We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events. In fact, physics is based around it. But, is there any
objective proof save for the unit probability of such invariance
accounted for by statistical observation in the past?

For instance, sitting here on the surface of planet earth, If I let go
of a ball, I'm more likely to assume that the ball would go down
instead of going up. Some would be very certain that the ball would go
down. This is merely because of the unit probability, as observed in
the past, of the occurence of such an effect given the same initial
conditions. Of course, we have the universal law of gravitation to
assert to us that the ball would go towards the center of the earth.
But, this assertion by our law cannot guarantee that the ball would
indeed go down because the law itself is an generalization attempt
made by us to take advantage of the observed unfailing nature of this
causal invariance. Objectively speaking, the law is nothing but a tool
of convenience that has not failed till now.

Imagine this, if the sun is to disappear suddenly and completely from
spacetime, should it be of any surprise to us? In fact, what
guarantees the continued existence of the sun in the first place? The
law of conservation of matter? What guarantees the validity of such a
law? There are no courts of physical law in the universe where we can
argue over the disappearance of the sun or the lack of enforcement of
the law that such an event defies. we'll just have to do with it and
modify our laws to accomodate this new "quirk" (i.e. if we're to
survive that long without the sun).

So, in essence, the only thing that has the capacity to objectively
guarantee that the ball would indeed go down when I let go of it the
next time is the ball going down when I let go of it the next time.

Think about this...the next time you press the key with the letter 'P'
printed on it, is there really any guarantee that it will be the
letter 'p' that will appear on your screen and not any martian symbol?
The only proof that the next time you strike the key, p will appear on
the screen is the effect itself.

Laws of physics are designed around this *assumed* invariance of
causality with respect to temporal and spatial location of the event.
There is nothing we can do if this baseless assumption is to falter.

Regards.

"rAgAv" wrote in message
...
We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events. In fact, physics is based around it. But, is there any
objective proof save for the unit probability of such invariance
accounted for by statistical observation in the past?

For instance, sitting here on the surface of planet earth, If I let go
of a ball, I'm more likely to assume that the ball would go down
instead of going up. Some would be very certain that the ball would go
down. This is merely because of the unit probability, as observed in
the past, of the occurence of such an effect given the same initial
conditions. Of course, we have the universal law of gravitation to
assert to us that the ball would go towards the center of the earth.
But, this assertion by our law cannot guarantee that the ball would
indeed go down because the law itself is an generalization attempt
made by us to take advantage of the observed unfailing nature of this
causal invariance. Objectively speaking, the law is nothing but a tool
of convenience that has not failed till now.

Imagine this, if the sun is to disappear suddenly and completely from
spacetime, should it be of any surprise to us? In fact, what
guarantees the continued existence of the sun in the first place? The
law of conservation of matter? What guarantees the validity of such a
law? There are no courts of physical law in the universe where we can
argue over the disappearance of the sun or the lack of enforcement of
the law that such an event defies. we'll just have to do with it and
modify our laws to accomodate this new "quirk" (i.e. if we're to
survive that long without the sun).

So, in essence, the only thing that has the capacity to objectively
guarantee that the ball would indeed go down when I let go of it the
next time is the ball going down when I let go of it the next time.

Think about this...the next time you press the key with the letter 'P'
printed on it, is there really any guarantee that it will be the
letter 'p' that will appear on your screen and not any martian symbol?
The only proof that the next time you strike the key, p will appear on
the screen is the effect itself.

Laws of physics are designed around this *assumed* invariance of
causality with respect to temporal and spatial location of the event.
There is nothing we can do if this baseless assumption is to falter.

Regards.
Assumptions based on invariance, especially when a particular event has
occurred without variation innumerable times is what allows one to pursue
various, errr, pursuits without needing to consider endlessly that today the
sun may suddenly disappear.
If one is to wake up each and every day, testing first that the water is
going to flow downward into his kettle before he makes his coffee, and then
test carefully that the boiled water is not going to fly upward into ones
face that one may use a much larger part of each day pursuing more
constructive, errrr, pursuits.
Persons who do spend inordinate periods of their time contemplating such
things are fortunate that their are persons trained to help them to realize
that such thoughts and considerations are consuming a large part of what
would otherwise be 'a life'.
Fortunately the larger part of humanity is extraordinarily brave enough to
throw themselves at their life each day and say "even though the sun may
disappear I am going to take life by the tail and,,, and,, errrrr, watch
the latest reality tv crap without fear that my tv may die a moment before I
find out who is the thinnest of the fat people today!!!"
Carpe Diem, just in case there aint a tomorrow!

"rAgAv" wrote in message
...
We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events. In fact, physics is based around it.

That is a bit too strong.

But, is there any
objective proof save for the unit probability of such invariance
accounted for by statistical observation in the past?

No, causality is still an open subject.


For instance, sitting here on the surface of planet earth, If I let go
of a ball, I'm more likely to assume that the ball would go down
instead of going up. Some would be very certain that the ball would go
down. This is merely because of the unit probability, as observed in
the past, of the occurence of such an effect given the same initial
conditions. Of course, we have the universal law of gravitation to
assert to us that the ball would go towards the center of the earth.
But, this assertion by our law cannot guarantee that the ball would
indeed go down because the law itself is an generalization attempt
made by us to take advantage of the observed unfailing nature of this
causal invariance. Objectively speaking, the law is nothing but a tool
of convenience that has not failed till now.

Correct, physicists do not claim otherwise.

Imagine this, if the sun is to disappear suddenly and completely from
spacetime, should it be of any surprise to us? In fact, what
guarantees the continued existence of the sun in the first place? The
law of conservation of matter? What guarantees the validity of such a
law? There are no courts of physical law in the universe where we can
argue over the disappearance of the sun or the lack of enforcement of
the law that such an event defies. we'll just have to do with it and
modify our laws to accomodate this new "quirk" (i.e. if we're to
survive that long without the sun).

Agreed.

So, in essence, the only thing that has the capacity to objectively
guarantee that the ball would indeed go down when I let go of it the
next time is the ball going down when I let go of it the next time.

Yes?

Think about this...the next time you press the key with the letter 'P'
printed on it, is there really any guarantee that it will be the
letter 'p' that will appear on your screen and not any martian symbol?
The only proof that the next time you strike the key, p will appear on
the screen is the effect itself.

Laws of physics are designed around this *assumed* invariance of
causality with respect to temporal and spatial location of the event.


Laws of physics were not designed around this one point. They
evolved from many observations. But I agree that we cannot
insist that there exists a 'Cosmic Rule Book' that controls how
things happen. There may be, there may not, we have no way of
telling.

There is nothing we can do if this baseless assumption is to falter.

Physicists do not make that assumption. Physicists attempt to
quantatively model the world, for their own convenience and
amusement.


--
Martin Hogbin

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:56:06 -0800 (PST), rAgAv wrote:

We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events. In fact, physics is based around it. But, is there any
objective proof save for the unit probability of such invariance
accounted for by statistical observation in the past?

For instance, sitting here on the surface of planet earth, If I let go
of a ball, I'm more likely to assume that the ball would go down
instead of going up. Some would be very certain that the ball would go
down. This is merely because of the unit probability, as observed in
the past, of the occurence of such an effect given the same initial
conditions. Of course, we have the universal law of gravitation to
assert to us that the ball would go towards the center of the earth.
But, this assertion by our law cannot guarantee that the ball would
indeed go down because the law itself is an generalization attempt
made by us to take advantage of the observed unfailing nature of this
causal invariance. Objectively speaking, the law is nothing but a tool
of convenience that has not failed till now.

Suppose we perform a large number of ball-dropping experiments, and the
ball always falls down. Then consider two hypotheses:

1) When we let go of the ball, the ball will fall down.

2) When we let go of the ball, the ball will randomly go up or down.

Both hypotheses are relatively simple, so there is no a priori reason to
favor one much more than the other. Both are consistent with observation
so far. But (1) predicts the observations with probability one, while the
probability of our observations under (2) is exceedingly small. Therefore
we should consider (1) to be the more probable hypothesis -- not certain or
proven, just very probable.

We can think of hypotheses such as

3) When we let go of the ball before February 4, it will fall down, but
after that it will fall up.

which also give our observations probability one, but these hypotheses are
more contrived and should be considered less probable a priori.

In reality, of course, (1) is not strictly true because in certain
situations, such as that of a ball on a string, or a ball subject to
high-force winds, the ball will not move down. But the idea remains valid
even when applied to the more complex real world.

--
Jim E. Black (domain in headers)
How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog:
!markread,ignore From "Name" +"email address"
[X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads

rAgAv wrote:

We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events.

Time-like vs. space-like events - no strict ordering of cause adn
effect.

Quantum eraser and quantum double-eraser experiments - effect
(classical or non-classical behavior at the double slit) prior to
cause (look or don't look at the results; or look and forget then look
again).

TILT.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Feb 3, 3:44*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
rAgAv wrote:

We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events.

Time-like vs. space-like events - no strict ordering of cause adn
effect.

Quantum eraser and quantum double-eraser experiments - effect
(classical or non-classical behavior at the double slit) prior to
cause (look or don't look at the results; or look and forget then look
again).

TILT.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Sum over histories or path integral for the history of the universe is
just plain nonsense.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008

wrote:

On Feb 3, 3:44 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
rAgAv wrote:

We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events.

Time-like vs. space-like events - no strict ordering of cause adn
effect.

Quantum eraser and quantum double-eraser experiments - effect
(classical or non-classical behavior at the double slit) prior to
cause (look or don't look at the results; or look and forget then look
again).

TILT.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Sum over histories or path integral for the history of the universe is
just plain nonsense.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008

Infantile idiot. You don't have a checkbook to sum over all
disbursements.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

"rAgAv" wrote in message
...
We all know that the direct cause and effect relationship between two
events is invariant with respect to the temporal or spatial location
of the events. In fact, physics is based around it. But, is there any
objective proof save for the unit probability of such invariance
accounted for by statistical observation in the past?

For instance, sitting here on the surface of planet earth, If I let go
of a ball, I'm more likely to assume that the ball would go down
instead of going up.

The reason for the invariance of the laws of physics has to do with how the
laws are formulated. They wouldn't be 'laws' if they changed. Why laws
exist is a very deep question. The best answer I have seen is that
fundamentally nature is governed by deep principles of symmetry.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...r/nothing.html

Some would be very certain that the ball would go
down. This is merely because of the unit probability, as observed in
the past, of the occurence of such an effect given the same initial
conditions.

Translation - it is because nothing falsifies it. That such things are true
is common sense.

Of course, we have the universal law of gravitation to
assert to us that the ball would go towards the center of the earth.
But, this assertion by our law cannot guarantee that the ball would
indeed go down because the law itself is an generalization attempt
made by us to take advantage of the observed unfailing nature of this
causal invariance. Objectively speaking, the law is nothing but a tool
of convenience that has not failed till now.

Imagine this, if the sun is to disappear suddenly and completely from
spacetime, should it be of any surprise to us?

You bet it would.

In fact, what
guarantees the continued existence of the sun in the first place?

The same thing that guarantees there is no logical hole in the proof of 1 +
1 = 2.

The
law of conservation of matter? What guarantees the validity of such a
law? There are no courts of physical law in the universe where we can
argue over the disappearance of the sun or the lack of enforcement of
the law that such an event defies. we'll just have to do with it and
modify our laws to accomodate this new "quirk" (i.e. if we're to
survive that long without the sun).

So, in essence, the only thing that has the capacity to objectively
guarantee that the ball would indeed go down when I let go of it the
next time is the ball going down when I let go of it the next time.

Think about this...the next time you press the key with the letter 'P'
printed on it, is there really any guarantee that it will be the
letter 'p' that will appear on your screen and not any martian symbol?
The only proof that the next time you strike the key, p will appear on
the screen is the effect itself.

Laws of physics are designed around this *assumed* invariance of
causality with respect to temporal and spatial location of the event.
There is nothing we can do if this baseless assumption is to falter.

So the fact it has never been falsified makes it baseless? You have a
strange notion of baseless.

Bill


Regards.

So the fact it has never been falsified makes it baseless? You have a
strange notion of baseless.

I call it baseless because it hasn't been falsified *yet*. The
occurence of future falsification is uncertain. Therefore, laws cannot
be stamped down as "true forever". So, the assumptions that laws are
true is ultimately baseless...though it can be said to be practical.
It is just like saying that the keyboard you're typing with will work
forever just because it's been working till now...since its creation.
Such an assumption, in my view, is baseless.

"rAgAv" wrote in message
...

So the fact it has never been falsified makes it baseless? You have a
strange notion of baseless.

I call it baseless because it hasn't been falsified *yet*. The
occurence of future falsification is uncertain.

Yes, this is well known. Phyiscists claim that experiments
can verify (ie not falsify) laws they never claim that
experiments can prove laws.

Therefore, laws cannot
be stamped down as "true forever".

Who says that they are?

So, the assumptions that laws are
true is ultimately baseless...though it can be said to be practical.

Indeed, many of the laws of physics are extremely practical
and useful but physicists do not claim that they are excerpts
from the 'Cosmic Rule Book'.

It is just like saying that the keyboard you're typing with will work
forever just because it's been working till now...since its creation.

Yes, all of human knowledge is like that.


--
Martin Hogbin