have managed to inform your views somewhat.

Thanks, dear Alexander Bochman. From you name I had thought that you are a German speaking person! Later I knew that you are in Israel.

I am willing to send a short book by me. It is philosophical and cosmology-compatible. You do not have to read the whole book (90 pp.). You can read the first few sections. That will give an idea. In this way, you have the possibility to choose what you want to read from the PDF. Kindly send me your email. Mine is: [email protected]

Raphael Neelamkavil

THE CONFUSION BETWEEN CAUSALITY AND NECESSITY ARE SO TROUBLING IN SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE THAT PRACTICALLY ALL TAKE THESE NOTIONS AS GRANTED OR CONSIDER THEM TO BE TAKEN PRAGMATICALLY AS INEVITABLE. BUT NO ONE TRIES TO EXPLAIN THEIR MUTUAL CONNECTIONS AND OVERLAPPINGS.

In order to get the meaning of what I have asked here in this discussion question, let me clarify here THE MEANING OF CAUSALITY by citing as such what I replied in Academia to a comment by Jean-Louis Boucon:

Let me begin with the comments you made about levels of the microscopic. First of all, I do not understand how it would lead to a theological Highest level and Lowest level, if we are speaking of the existence of physical levels?

As far as I able to think, there must most probably be further inner structures within anything we call micro, nano, or whatever smaller. This is what physical existence implies, I believe. Let me explain this:

If anything is existent, it is non-vacuous, i.e., it is not nothing. (I think it is mostly at this and similar levels of discussion that we can best apply the fundamental principles of logic and feel almost sure that what we say must be true.)

If an existent is not nothing, it means it is extended in existence, and thus, has parts. Thus, a photon, if existent, must have parts, each of them should have further parts, etc. This is what I call THE CATEGORY OF EXTENSION. This is what I meant by levels of the ever smaller. Do you think this is acceptable? Would you doubt that any highest or lowest level would come into the picture here and block us with theological stuff?

Similar to EXTENSION, we have yet another characteristic of all existents. Every existent has some motion. By motion, each existent must cause impact in others. Not in infinite number of others, but on a finite number of them at any stipulated duration. This is what I call THE CATEGORY OF CHANGE.

Would this incur anything theological? I believe, not. IT IS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH A MANNER OF THINKING THAT POSIT CAUSALITY. A condition: this is possible only if we can admit that Extension and Change are the ultimate Categories of all that exist.

Now, think of anything existent. It is finitely extended, and constantly makes a finite number of impacts. If it has no extension, it cannot make any impact. Hence, Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but what we call CAUSALITY!!

In this sense, if Extension and Change are acceptable absolutely well as the exhaustive Categories of all existents, CAUSATION IS UNIVERSAL!! We have presupposed only the notion of existence and non-existence here.

So long as I am not able to explain these and the derivative concepts infinitely well, I do not have infinitely clear truths here too. And I have only a finite time to explain the meaning of any of these, and hence, they are not absolute truths yet.

But we can have intersubjective agreement that these (or any other such) statements seem to be absolute truths. Only this much is possible for humans. I WRITE THIS WITH THE HOPE THAT PETER JACKSON TOO READS THIS. Now to a part of your first suggestions above: I must explain what is existence. I am unable. I do not think anyone else is able.

If any of you finds time, please take a look at the discussion between me and Jean-Louis Boucon in Academia.edu (on Bayesian statistical causal inference): https://www.academia.edu/s/084b0465db?source=work

It is not good to cite the whole conversation here. Too long!

MATHEMATICAL CONTINUITY IN NATURE Vs. CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN (PARTIALLY) DISCRETE "PROCESSUAL" OBJECTS. (Have patience to read till the end.)

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our idealization. This is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences as long as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes.

But mathematically following nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a different procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities). This theoretical attitude accepts the existence of processual entities as what they are.

This theoretical attitude accepts in a highly generalized manner that

(1) mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of physical theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because the necessity of mathematical approval in such a cosmology falls short miserably,

(2) absolute discreteness (even QM type, based on the Planck constant) in the physical cosmos (not in non-quantifiable “possible worlds”) and its parts is a mere commonsense compartmentalization (from the "epistemology of box-type thinking" -- Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn): because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and

(3) hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos mathematically either continuous or defectively discrete or statistically oriented to epistemically logical decisions and determinations. Can anyone suggest here the existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today? A topology and mereology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory and functional analysis, is yet to be born. Hence, causality in its deep roots in the very concept of To Be is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST ONTOLOGY are (1) overly discrete about “entities” without clearly reconciling the geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the logical demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects being irreducibly in EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) unable to get at the causally continuous nature of the partially discrete processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in the only physically existent objects, namely processually discrete objects, in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY:

A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION

Raphael Neelamkavil

What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of causality with mathematics and its applications? I suggest that it is the dichotomy between mathematical continuity and discreteness on the one hand and the incompatibility of applying any of them directly on the data collected / collectible from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature. I clearly point at the avoidance, by expressions like ‘from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature’, of the centuries of epistemological foolishness, because this is the point at which phrases and statements involving ‘data from observation’, ‘data from phenomena’, ‘data from nature’ etc. are very gross, without epistemological and ontological astuteness.

If causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects is the case, then the data collected / collectible cannot be the very processual objects or provide all knowledge about the processual objects. But mathematics and all other research methodologies are based on human experience and thought based on experience. Hence, it is important to define the limits of applicability of mathematics to the physics of data is the only way to approximate beyond the data and the methodologically derived conclusions beyond the data.

The same may be said also about logic and language. Logic is the broader rational picture of mathematics. Language is the symbolic manner of application of both logic and its quantitatively qualitative version, namely, mathematics, with respect to specific fields of inquiry. Here I do not explicitly discuss ordinary conversation, literature, etc. We may do well to instantiate logic as the formulated picture of reason. But reason is limited to the procedures of reasoning by brains. What exactly is the reason that existent physical processes undergo? How to get at conclusion based on but beyond data and methods? If we may call the universal reason of Reality-in-total with a name, it is nothing but Universal Causality.

How to demonstrate this as the case? ((To be developed further.))

A caveat is in place here: When I write anything here, you have the right to ask me constantly for further justifications. And if I have the right to anticipate some such questions, I will naturally attempt to be as detailed and as systemic as possible in my formulation. Each sentence is merely a part of the formulation. After reading each sentence you may pose me questions, which certainly cannot all be answered well within the sentences or after the sentences in question.

Hence, I tend to be as systemic as possible in each of the following sentences. Please do not accuse me of being too complex in my expressions. Your (and our) mathematics, physics, and logic can be very complex and prohibitive for some. But would we all accuse these disciplines or the readers if the readers find them all complex and difficult? I do not create such a state of affairs in these few sentences, but there are complexities here too. Hence, I express my helplessness in case any one of you finds these statements complex.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our merely epistemic idealization where processes outside are vaguely presented primarily by the processes themselves in a natural manner, represented by the epistemic activity of the brain in a natural manner, and idealized via concepts expressed in words and sentences by the symbolizing human tendency to capture the whole of the object by use of a part of the human body-mind. The symbolizing activity is based on data, but the data are not all we have.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature as a natural conclusion by application of mathematics to nature is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences insofar as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes. Logic and its direct quantitatively qualitative expression as found in mathematics are powerful tools. But, as being part of the denotative function of symbolic language, they are tendentially idealizational. By use of the same symbolizing tendency, it is perhaps possible to a certain extent to de-idealize the same symbols in the language, logic, and mathematics being used to symbolically idealize representations.

Merely mathematically following physical nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a debilitating procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities), if this procedure is not de-idealized effectively. If this is possible at least to a small and humble extent, why not do it? Our language, logic, and mathematics too do their functions although they too are equally unable to capture the whole of reality in whatever it is, wholly or in in parts, too far beyond the data and their interpretations!

This theoretical attitude of partially de-symbolizing the effects of human symbolizing activity by use of the same symbolic activity accepts the existence of processual entities as whatever they are. Perhaps such a generalization can give a slightly better concept of reality than is possible by the normally non-self-aware symbolic activity in language, logic, and mathematics!

This theoretical attitude facilitates and accepts in a highly generalized manner the following three points:

(1) Mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of logical, mathematical, physical, biological, social, and linguistic theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because (a) the necessity of mathematical approval of any sort of causality in such a cosmology and by means of its systemic physical ontology falls short miserably in actuality, and (b) logical continuity of any kind does not automatically make symbolized representation activity adequate enough to represent the processual nature of entities as derivate from data.

(2) Absolute discreteness in nature, which, as of today, is ultimately of quantum-mechanical type based on Planck’s constant, continues to be a mathematical and physical misfit in the physical cosmos and its parts (may not of course be so in non-quantifiable “possible worlds” due to their absolute causal disconnection) and is a mere common-sense mathematical compartmentalization: (1) because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and (2) by reason of the “epistemology of box-type thinking” (see Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn) implied by the non-self-aware symbolic activity of body-minds.

(3) Hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of existence in an extended (having parts) and changing (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of others in a finite amount) manner. Existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causation. Thus, every existent is causal. There is no minute measuremental iota of time wherein such causal existing ceases in any existent. this is CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

The attitude of treating everything as causal my also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or increased or avoided incrementally. This is at the most what may be called freedom. It is fully causal, but causal not in a specific set of manners and causal in some other specific set of manners.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos either (1) mathematically presupposedly continuous, or (2) discrete with defectively ideal mathematical status for continuity and with perfectly geometrical ideal status for specific beings, or (3) statistically indeterministic, thus considered partially causal, or even considered non-causal in the interpretation of statistics’ orientation to epistemically logical decisions and determinations based on data. If not, can anyone suggest proofs for an alleged existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today?

A topology and mereological physical ontology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory, geometry, functional analysis, set theory, and logic, are yet to be born. Hence, the fundamentality of Universal Causality in its deep roots in the very concept of the To Be (namely, in the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change) of all physically and non-vacuously existent processes, is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST CAUSAL ONTOLOGY (1) attribute an overly discrete nature to “entities” without ever attempting to touch the deeply Platonic (better, geometrically atomistic) shades of common-sense Aristotelianism, Thomism, Newtonianism, Modernism, Quantum Physics, etc., and without reconciling the diametrically opposite geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) logically comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the processual demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects irreducibly being in finite EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) hence, unable to get at the CAUSALLY CONTINUOUS (neither mathematically continuous nor geometrically discontinuous) nature of the physical-ontologically “partially discrete” processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and due to its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to an extent to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in physically existent, processually discrete, objects in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific interpretative aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it as a method. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the said fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of the human project of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought. The linguistic-analytic philosophy in later Wittgenstein too was no exception to this nature of postmodern philosophies – a matter that many Wittgenstein followers do not notice. Take a look at the first few pages of his Philosophical Investigations, and the matter will be more than clear.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of extreme pragmatism in linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY CONCRETE AND PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Hence, it is useful for the growth of science, philosophy, and humanities alike to research into the CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE “PROCESSUAL” OBJECTS.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation.

No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended. None of the parts is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by To Be.

Similarly, any extended being’s parts are active, moving. This implies that every part has impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change. No other implication of To Be is so primary as these. Hence, they are exhaustive.

Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-science physical-ontological Law of all existents. By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is change and transfer of impact, no existent can be absolutely discrete in its parts or in connection with others.

Can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.

What about the ability or not of logic to conclude to Universal Causality? In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence. For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.

A point of addition now has been Change. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact. Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.

In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.

THE CASE OF STATISTICAL CAUSALITY:

As a way to relativize or to reduce to non-consummative the substitution of causation by statistical recognition and interpretation of causation, I would subscribe to Phil Dowe’s announcement about his work in causation: “[…] the whole approach of using statistical relations to analyse causal mechanisms will be challenged. It will be argued: (1) that causal production cannot be analysed in terms of statistical relations, and (2) that causal interactions cannot be analysed in terms of statistical relations.” [Phil Dowe 2000: 79]

What is the import of this claim?

Does he really question statistical interpretations?

The Irretutable Argument for Universal Causality. Any Opposing Position?

Very very short. https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irretutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

To help obtain some more clarity on what we discuss here, I think the following discussion will be of use -- especially the question by Richard Marker and my reply:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

AN ADDITIONAL POINT: ANYTHING EXISTENT AND ITS PARTS TOO ARE IN EXTENSION-CHANGE. HENCE, EVERY QUANTUM OF ENERGY, WHEN IN PROPAGATION, IS OF SOME NEAR-INFINITESIMAL AMOUNT OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. AT NO POINT WILL IT HAVE ZERO OR INFINITE EXTENSION AND CHANGE, and hence at no point infinite or zero mass:

Richard Marker: One more point:

So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.

DOES LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY HAVE ANYTHING SO FOUNDATIONAL AS THESE? ANY FUNDAMENTAL CATEGORIES LIKE THESE? OR THE PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE HAVE HAD ANYTHING LIKE THEM?

Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics

A conversation between Paul Healey and me in Academia.edu (today):

paul healey 6 hrs ago

Raphael and or Peter, do either of you think a causal explanation of gravity, not for Newtonian mass is possible? Recently I have read some criticisms of Newton’s general inverse square law for it, so wondering if any other explanations have been proposed. Here’s a link that looks relevant: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03441.pdf

Thanks for any feedback in advance.

📷Like

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil Ph.D.,Dr.phil., Cosmology + Math'l Physics; Phil. of Science + Scientific, Analytic, Process, Digital, ... Systemic Metaphysics & Epistemology< 1 min ago

I have not worked on it directly in the form of a theory. But I would suggest that anything must be causal and hence also gravitons. I said 'gravitons', not merely gravitation as a mathematically treated gross phenomenon! Why should everything be causal? I shall try to explain, very simply.

As you know, any mathematical proof for causation is not a proof at all, since math cannot touch it. Math can only see or show some of the ways in which causation works.

Let me first explain causality in a new manner; and then return to gravitation.

You do believe that whatever exists, exists. Now apply the law of contradiction. Whatever does not exist, does not. Let us name the latter as pure vacuum, non-entity, etc. If anything is not vacuous, it should have some extension, i.e., should have parts.

This is, therefore, a self-evident implication of the notion of To Be. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Extension, because it is one of the basic natures of all existents. Now, anything in Extension is not infinitely intense, i.e., there are not all the same extended stuff.

The additional information needed here is empirical: that there are movements in such extended stuff. If so, then it means that everything extended has some movement, which automatically should affect something else -- but not affect all else. This is impact generation. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Change.

If something in Extension has Change, such an existence is "already impact generation (Change) by parts (Extension)". This is what we used to call Causality. That is, the very two implications of To Be, when taken together, is nothing but THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF CAUSALITY. Everything existent must be causal.

Now, back to gravitons. If they are just a non-existent but mathematical construct, we do not have to bother about them. But if they are existent (which is the only other possibility), then they too must be causal.....!

Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

For further discussions on concepts related to Gravitation, Extension-Change Categories, General Theory of Relativity, Unobservables, etc., you may consult also:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth-Castillo-6

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

In view of clarifying the need of causality in "singularities" and thus reducing them from mathematical singularities to physically thick existents, and thus to address one of the insecurities of physics and cosmology, I propose the following questions:

Can electromagnetic and gravitational "quanta" form an ether-like background for the material part of the cosmos? Can there be interaction between the ether and the cosmos? If there is interaction between them, then every parts of them should interact, since the material part of the cosmos is within the so-called ether part. Then:

Are there consistent physical theories which exclude causality completely from the cosmos? Or, do they exclude causality from some portions of the cosmos and permit it in some other portions of it? In that case, how do they permit any realistic physical connection between the causal portions and non-causal portions of the cosmos?

Now, can the electromagnetic and gravitational "ether" be considered as a mere information, virtual information, etc.? Or, are these really existent energy which, of course, carry information for and from the causal formation of all that they causally affect?

That is, a mere infinitely dense stuff in the name of a black hole is a mathematical fiction. If this situation can be normalized in physics and cosmology, we have a normal universe wherein the Universal Law of Causality is applicable everywhere!

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

If the quanta spoken of in the physical sciences are physically existent, they cannot be mere vacua acting on other vacua. Merely saying that they are statistically full of vacua-type quanta does not solve anything. If they are non-existent, they cannot act at all. Hence, there is no question even of the correlation between two sorts of processes and then if we somehow insert into it all the quantum-mechanical articulations in terms of statistical measurements (1) of existent causes or non-causes, (2) mere articulations of our statistical recognition of some BEHAVIOUR, etc.

In all of these, how can we now speak of the existence of things -- however minute, near-infinitesimal, even in the case of the quanta of energy? If they are physically existent -- and not merely capable of being spoken of --, then quantum-physical definitions of statistical causality, the notorious consciousness-dependence of the existent quantum world, etc. can be avoided by some new ways of re-interpreting statistical causality.

Something weird for some physicists would be this: If the photons are not merely a statistical or merely mathematically existent affair in STR, GTR, QFT, quantum cosmology, etc., they must be existing non-vacuously. How can a non-vacuous and non-infinitesimal photon be made to travel (1) in some experiments merely as a wave and (2) in some other experiments merely as particle?

Some seem to suggest that consciousness-level brain activities are to be subject to a quantum biology. But if photons and any other sort of quanta (say, of neutrinos) are not vacuous and hence Extended, they too should have parts, these parts too should have some sort of Change, etc., ad libitum. Why then should we limit consciousness-level brain activity to the current level of quantum physics?

Let us conclude by formulating a generally acceptable kernel of what is meant when we say that something exists. My use of the word ‘electron’ need not mean that any of the models of electron as an existent must as such be true. This is because the word ‘electron’ is a denotative word. It denotes a denotable, which exists as whatever it is, without our having to take it to be exactly this way or that way. But there can be at least some physical-ontological guidelines as to how an electron cannot be. For example, it is not a pure vacuum. Let alone the discourse that only quantum vacua exist. This is exactly what I mean: a pure vacuum does not contain any existent, not even one quantum of energy, which should be carried by something existent, and not by something vacuous. This is what I call Extension. Every existent must be in Extension. If extended, it has parts, which are in some Change, too. In short, it is impossible to say that anything termed electron can exist without internal Change, which may be caused externally and/or internally.

Extension and Change are the ways without which nothing can exist. If anything is in Extension-Change-wise existence, this is causal existence: some finite amount of causation happens there. It is continuous in the sense that it is continuously the manner of existence of anything, but it is not infinite causation. If anything existent should be such, this shows that all existents are in Causality. This is the pre-scientific Universal Law of Causality. Now clearly, quantum wavicles too should be in causation, if we are speaking of existents, and not of pure vacua.

I suggest that only those who are sure of the existence of the world, in it some biological existents, in them some developed or less developed brains, etc. need to attempt their thoughts here. Others are all blissfully convinced that there are no photons, there are no electrons, there exists only consciousness, etc. They need only to repeat "I am That". We can only envy their spiritual attainments.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Physical_Causality_and_Causal_Necessity_Related_Are_Causal_and_Necessary_Similar_Equivocal_or_Different

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I