Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: CAUSATION IN PHYSICS



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ludwik Kowalski" <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 05:29 PM
Subject: Re: CAUSATION IN PHYSICS


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?

The question is whether the qualifier "causal" applies to the physical
reality (if so, what does that mean?), or only to our model of that
reality.

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?
. . . Ludwik Kowalski

Hi Ludwik,
1.) The empirically useful content of Physics is in a form which asserts a
numerical equality between two functions of the readings of operationally
defined measuring devices (ie., an "equation", such as eg. PV=RT,
constructed by Boyle et al. to connect the readings of their thermometers,
manometers and meter sticks when "applied" to a rarified gas).

2.) These numerical relations (mathematical models) constitute the
*externally* useful, and experimentally testable content of Physics.

3.) To each of these numerical relations we are wont to attach an
*internally* useful content, ie., a conceptual model (eg., the point
particle ideal gas model). This brings into existence humanly invented
things (eg. atoms, electrons) and relations (eg. causality) among these
things which make their observed behavior "explainable" to us. These
conceptual models are internally satisfying and offer fodder for further,
fruitful speculation; but it must be remembered that they do not stand on
the firm, testable ground of the testable numerical relations; they are
completely human constructions and are deeply mired in taste, culture, and
current modes of thought. Our disputations regarding these conceptual
things and relations should therefore always be moderated with a
judicious respect for the dictum: "De gustibus non est disputandum".

4) In my personal view, "real" causality is in no non-trivial way
applicable to material reality (what could it mean?) . It is in no way
required for the success of our testable Physics; it is however a useful
(perhaps necessary) crutch to human, conceptual models.

5) A bottom line: The accelerations of a pair of binary stars are
numerically related to their relative, spatial positions. Indeed, the
accelerations of all astronomical objects are quantifiably related to
their relative positions. Our conceptual model of this serendipity
invents an attractive "force" as a *cause* of this behavior. That's how
we get our jollies :)

Bob

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor