[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 249 KB, 361x361, 1292910817907.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432496 No.2432496 [Reply] [Original]

IN 50 WORDS OR LESS PROVE THAT CAUSALITY EXISTS

>> No.2432510

>words
>prove

It would take two things.
1. The universe is logical
2. Lack of causality leads to a logical contradiction.

But I don't believe this is possible. Even then, you have to accept 1.

GIve up, OP.

>> No.2432514

Cause and effect.

There you go, OP.

>> No.2432530
File: 30 KB, 360x318, 1293093968621.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432530

>>2432514

>implying correlation implies causation

>> No.2432537

If causality didn't exist, we could receive a message from the future and then purposely do the opposite.

>> No.2432542

>>2432530

"Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of the first."

Herp derp.

>> No.2432543
File: 96 KB, 640x427, 1282672655094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432543

>>2432530

>implying it doesn't

>> No.2432551
File: 61 KB, 300x366, ken_jeong-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432551

>>2432543

>implying you can rationally prove the concept of causation without invoking causation as part of the proof

>> No.2432554
File: 49 KB, 737x451, correlationisntcausation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432554

>>2432543
correlation =/= causation

>> No.2432557
File: 92 KB, 694x642, 1282542196078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432557

>>2432551

Then your reaction to my reaction would come before your initial post.

>> No.2432568
File: 392 KB, 1356x1016, misc-020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432568

>>2432557

>implying you're not implicitly invoking causality again

>> No.2432571

I am answering to to your post and time on the post tells that it has moved ahead (assuming its the entropic time vector).

>> No.2432573

>>2432568

Not at all.

>> No.2432612

>>2432496
Are you asking us to prove that causal actions exist, or that the enire universe is causal? Proving some things are causal is as easy as kicking a table to cause it to break.

Proving the universe is 100% causal is rather difficult since it's not. Some things like when a single atom decides to decay are not causal, nothing completely causes their actions; they're just random.

>> No.2432625

>>2432612

>Are you asking us to prove that causal actions exist, or that the enire universe is causal? Proving some things are causal is as easy as kicking a table to cause it to break.

lolno. All you can say is that you kicked a table, and then the table broke. There is no way to prove kicking the table "caused" it to break without relying on causality as part of the proof. also, lrn2problemofinduction

>> No.2432651

>>2432625
I always got the feeling the Problem of Induction argument was really strongest against empiricism. Not so much rationalism.

>> No.2432666

>>2432651
Adding;
Which is what, I assume, a lot of mechanical physics, is derived in (kicking a table).

The weakness though would always be in the axioms.

>> No.2432677

>>2432571
OP, you have a winrar.

>entropic time

>> No.2432686
File: 78 KB, 343x450, mind=blown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2432686

Simple, just assume it does not. Then

>> No.2432707

>>2432677

Please explain. Wheres the causality in entropic time? (As in thermodynamics?)

Not OP, but curious.

>> No.2432720

>>2432677
No, that's just citing a buzzword. I'm sure you have some sort of explanation in mind; write it out.

And yes, I know what entropy is.

>> No.2432788

Let's get a definition of "cause." Preferably a definition by which we can answer whether X causes Y given some theory of physics is correct.

We could start with something like
"X is a sufficient cause of Y if X precedes Y, and it is impossible that Y and not X."
... and similarly for necessary causes.
"Impossible" is something that violates the laws of physics. It is presumed here that the laws of physics do not specify everything, or that one law, perhaps the law that gives the initial conditions of the universe, is considered for our purposes "possible" to break.

We could drop the timing clause, but then every effect Y with a sufficient cause X would be a necessary cause of X.

But what then is the definition of the principle of causality?

>> No.2432831

>>2432496
> Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:44 No.2432496
Done.

>> No.2434772

>>2432707
Irreversibility. Because potential energy descends into a lower state, you can't go back unless by expending yet more potential energy.

>> No.2434779

>>2434772
That's one way to define the arrow of time. But what does that have to do with causality? It's just a way of ordering events.

>> No.2434805

>>2434772

this proof hinges on inductive reasoning, which in turn hinges on the existence of causality. try again

>> No.2434814

Just to prove that it doesn't I'm going to start a thread telling people to prove that causality exists.

>> No.2434868

>>2434779
Causality is just a way of ordering events. Entropy is what makes this possible.