Causality and locality are overrated?

[Bahman]

Causality means that the state of subject matter is changing and it is related to state of subject matter in earlier moment.

Lets define S as state of matter at current moment and S’ as state of matter at latter moment. One can define S’=L(S) where L is the operator in which it maps S to S’ in a unique way so called law of nature. This is a local operator since states that S’ only depends on S and that is general feature of memoryless system.

One has to generalize this picture in order to accommodate memory which means that we have to define S_old={S(-n), S(-n+1), S(-n+2),…,S(0)} where S(0) is the current state of matter and S(j) is the state of matter in jth step, which refers to past if j is negative and to future if j is positive. One can define S(1)=L(S_old) where L is a nonlocal operator now. This means that state of matter in a given moment depends on state of matter in all former moment which is a correct interpretation of system with memory by sacrificing locality. This however uniquely define the future by which it states we live in epiphenomena world.

This however bring the truth out. Either epiphenomena is correct or not. It is correct if one can guarantee that L exist meaning that causality is correct otherwise L does not exist hence causality is false which grant freedom of action.

Your thoughts.

 

[empther]

Here’s another of Bahman’s “science” threads.
You can’t call it philosophy because philosophy deals with things that science can’t touch.

Thus, our memory is part of our intellect which is a power of the soul which God constantly assists.
You can’t put that in a test tube and examine it.

This is another useless Bahman thread.

===========================

From his post 1, which was obviously copied from elsewhere:

This means that state of matter in a given moment depends on state of matter in all former moment which is a correct interpretation of system with memory by sacrificing locality.

unless God is involved in the system’s activity in which case the statement is useless.

 

[Bahman]

Here’s another of Bahman’s “science” threads.
You can’t call it philosophy because philosophy deals with things that science can’t touch.

Thus, our memory is part of our intellect which is a power of the soul which God constantly assists.
You can’t put that in a test tube and examine it.

This is another useless Bahman thread.

I am wondering how you could distinguish that an argument is scientific or philosophical. What is the use of putting a stamp on a argument without granting a conter argument. What is wrong with this argument by the way if you attack is not blind attack?

 

[davidv]

Overrated? As compared to what?

 

[Rhubarb]

Look up The Philosophy of Action: An Introduction by Carlos Moya. My profesor used it as a text in my action theory class.

I’m reading and re-reading your post and I’m not seeing how the above paragraphs lead to the conclusion of the last paragraph - that there is either causality or freedom of action. What is the lynchpin that shows it cannot be both?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here we go again.

Why make life so complicated? We are free and responsible for our acts. If you don’t want to believe it then don’t, but don’t get all worked up about it.

Linus2nd

 

[SecretCatholic]

Here we go again.

Why make life so complicated? We are free and responsible for our acts. If you don’t want to believe it then don’t, but don’t get all worked up about it.

To be fair, Catholic theologians make things complicated too, and we have rational minds which seek for understanding and meaning. There are some things reasons cannot reach, though.

 

[Rhubarb]

Getting all worked up over ideas is what philosophers do.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Getting all worked up over ideas is what philosophers do.

Is it really necessary to prove we are free, that we have a free will and are responsible for our acts? Practically every aspect of our culture recognizes that as a fact. The judical systems throughout the world are based on that fact. If it were not true then we would, as a matter of justice, turn all the criminals loose. No one could be faulted for anything they did.

Linus2nd

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t think it is “necessary” to prove a lot of problems in philosophy. Some peoblems can only be “proven” as far as an argument that can be made for it. The tension between free will and causality is a classic philosophical problem that people are still writing dissertations on - clearly there is more to be said on the matter.

I do think that dismissing an argument outright without with a contrary and unsupported statement like “we are free and responsible for our acts” isn’t helpful, from a philosophical point of view. (Even though I agree we have free will in general)

 

[empther]

I don’t think it is “necessary” to prove a lot of problems in philosophy. Some peoblems can only be “proven” as far as an argument that can be made for it. The tension between free will and causality is a classic philosophical problem that people are still writing dissertations on - clearly there is more to be said on the matter.

I do think that dismissing an argument outright without with a contrary and unsupported statement like “we are free and responsible for our acts” isn’t helpful, from a philosophical point of view**. :bigyikes: (Even though I agree we have free will in general)

Using pseudo-scientific logic like Bahman does to try to prove a point about a philosophical/theological entity such as the memory and soul which is beyond the reach of science makes no sense from the philosophical point of view. It’s total nonsense.

---

So you’re an “Agnotstic”, hunh? Not surprising you support Bahman.

 

[Bahman]

Overrated? As compared to what?

Causality is overrated to free will and locality to memory.

 

[Bahman]

Look up The Philosophy of Action: An Introduction by Carlos Moya. My profesor used it as a text in my action theory class.

I’m reading and re-reading your post and I’m not seeing how the above paragraphs lead to the conclusion of the last paragraph - that there is either causality or freedom of action. What is the lynchpin that shows it cannot be both?

Let me see if I can expand it a little more.

We have two concept of locality and causality. What I am trying to say that locality lead to epiphenomalism and this is very clear. By this I mean that that just current state of affair is important to define future which means that there is no use for memory hence mind. Basically one of the usage of mind is that it carries the memory related to all experience which could affect our decision hence future and if laws of nature is local then there is no use of memory since the current state of affair defines future. So the epiphenomalism is wrong if future is related to our memory as well.

Now assume that locality/epiphenomalism is wrong and our past can affect the future.This however doesn’t still leave any room for free will since our decisions are not made only with our memory since otherwise we could not be free. We are very sure about the fact that we have control on everything on spot. We have two options here, either causality is wrong in a situation that decision is involved meaning that L does not define the current state of affair meaning or the current state of affair S_old is not definable simply in term of {S(-n), S(-n+1), S(-n+2),…,S(0)}.

Lets focus on the second case and assume that L is definable. This means that there exist a L such that S(1)=L(S_old). The existence of L guarantee the existence of causality hence the future is defined in term of S_old. Now the question is what is S_old. There is no free will if we define S_old={S(-n), S(-n+1), S(-n+2),…,S(0)} since no degree of freedom is left for the intellect since L is defined and S_old is defined as well. The only way to grand free will is to minimally allow that the agent has internal freedom on state S(0). Causality is preserved here with the price that S(0) hence S_old is not definable until the agent makes the decision.

In first case S_old is defined so if causality is correct then there is no room left for the agent hence the operator that define the final state of affair cannot be definable.

 

[Rhubarb]

Using pseudo-scientific logic like Bahman does to try to prove a point about a philosophical/theological entity such as the memory and soul which is beyond the reach of science makes no sense from the philosophical point of view. It’s total nonsense.

---

So you’re an “Agnotstic”, hunh? Not surprising you support Bahman.

1. I don’t know what pseudo-scientific logic means. Can you define that?
2. As far as I’m aware, there are plenty of areas in philosophy that are beyond the scope of “scientific” inquiry. Like “what is science?” but let’s not step into that quagmire.
3. I think I’m being misunderstood. I actually do not support Bahman’s argument in this thread. (which is why I asked for clarification in my first post, to try and make sense of the argument) And in truth (and I mean no offense by this, Bahman) I disagree with most of his conceptual analyses and most of his premises from his many other threads too. What I do support, though, is someone trying to have a philosophical conversation. I read a LOT of philosophers that I disagree with. But they still deserve an honest discourse. Find flaws in the argument, that’s all well and good. Philosophers are consummate nitpickers of their colleagues. But even the worst philosopher’s ideas deserve more than a “no you’re wrong, end of story.” Maybe it is nonsense, but a nonsense argument is more robust than a flat, unsupported contrary statement.
4. A little off topic, but I don’t know what me being an agnostic has to do with causality, freedom of action or will, or anything at all. Maybe I should drop that from my info? I get attacked a lot over it.

 

[empther]

Pseudo-science…

Now assume that locality/epiphenomalism is wrong and our past can affect the future.This however doesn’t still leave any room for free will since our decisions are not made only with our memory since otherwise we could not be free. We are very sure about the fact that we have control on everything on spot. We have two options here, either causality is wrong in a situation that decision is involved meaning that L does not define the current state of affair meaning or the current state of affair S_old is not definable simply in term of {S(-n), S(-n+1), S(-n+2),…,S(0)}.

Lets focus on the second case and assume that L is definable. This means that there exist a L such that S(1)=L(S_old). The existence of L guarantee the existence of causality hence the future is defined in term of S_old. Now the question is what is S_old. There is no free will if we define S_old={S(-n), S(-n+1), S(-n+2),…,S(0)} since no degree of freedom is left for the intellect since L is defined and S_old is defined as well. The only way to grand free will is to minimally allow that the agent has internal freedom on state S(0). Causality is preserved here with the price that S(0) hence S_old is not definable until the agent makes the decision.

In first case S_old is defined so if causality is correct then there is no room left for the agent hence the operator that define the final state of affair cannot be definable.

Refutation of pseudo-science…

I go to Wendy’s where I have memories of the items offered on their menu,
but today that have a new one, the super-duper blue whale sandwich.
I decide to try one.
Therefore, I have free will.

 

[Bahman]

Pseudo-science…

Refutation of pseudo-science…

I go to Wendy’s where I have memories of the items offered on their menu,
but today that have a new one, the super-duper blue whale sandwich.
I decide to try one.
Therefore, I have free will.

And when did I say that there is no free will. You could find free will in my post if you read it throughly hence that means that you even didn’t read my post or didn’t comprehend it.

 

[davidv]

Causality is overrated to free will and locality to memory.

I don’t understand this.

 

[davidv]

Let me see if I can expand it a little more.

We have two concept of locality and causality. What I am trying to say that locality lead to epiphenomalism and this is very clear.{snip}

Given these definitions of locality

1**:** the fact or condition of having a location in space or time

2**:** a particular place, situation, or location

It is very far from clear how one gets from one to the other. Would you kindly show the detailed logic. Do not leave out any assumptions necessary to follow the logic.

 

[Bahman]

Given these definitions of localityIt is very far from clear how one gets from one to the other. Would you kindly show the detailed logic. Do not leave out any assumptions necessary to follow the logic.

Ok, lets expand again and lets focus on epiphenomalism and locality. We first define a set of states S={S(-n), S(-n+1),…, S(-1), S(0)} in which S(j) defines the state of system at a moment j. I think everything is clear by now.

Now, we are interested to understand how a system with give history evolve over time. Lets define an operator L, so called law of nature, such that S(1)=L(S). Now lets define a local operator such that L(S(j))=0 for all j except j=0. This is the definition of local operator meaning that the history of system is not important at all and what defines the state of system in later moment only depends on state of system at the current time and not its history. This is definition of epiphenomalism which means that state of mind or memory/history cannot affect the future. How we could enter mind in a simple manner in this simple notation, simply consider L(S(j))=/=0 for all j which means that the history is important when you want to find future state of system which is hypophenomenalism.

It is slight difficult to elaborate more since one has to break S(j) into two states of [P(j),M(j)] the first one being physical state and the second one being mind state. Notation becomes a little cumbersome but I can provide it if you are interested.

In simple word, epiphenomalism is real if laws of nature is local in time.

 

[davidv]

Ok, lets expand again and lets focus on epiphenomalism and locality. We first define a set of states S={S(-n), S(-n+1),…, S(-1), S(0)} in which S(j) defines the state of system at a moment j. I think everything is clear by now.

Now, we are interested to understand how a system with give history evolve over time. Lets define an operator L, so called law of nature, such that S(1)=L(S). Now lets define a local operator such that L(S(j))=0 for all j except j=0. This is the definition of local operator meaning that the history of system is not important at all and what defines the state of system in later moment only depends on state of system at the current time and not its history. This is definition of epiphenomalism which means that state of mind or memory/history cannot affect the future. How we could enter mind in a simple manner in this simple notation, simply consider L(S(j))=/=0 for all j which means that the history is important when you want to find future state of system which is hypophenomenalism.

It is slight difficult to elaborate more since one has to break S(j) into two states of [P(j),M(j)] the first one being physical state and the second one being mind state. Notation becomes a little cumbersome but I can provide it if you are interested.

In simple word, epiphenomalism is real if laws of nature is local in time.

I am truly sorry, but I consider the above a complicated restatement of the original post. It provides no understandable path from A (locality) to B (epiphenomalism).