I have been attempting in a book project to re-interpret the notions of CAUSALITY, DETERMINISM, CHAOS, FREEDOM, etc. purely physically. Still I find a way to place the concept of freedom within universal causality. Does anyone think that this is impossible? Is there dichotomy between universal causality and freedom?
Raphael Neelamkavil
What do you mean by "freedom"? I do not what this word means. In any case, there cannot be "freedom" (whatever this means) without causality; you cannot "choose freely" if yo do not know (expect) the consequences.
Dear Mario Radovan, thanks. You said, "there cannot be "freedom" (whatever this means)." Exactly this is what I too attempt to show in my new project. But, as you know, there has been controversy for more than 2 millennia over the relation or exclusiveness between causality and freedom, i.e., over the universality of causality and the specific instances where we experience freedom.
Hence, in my opinion, freedom is not consistent of instances where there is no causality. This is my first negative, descriptive, definition of freedom. If so, what is universal causality? Does quantum physics offer instances of non-causality? Are indeterminacy, chaos, randomness, etc. mere freedom or other names for our not having discovered the exact range of all causes within the antecedents of a certain process?
Raphael Neelamkavil
I think it depends on the premise you choose
a) free will is cause / precondition for Causality to exist
b) causality is cause / precondition for free will to exist
One must consider that the physical quantity "time" is connected with the concept / notion of causality and therefore all the problems with the concept of "time" are connected with the concepts of freedom and causality
Dear M. U. E. Pohl, thanks for the comment.
Let me first of all cite from your paper "Metaphysical Basis for a Unified Worldview: Definition of Space and Time 1", presented at Malla Reddy U, Hyderabad, India:
"It seems that with this second concept of time, which is independent of the speed of light, Einstein links the causality principle, i.e. the discrete sequence of "events", with the concept of time." (p. 4)
In order to follow the principle "terminus definitus non debet ingredi definitionem" (p. 5) which exists even from the time of Aristotle -- we need, in my opinion, to find purely ontological notions (Categories) that physical-ontologically base the epistemic notions of space and time.
In that case, we could find slightly more acceptable notions of what space and time could be. Even in relation to Einstein's definition of measuremental time and space and his postulation of the speed of light as criterial for the Special and General Relativity Theories, I believe, we can formulate the notion of causation much better than Einstein does.
If you take a look at my short book, Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All (KDP, Amazon, 2022) you will surely be able to understand what I mean by the physical-ontological Categories. (The book costs just 4 or 5 Euros. Its German version is my own, without anyone's help; hence you may not find it so exact and facile as you would expect it to be.)
I have described these Categories in short in my Academia page discussion on RECONCILING CAUSALITY AND FREEDOM. The discussion is still on. Kindly visit the same for a read. Duplicating the discussion here is difficult, as you know.
Danke.
Raphael Neelamkavil
I mean to get discussions and comments as to how to rationally insert the one (freedom) in the other (causality) or reconcile them in some rational manner. How the two problems were considered in the past and how it is being taken by some sciences are not very significant here.
In terms of physics, there is a band of events that are ab initio unobservable e.g. going below the Planck constant in terms of scale. There is no ground to support a theory for this band that causality and freedom cannot coexist.
In the general case, the physical universe is finite, and within this space, you can redefine freedom as being an effect relative to causality in terms of causal influence variability i.e., there will be a set of events where causality will exercise minimum effect. This can be identified as the set of maximal relative freedom.
Dionysia G. Panagoulia, congrats for this reply.
I am planning to work on this theme of defining the concept of (relative) freedom purely from the physical, cosmological, and metaphysical viewpoints now. Here I will include also the biological and psychological.
It is a pity that most analytic philosophers and philosophers of physics continue talking of determinism, statistical causality, etc. and never come to settlements between the two issues of causation and freedom.
I have been working on the notion of universal causality from various viewpoints: quantum physics (one book, 2014 -- my PhD dissertation), astrophysical cosmology (one book, 2018 -- my Dr. phil. dissertation), general metaphysics (one book, 2015), and popular works (one in English and one in German, both 2022).
Thanks.
* Let us try to answer two essential questions: what is "I" and in what sense can an "I" be "free". Every "I" is a set (or structure) of forces, which is surrounded by myriads of outer forces. It is hard to make a clear distinction between the forces which constitute me (which are "inner" to me) and those that belong to the environment (which are "outer" to me); it is hard to establish a precise border between the "inner" and the "outer" of a person, but this problem is not essential for the present discourse. My inner forces struggle among themselves, and they struggle with outer forces. Each my decision (choice) is the result (outcome) of such a struggle. What else could it be? Other outcomes of such a struggle (other choices) have been imaginable, or possible in principle, but in the given constellation of forces they did not manage to materialize themselves. This means that they were not real (material) possibilities.
* Every force is a tiny part of reality and it exerts an influence on the way reality (as a process) evolves. In that sense, I can consider myself free in a deterministic reality: I am a set of forces which play an active role in shaping events and the world. I am one set of forces among myriads of other ("outer") forces, which constantly struggle (compete) with each other. Such struggles and their outcomes shapes reality, or more precisely, they are reality. Forces are neither free nor non-free; they simply are what they are. Such freedom may not look impressive, but I do not understand what else freedom could be. I am a part of the big play of existence, in which I play a tiny role like other forces. Every entity, including me, is part of the large play of existence, which follows its way and which should not be called either free or non-free, because it is unique and incomparable, and it shows no signs of a personal will.
* The forces (impulses, desires) which constitute me struggle among themselves; the outcome of this struggle is my free choice. What else could my free choice be? I cannot imagine any mystical free will beyond that. The stronger among my inner forces exerts a larger influence on the outcome of the struggle, which I call my free choice. ...... And so forth.
Mario Radovan, you have said well. This can be developed rationally and in a manner that it does not contradict sensible physics. And we will be able to find what a fully causally imbued freedom could be.
https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.5422/fordham/9780823265145.001.0001/upso-9780823265145-chapter-004
Here is a link
If freedom is a causal affair, understood in a specified viewpoint? Then Universal Causality will be really universal, and freedom would be causal from within.
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
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?
Chuck A Arize, this book does not seem very useful for discussions on causality and freedom except for some background history of the discussion.
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 manner (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of other existents and their parts in a finite quantity and in a finite duration). Any existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causal activity. Thus, insofar as everything is existent, every existent is causal. There is no time (i.e., no minute measuremental iota of Change) wherein such causal manner of existing ceases in any existent. This is causal continuity between partially discrete processual objects. This is non-mathematizable in a discrete manner. The concept of geometrical and number-theoretic continuity may apply.
The attitude of treating everything as causal may also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or enhanced, all decrementally or incrementally as the case may be, but not absolutely. This, at the most, is what may be called freedom. It is fully causal – causal not in a specific set of manners, but causal in some other specific set of manners. But the whole three millennia of psychological and religious (contemplative) tradition of basing freedom merely on awareness intensity, and not on love – this is a despicable state of affairs, on which a book-length treatise is necessary.
When we do what we want we behave according to our nature. This is both free and not free depending on what we pose we are free of. There is no contradiction.
And the action is causal, controlled mostly from within and to an extent also from without.
Yes, but with pleasure and pain preceding mind in this sense we are driven from without.
True. And further what else? I believe, very much of heredity from parents, and causal inheritance from the environment -- of all of which only a part, however small or big, will be under control of the causation from within!
Those who are interested can read the discussion on causality and non-causality in brain functions. Taking place just these days in:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_information_and_artificial_and_biological_intelligence_non-causal_not_based_on_energy
How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences
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.
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
If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects. ANY COMPARISON WITH THE "EXISTENCE" OF INFORMATION WORLDS???
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences
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
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
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
“If perception is input from the world to the mind and action is output from the mind to the world, then the mind as distinct from the world is what the input is to and what the output is from. So, despite the web of causal relations between organisms and environments, we suppose the mind must be in a separate place, within some boundary that sets it apart from the world.” [Susan L. Hurley, Consciousness in Action, 1998: 2]
And can consciousness / mind be of the same status as information? I doubt.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction