I explain here the connection between the pre-scientific Law of Universal Causality and all sorts of statistical explanations in physical sciences. The way it takes may look strange, but it will be interesting enough to consider.
To repeat in short what is already said a few times: by all possible assumptions, to exist (which is To Be with respect to Reality-in-total) is non-vacuous. Hence, any existent must have Extension, have finite-content parts. These parts, by the only other possible assumption, must yield impacts on other parts both external and internal. This is Change.
These impacts are always finite in the content and measured extents. The measured extents of Extension and Change are space and time. Without measurements we cannot speak of space and time as existing or as pertaining to existents. What pertain to all existents as most essential are Extension and Change. Existence in Extension and Change means that finitely extended objects give origin to finite impacts. This is Causality. Every existent is Extension-Change-wise existent, and hence everything is causal.
As pertinents to existents, Extension and Change are the most applicable qualities / universals of the group of all entities, i.e., Reality-in-total, because they belong to all that exist. Since Extension and Change are not primarily in our minds, let us call them as ontological universals. As is clear now, Extension and Change are the widest possible and most general ontological universals. All universals are pure qualities. All qualities other than ontological universals are mixtures of pure qualities.
There are physical-ontological universals / qualities that are not as universal as Extension and Change. ‘Colouredness’ / ‘being coloured’, ‘redness’, ‘unity’ / ‘being a unit’, ‘being malleable’, ‘being rigid’, etc. are also pure qualities. These are pertinents not merely of one existent process. They belong to many. These many are a group of existent processes of one kind, based on the one classification quality. Such groups of Extension-Change-wise existent entities are termed natural kinds.
Ontological universals can be reflected in minds too, but in very meagre ways, not always, and not always to the same extent of correspondence with ontological universals, because they are primarily in existent processes. A direct reflection is impossible. The many individuals who get them reflected meagrely formulate them differently.
The supposed common core of ontological universals in minds is a pure notion, but they are mere notions idealized by minds. These ideals are also not inherited of the pertinent ontological universals of all relevant existent things, but at least by way of absorption from some existents, in whatever manner of correspondence with ontological universals. I call them connotative universals, because they are the pure aspects of the conceptual activity of noting objectual processes together.
In brains connotative universals can show themselves only as a mixture of the relevant connotative universals and the relevant brain elements. Please note that this is not a brain-scientific statement. It is the best imaginable philosophical common-sense on the brain-scientific aspect of the formation of connotative universals, and hence it is acceptable to all brain scientists. In brains there are processes that define such activities. But it needs only to be accepted that these processes too are basically of Extension-Change-wise existence, and hence are causal in all senses.
Connotatives are just representations of all kinds of ontological universals. Connotatives are concatenated in various ways in connection with brain elements – in every case highly conceptually and symbolically. These concatenations of connotatives among themselves are imaginations, emotions, reflections, theories, etc., as considered exclusively in the mind.
Note here also that the lack of exact correspondence between ontological and connotative universals is what makes ALL our statements essentially statistical and non-exact at the formation of premises and at the jump from premises into conclusions. The statistical aspect here is part of the process of formation, by brains, of connotatives from ontological universals. This is the case in every part of imaginations, emotions, reflections, theories, etc., even when statistical measurements are not actually being made part of the inquiry as a matter of mentally guided linguistic and mathematical procedures.
Further, connotative universals are formulated in words expressed as terms, connected with connectives of processes, and concatenated in statements. These are the results of the symbolic functioning of various languages including mathematics. These are called denotative universals and their concatenations. All symbolic activities function at this level.
Now coming to statistics as an applied expression of mathematics. It is nothing but denotative universals concatenated in a quantitatively qualitative manner. Even here there is a lot of lack of exactness, which are known as uncertainty, randomness, etc. Pay attention to the fact that language, mathematics, and its statistical part work at the level of denotative universals and their concatenations. These are naturally derived from the conglomerations of ontological universals via concatenations of connotatives and then translated with further uncertainties unto denotative concatenations.
Causation works at the level of the conglomerations of ontological universals, which are in existent things themselves. That is, statistical connections appear not at the ontological level, but at the denotative level. When I say that this laptop is in front of me, there is a directness of acceptance of images from the ontological universals and their conglomerations into the connotative realm of connotations and from there into the denotative realm of connotations. But in roundabout conclusions regarding causal processes at the physical-ontological level into the statistical level, the amount or extent of directness of judgement is very much lacking.
This is a simple text. It studies the ontological and conceptual statuses of Causation and Statistics.
Raphael Neelamkavil "Now coming to statistics..."
What you are writing here is close to the opposite of the statistical derivation of thermodynamics. The laws of the big numbers in this statistical derivation are everything else as random. What you are describing as essential, cancels all out.
You really should consider statistical mechanics and understand the term "entropy" which does not occur in your text. The thin switch to statistics, right at the end of the text does not at all correspond to the expectations rised with the title.
Sorry, but in the eyes of a physicist, who is considering things more deeply, reading this text is an unreasonable demand. The way of consideration is just in the opposite direction of a constructive way. The epic celebration of extension and change completely omits the fact that we live in a world full of absolutely stable atoms and stable natural laws.
The stable things are the base of our approach to understand the world, not extension and change. Extension and change are elusive and not appropriate for ontological considerations, because only stable and static things can be a basement. Denying stable and static things only removes the basement and does not provide a new one.
It has been hard to me, to keep my comment polite and constructive. During reading I felt obliged to use very negative statements. With this text you have destroyed my confidence, that in principle you would have some new and useful ideas.
You seem to "live in a world full of absolutely stable atoms and stable natural laws". Continue. But how does entropy work if the world is made of ABSOLUTELY stable atoms?
I admit that I have not brought in enough arguments on statistics. I could not, because my eyes are swollen due to the heat, and cannot write much.
The lead-text here consists of just a few suggestions. Much should come later.
Raphael Neelamkavil "But how does entropy work if the world is made of ABSOLUTELY stable atoms?"
Sorry, but this question shows that you have absolutely no idea how entropy works. The entropy effect is based upon internal degrees of freedom of matter consisting of atoms and molecules. Using this freedom does not at all destroy or damage the atoms or molecules. They stay as they are but change their intensity of gittering around.
I did not opine that entropy does not work in a world made of absolutely stable atoms. I meant to ask how (the mode) entropy may be characterized in such a world, if that were the case.
You said. "The entropy effect is based upon internal degrees of freedom of matter consisting of atoms and molecules." Can there be an entropy that involves more of the entities / processes of the sub-atomic level? Why should entropy be based only of molecules and atoms and not smaller? This is why I questioned your ABSOLUTELY stable atoms.
Raphael Neelamkavil "Why should entropy be based only of molecules and atoms and not smaller?"
I already had given the answer on that question. It is because entropy is based on the internal degrees of freedom. This implies that those internal degrees of freedom are related to energy. This relation is expressed by the Boltzmann constant k. Internal degrees of freedom on the subatomic level are in a quite high energy region. This internal degrees of freedom play a role within extremely hot gases or plasmas. The energy level of kernel reactions is again much higher.
But an entropic consideration within such a high energy region does not make much sense, because in that region extreme energy transport mechanisms via electromagnetic radiation exist.
As long as the atoms and molecules remain undamaged, the entropy remains related to their possible individual movements. In that region energy transport is limited by the mean free path length of the particles and the collision frequency.
Based only on the internal degrees of freedom of systems discussed only on the level of atoms and molecules? And the internal going-ons of atoms do not count? Very good. You can go on with this. I do not want to reply further if you continue stauchly on this opinion without justifying it.
Raphael Neelamkavil "And the internal going-ons of atoms do not count?"
I already explained that the internal going-ons of atoms occur at a much higher energy level as the kinetic movement of atoms and molecules.
This energy leves implies electromagnetic radiation. The thermal energy component, related to entropy, becomes neglectable compared with radiative energy, occurring in that temperature level.
And if the internal going-ons are not causally involved in the very atomic and molecular levels, good, you please go on....!
Raphael Neelamkavil "And if the internal going-ons are not causally involved in the very atomic and molecular levels, good, you please go on....!"
Do you understand that as long as radiation does not play an important role, we can ignore the internal degrees of freedom of atoms and molecules.
The internal degrees of freedom of the atomic and molecular electronic shell are related to electromagnetic radiation.
Raphael Neelamkavil "Very good, please go on with the same."
Sounds frustrated. It seems that the answer did not meet your expectations.
But it is not clear what you mean with "the same".
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
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
I have seen a lot of physics and mathematics students mistaking the logical ways in which they experiment and theorize as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics. They even think of these ways as the possession of scientists. Imaginably, in this pride, they are encouraged by their scientific temper. More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophers, are a mere waste of time. (If you want me to cite, I suggest to get into some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking.) The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics.
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
Math and statistics work at the level of quantities. Not simply quantities, but measuring quantities and extrapolating beyond them. This latter as the general concept of the procedure is nothing but economizing thought. As methods of economizing thought, math and statistics are excellent tools. But are those engaged in these two worlds of activity aware that their quantities are not quantities in general? But instead, that their quantities are based on epistemic measurement acts and epistemically set criteria (e.g., the SI unit) of measurement?
From this level of action, math and statistics are excellent tools to fix methods of finding existence and theoretical necessities. But they are not tools that are based on the highest possible tools of existence at the roots of their quantitative disciplines. This, I would say, is a matter of concern for consideration at the foundations of math and statistics.
Does anyone think that the origins and foundations of math and statistics should be defined in this manner? If yes and if not, why?
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
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 A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
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
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?
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
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
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
That can be. And is it not just like many other physical forces active on and within physical existents? But causality would have to be a law of occurrence of whatever happens.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
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
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
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 Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction