Re: CAUSATION IN PHYSICS

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Bob Sciamanda wrote:

> My 2 cents:
>
> 1)  Events happen mindlessly.
>
> 2) We model these phenomena by inventing ideas like causality,
> so as to fit our observations into our mode of thinking, thus
> "explaining" them. (We probably constructed the idea of causality
> from our impression that we can cause events.)
>
> 3) It is a moot and fruitless question to ask whether "causality is real".
> Like all of our physics, it is part of our modeling of reality into human
> representations.
>
> 4) To paraphrase Einstein, it is indeed a wondrous mystery that nature
> is thus modelable to fit our need for "explanation".

I agree with "events happen mindlessly". And with "inventing the ideas
and terminology." My next two questions (assuming we agree on the
meaning of words) are:

a) Is nature governed by laws, (regardless of how much we are aware
    of them)?
b) Are these laws causal?

If the answer to (b) is "yes" then "causality is real" ( see #3 above).
I do not ask if "causality is real", I take it for granted to begin with.
What is wrong with this?

Brian Whatcott provided an URL which begins with:

"What, then, are causal relations?  According to Hume they
  have three components: contiguity of time and place, temporal
  priority of the cause, and constant conjunction. In order for x
  to be the cause of y, x and y must exist adjacent to each other
  in space and time, x must precede y, and x and y must invariably
  exist together. There is nothing more to the idea of causality than
  this; in particular, people do not experience and do not know of
  any power, energy, or secret force that causes possess and that
  they transfer to the effect. Still, all judgments about causes and
  their effects are based upon experience."

I wish I had time to read the entire document, and argue as a real
philosopher. There is so much to learn and so little time.
Ludwik Kowalski