Causality ain't what you think it is

[@p.scottdevos1235]

The equations *DON'T* tell you "everything you need to know". They don't tell you the initial conditions. The initial conditions plus the laws of motion are the "cause".

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes, if it's a student physics problem, it'll specify the initial conditions. But if it's the _universe,_ maybe the initial conditions are... _nothing._ Both our current theories of the Big Bang and ideas that fit with Wolfram Physics (e.g. see my video _What is the Big Bang in Wolfram's universe?_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXjQiqOBjs-mqbs ) postulate that the universe comes from nothing. Whatever the case, I still don't think that initial conditions + laws of physics add up to what we generally think of as causality. Thanks for the push-back!

[@jrkirby93]

It's never just equations, though. We like to suppose you could get a perfect representation of the state of the universe, and then model the evolution of that state over time with equations. But we know this is untrue on many levels. For one, it's impossible to get a perfect representation of the state of even a single element of the universe, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. For two, we know that the universe is a chaotic system, so any uncertainty about the current state must in fact increase exponentially over time. We also know that subsystems that are not entangled with an observer appear to take into account every possible sequence of events (feynman diagrams), only to 'choose' one at 'random' before reentangling with the observer. The 'Many Worlds' hypothesis of quantum mechanics suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum event exist, but that we merely cannot interact with the events that contradict the event we observed. There isn't just one future that is consistent with the observed state of the universe. There are many futures. "Free will" is a reasonable name for the process of selecting the singular future that will be experienced from the plethora of futures that were consistent with the past observations. But attributing "free will" to human beings alone, is probably a misunderstanding. We know that even the smallest subsystems of our universe seem to make "choices", so why would it be a stretch to suggest that larger subsystems, made up of these components, also make choices? I did, when I was 22, and for many years afterward, see the universe and free will the way you describe. " 'Free will' is a useful concept to believe, but not an accurate depiction of the universe." I said. But I have since come to realize that my reality is not a well defined state that has been iterating like clockwork since the beginning of time with a single trajectory into the future. Instead, my reality consists of a finite set of observations (my personal past experience), and all the dynamics, possible past states, and possible future states that are consistent with those observations. So causality primarily needs to be understood not within the context of any given model of the universe, but with respect to the limited observations we have on hand. What futures are still possible, given the observations I have access to? When a man is holding a ball, my observations cannot give accurate prediction on what he will do with the ball. Information about the dynamics at play inside his skull has not entered the scope of my observations in such a way that would give predictive power. But once the man throws the ball into the air, my observations imply a far more constrained set of futures for that ball's near future. I don't see this issue as one where the wolfram hypergraph model of physics would disagree with other observations or models of physics. The many possible continuations of the hypergraph should correspond to the many possible continuations of a quantum physics model of a system. There isn't anything about the discrete nature of the hypergraph model that make causal inference have any fundamental differences with a continuous model.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the comment, there's a lot there, on some deep questions! I agree with most of your thoughts. I would push back a little on the quantum mechanics, though. What you're putting forward conforms, more or less, with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. For me, the Wolfram model holds out hope of getting rid of some of the weirdnesses of that interpretation (as demonstrated in Schrödinger's cat thought experiment) and arriving at a deeper explanation of quantum phenomena. Your epistemic approach, focusing on what we know (and what we _can_ know) rather than taking a God's-eye view of the universe, is also very interesting. It leads into Wolfram's ideas about our occupying a specific region of rulial space, making sense of the universe in a way that's peculiar to ourselves. These are huge topics I'll certainly be getting into deeper in future videos. Thanks again for the thought-provoking ideas!

[@TechyBen]

@@lasttheory AFAIK QM is just computation still. There's nothing a quantum system can do a classical system can, other than the rate (there are computations qm can do that classical can never "catch up with" fast enough). That is, the determinism/non-determinism and the free will vs no free will argument is similar to the mistaken understanding that space time isn't emergent. If space time is emergent, these concepts may exist or may not, but it depends very much on first understanding the emergence, then making the decision.

[@Uri1000x1]

Someone thought that thoughs may show up that can't be traced backward in a cause-efffect chain, they aren't determined due to specific past states. Once these show up, they are causal in constraining what the future states will be. Mostly states are due to matter interacting. But thoughts might not be causal but are merely the informational state of material systems, the brains.

[@GeorgesDupont-do8pe]

Choose your interpretation. What about those "hidden variables" Einstein was going on about? Is the uncertainty principal valid for all of the possible models (the Copenhagen one being a bit of a cop-out imho)? The multiverse model just doesn't seem right from an intuitive angle, not that that means anything, so what does that leave? The block universe is my favourite flavour. So no, no free will, no time's arrow, no hidden variables, not even consciousness, just the illusion thereof. But whether we'll (as humans) ever be able test any of these hypotheses is a big unknown. Probably not, we won't be around long enough. I don't get Bell's Theorem and Inequality no matter how well Professor Jim Al-Khalili, or indeed Dr Sabine Hossenfelder explain it, but I do get that it means God does indeed play dice. If we continue to accept the Copenhagen interpretation. That's the issue though, the Copenhagen interpretation and the Standard Model have hit a brick wall, which I guess is where new thinking, like that of Professor Wolfram, is so necessary. Ooh, I see a vid for "Where's the evidence". Next.

[@patrick_into_the_future]

for the earth-around-the-sun example, instead of saying the sun's presence caused the Earth's movement, I'd instead say the current position and momentum of the two bodies at time T, causes their location and momentum at time T+1

[@lasttheory]

Right, I'd agree if we were talking about discrete times, like T and T + 1. But traditionally in physics, time is _not_ discrete, it's continuous. According to the Wolfram model, on the other hand, time really _is_ discrete. That's why I'd say there's no role for causality in traditional, continous physics, but there _is_ a role for causality (or something like it) in discrete, computational physics.

[@georgesquenot1404]

So would they at T−1.

[@jaddaj5881]

Einstein’s equations are causal. If we imagine perturbing the position of the sun say by a large explosion like at the moment when the star goes supernova, the change in gravitational field will propagate at the speed of light by gravitational waves. The event of the explosion causes the change in the motion of the earth. So you can see the causality in Einstein’s equations from the linearised approximation of gravitational waves. You can also prove Causality for globally hyperbolic spacetimes.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, absolutely, if you think of the sun and the supernova as two separate systems, then it might make sense to say that one system "caused" a perturbation in the other. But isn't that an arbitrary, human splitting of the universe into two separate systems? If we think of the universe as a _single_ system that evolves according to continuous equations, then I can't see where's the role for causality. The entire system simply... evolves. Thanks for the comment!

[@tonybarry787]

@@lasttheorywhy do you need to think of them as two separate systems? We have objects, in the universe. They move , or change. So why do they move or change over time? Well there are forces, as described by Newton, Einstein etc. So something changes over time from t1 to t2, because of forces. The forces “cause” the change in position, velocity etc, no need for separate systems. You acknowledged that your hand moving “caused” the ball to move. So unless I am missing something I don’t think what you are saying makes sense. Either all events are random in time, or there are rules , as you described. Therefore state a becomes state b, because of the rules. Hence causality.

[@Uri1000x1]

Any system behavior or interaction may be selected as a cause. So we can't nail down a cause, what's select as a cause is a personal decision. But many times it's logical to select some interaction as an "obvious" choice in a particular context. Any interaction extends over a time period, so we would say every thing that happens over the entiire time of the interaction is a chunk of cause. You logically say that moving the sun would be cause of something. Mabe the force that moves it could be selected as the cause of that which happens later.

[@Uri1000x1]

@@tonybarry787 I Wrote (not him) that cue ball collides with a target ball (in Snooker). What is the cause of the targeted ball to move? There is a causal chain, the cab driver dropped off the player, his brain told his arm to move his elbow, then his forearm, then his hand, then the stick moved, which a logical choice of a system that interacts with the cue ball. This is easier to explain like this system A interacts with B which interacts with C. Did A influence C? Or did B? Some could say the momentum of the cue ball attains momentum due to the tip of the cue stick having a velocity and touches the targeted ball that start sliding and later rolling. The cue stick touching the targeted ball can't be a cause of something happening because any thing that happens takes time. A cause would at least have to be an interaction over a time interval. An event that you say may be considered a cause of another event would have to be a change. A change must be changes in the state of a physical system with a defined volumetric boundary. It might be okay to say that a force applied to a mass was the cause of the movement of a mass. There is only one choice there in that descriptive context when selecting the cause. A cue stick will "touch" the targeted ball at a moment, we have to wait for an infinite number of moments to pass utill a change happens. But from physics I guess th cue ball never actually touches the targeted ball, the two systems actually exchange subatomic particles to get the repelling of forcefull effect that's observed.

[@lasttheory]

@@tonybarry787 Thanks, Tony. I think _force_ is an excellent example. Yes, we can explain the orbit of the Earth around the Sun in terms of Newton's gravitational force. But does it really exist? Has anyone ever _seen_ a force? No. All we _see_ is the Earth's orbit around the Sun. And as it turns out, this orbit can be explained instead (thanks to Einstein) as the Earth's following a geodesic ("straight" line) through space-time, as curved by the mass of the Sun, without resort to any concept of force. Not only do forces not "cause" motion, forces don't even exist. And yes, there are rules, and yes, in a discrete, computational model, state A becomes state B, and this is where I think the concept of causality (or, to be precise, a limited concept of causal connection) comes back in. I'll talk about this in my next video.

[@nomcognom2414]

Most people tend to think there is a difference between just preceding something versus bring it about. If you put fire under a pot of water and make it boil, it is difficult to see both things as merely correlated. It is a lot easier to understand that thermal energy was transmitted to the water molecules, which started to manifest this kinetically. In other words, heat caused water to boil. Heating explains molecular agitation, water convection, radiation, and evaporation (i.e. boiling). The issue of free will doesn't bother me too much, but free will seems to require neither an entirely deterministic world, nor an entirely non deterministic one.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I agree: an entirely deterministic universe means no free will, and an entirely random universe also means no free will, and a partially deterministic and partially random universe _also_ means no free will. I just can't imagine what kind of universe would allow for free will. And yes, if we divide the universe into systems (the fire, the water) and apply high-level concepts (heat, temperature), then we can arrive at the idea of causality. I just wonder whether all this division and all these concepts are imposed by us humans, and whether, at a low-level, it's all just nodes, edges and rules.

[@nomcognom2414]

@@lasttheory , again, I am not trying to conclude our reality, deep down, is a lucky one in terms of conditions striking the right balance to allow for free will. All I say is it seems relatively clear that, should free will exist, it would require some sort of in-between compromise, while it is less obvious that any compromise would still rule out free will. It is not that obvious that a reality which appears to be partly deterministic and partly not, excludes free will as a figment of our imagination, a human false perception or linguistic/epistemologic artifact. But I am perfectly happy to ponder that possibility, which I have actually done for a long time, though not as long as pondering the reality of time, first, and later of space as well. I have indeed long pondered causality and free will, both, and consciousness, which I consider overrated in terms of human agency. Minsk denied it laughing and I tend to do the same, since I have difficulty seeing it as anything else than our ability to track simultaneously a fraction of our thought processes over shifting time windows, making use of our short term memory, as we tumble forward. These are things we may ponder and even tend to believe, but hardly feel entirely convinced about. If only, for what Xenophanes said (as beautifully reported by Popper in The World of Parmenides). And that's not only OK, but maybe the most accurate we can ever get about "reality".

[@nomcognom2414]

@@hyperduality2838 , and Saint Tropez is dual to Louis de Funes' Gendarmerie, OK, I think I got it. 😉

[@nomcognom2414]

@@hyperduality2838 , nobody expects (sorry, predicts) Karl Friston's brain! 😉

[@ludinodreamsmith4361]

Thank you for making The Last Theory series, and this video in particular. The main problem I have with what you say in this episode is that I think of computation itself as a causal process. Computers are machines made specifically for ensuring that causality holds, and that you can control and manipulate discrete causal connections. Analog, continuous and basically untrustworthy components are engineered to behave like discrete, completely deterministic systems. As long as the system is in place, you can think of computation independently of the physical mechanism that instantiates it. I think the same goes for causality. Think of it this way: an instance of causation is an event in which one or more causes produces an effect. A simple model of this would be where one or two two-valued causes produce a two-valued effect - or put differently: it takes one or two binary inputs and produces one binary output. In a universe with only one such event, the boolean operators, NOT, AND, OR and so on, together would constitute the complete ruliad for this universe (if I understand the term correctly). There are no other possibilities. I guess this also means that any possible discrete causal relation can be modeled by combinations of these rules. Of course, if computation is a causal process, it makes no sense to say that computation can replace causality as an explanation or model of the universe - or indeed be an explanation for causality itself. In this view, computation and causality is fundamentally the same thing. If causality is to be used as a fundamental explanatory principle, then it must itself remain unexplained, and it makes no sense to ask what causes causality or what mechanism instantiates it. In this sense, causality actually is “only one thing after another” (according to some rule). Where the Wolfram model says computation gives rise to physics, I would think causality can do the same work. It is causality that produces the apparently “physical” world. Rather than doubting causality, one should doubt the existence of space and objects. These are theoretical constructs, inferences the mind makes based on its causal interaction with the world (sensations and actions). I remember the first time I recognized a boolean truth table in at text about digital electronics. I had taken some elementary course in philosophy, but could never quite digest the idea that a sentence like “The moon is made of cheese or Socrates is a man” should be considered true, or to have any truth value whatsoever. But considered as a map of causal relations instead of something to do with sentences and language, it totally made sense. - Ludino

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Ludino, what you say makes a lot of sense to me. I agree with pretty much everything here, but I'd use the word "deterministic" rather than "causal". Computers are designed to be _deterministic,_ in that the same inputs will produce the same outputs every time. I think to make the leap from "deterministic" to "causal" is to add some philosophical baggage without adding anything in the way of explanation. And again, to be clear, I don't think causality has any role to play in a paradigm of continuous equations, but I _do_ think we can rescue a concept of causality (or causal connection, to be more precise) in a paradigm of discrete computation. More on this in my next video!

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

Reversible computations don't have a unique arrow of time.

[@lasttheory]

@@kevinvanhorn2193 Right, yes, that's interesting. You can certainly have rules that reverse what other rules have previously done. But I'm not sure that means that you can't define a framework with an arrow of time. The Wolfram model takes one or more rules and applies them one after the other; every time a rule is applied, the universe ticks forward. Contrast that with, say, the equations of general relativity. There's simply no arrow of time in these: "forward" is not even defined.

[@audiodead7302]

It's an interesting video about an interesting topic. Causality is linked to theories of time, space and consciousness. So when people talk about 'theories of everything', you need to think about theories that unify time and consciousness, not just quantum and classical. For example, if you believe in a universe which is causal at a fundamental level, then you have to reject the idea that quantum randomness if fundamental. If you accept the idea of the 'block universe', then causality goes out the window altogether (along with any notions of fundamentality).

[@lasttheory]

Yes, that's an interesting point, that a theory of everything should take consciousness into account. Stephen Wolfram claims that his theory _does_ take consciousness into account. I'm not convinced, but I find his claim fascinating nonetheless. More on this in future videos.

[@greenfinmusic5142]

The way around that dilemma is to invoke a many worlds/multiverse ontology that allows immaterial spirits to choose their path through possibility space. That allows for quantum randomness of physical reality (down to the smallest bits) AND for a very deep libertarian-style free will, where spirits are able to control what phenomenal consciousness they experience by choosing which path they take through possibility space. Note that this free will is very real even though there will always be a purely physical explanation for what transpires along every path through possibility space: the freedom doesn't come from causally affecting the physical paths themselves (which would be impossible for an immaterial spirit), but from choosing which path you, as an immaterial spirit, take at any given moment. The easiest way I've found to describe such an ontology is to say that reality is composed of pixels at the Planck length scale, that each pixel has a small number of possible physical and mental properties, that the physical properties 'drive the bus' and control all interactions, and that immaterial spirits can only sense/causally interact with the mental properties. A human brain would have zillions of bits of purely mental properties, and if a particular spirit is 'tuned in' or 'connected' to that body, then the spirit would be able to experience those mental properties, which would amalgamate into an overall state of phenomenal consciousness. Invoking physical indeterminism, we get a situation where there are an infinite or near-infinite number of identical zombie (i.e. non-agent) 'yous' with brains that branch off into slightly different states at the next moment. You, as the spirit tuned into that particular brain, can use your force of will to steer yourself into following the path of mental results that you want. For example, there are a zillion possible paths in which I end this post with a question mark, and another zillion in which I end it with a period, and I (the immaterial spirit that I really am) will use my willpower to steer myself to a path (or rather, the set of paths) in which I end it with a period.

[@lasttheory]

@@greenfinmusic5142 What you suggest has something in common with the Wolfram Physics idea of conscious beings collapsing multiple paths through the multiway graph to a single timeline. I guess where I'd be reluctant to follow you is in suggesting that we can exercise our free will to choose which path to follow. I don't see _who_ chooses or _how_ we choose.

[@tomrobingray]

Cause is the past. Effect is the future. When something causes something else, what we mean is that certain configuration of the past leads to certain configuration in the future. Cause effect is nothing more than the flow of time.

[@lasttheory]

Right. So if it's nothing more than the flow of time, why do we need a concept like causality? Why don't we just call it the flow of time?

[@tomrobingray]

@@lasttheory We often call the same thing by different names. If cause/effect has a slightly different connotation to past/future it is due to the conceptualization of material objects, or more loosely to the partitioning of physical reality. Cause/effect comprise the actors that preform within the stage of past/future, but they are really just perspectives on the same thing: The Play.

[@lasttheory]

@@tomrobingray Right, well I think we agree then: cause is the same as the flow of time, but by a different name and with different connotations. Thing is, I have no problem with the connotations of the flow of time, but I _do_ have a problem with the connotations of causality. I just don't think that, in a continuous-equations paradigm, the connotations of causality are true. That's what I mean when I say that there _is_ such a thing as the flow of time, but there's no such thing as causality.

[@tomrobingray]

@@lasttheory The continuous-equations paradigm represents stasis, and in that sense it involves no causality. I agree. For something to happen in "The Play" there must be change in entropy i.e an irreversible process. The reality we live in is just this process.

[@Acryte]

Hey, I love to watch your videos! I've been a fan of the Wolfram Physics project ever since I read A New Kind of Science. I've taken issue with the current direction of science in creating increasingly detailed definitions of how things behave in an attempt to answer the question of first cause. Presupposing fields, vacuums, virtual particles, and other increasingly detailed definitions is a whole lot of something, and I've always had an issue with the fact that in order to explain how things come from nothing, or why maybe something is the default and nothing is what we shouldn't expect, we instead continue to increase the rigidity of the requirements for how actual stuff must behave in order to make it happen. Imposing a multiverse where every possible outcome is realized to simply address the sheer odds that all the fundamental constants of nature managed to align with the outlandish precision necessary for life to exist in this universe seems unreasonable... Postulating that one common iteration of a simple rule or set of rules yields all the complexity we see around is an exciting concept. (Not sure where the Ruliad fits into all that when considering necessary conditions for this universe. I suppose I have more reading to do). It's encouraging to see Wolfram and Jonathan's work discover new connections between commonly observed physical laws and constants. Just as Jonathan said, there's probably nothing special about hypergraphs, it's simply emergent from any network or thing that is general enough. It's interesting to think about how we failed to see what's in front of us if we can see it in so many places. It's easier to discover the solutions when they're manifest in so many forms. So cheers to that! Thank you for all your hard work, your script writing is excellent and I appreciate the effort you put into crafting each video. Here's to many more to come!

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, I really appreciate that!

[@stoppernz229]

i agree , there is no freewill , but worse, what is free will ? it cannot be defined

[@lasttheory]

Yes, absolutely. I've certainly never come across a definition of free will that makes any sense.

[@willnitschke]

Free will is defined as human choice. We observe free will everywhere, hence it is as empirically real as any other phenomenon we can observe.

[@beamshooter]

I think free will is just the feeling we get from the ability to imagine alternative realities.

[@willnitschke]

@@beamshooter Free will is where we weigh the pro's and con's of our available choices, and pick one based on our predictions about alternative realities.

[@donmanley412]

Causality refers to our perception of the arrow of time

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Don. Yes, I guess you could say that causality is the concept we use to make sense of our perception of the arrow of time, combined with our perception of free will, I'd say. But wouldn't it be simpler if we accepted that free will is only a perception, not a reality, and that the arrow of time, which is a reality, is all we need to explain? Couldn't we just have a concept of the arrow of time instead of a concept of causality?

[@AndrewWutke]

This is true using the word perception. Otherwise time arrow is a convention on clock hands direction and causality is a trivial observation that something hsppens from something else Otherwise it would not happen

[@lasttheory]

@@AndrewWutke Thanks, Andrew. I really need to do a video on the arrow of time! I think this has been a real confusion in our current conceptions physics, one that could be cleared up by shifting to a computational paradigm.

[@AndrewWutke]

@lasttheory Once you stand against the arrow of time you will be on the hit list of physicists as well as philosophers but I will support you if you wish.

[@PeeGee85]

Making a distinction between control and influence may be useful. Where control means manipulating something directly, while influence means manipulating something indirectly (by changing its environment). At the scale of human behaviour, we recognise these as say domination and seduction, instruction and imitation, constraining and incentivising, and so on. The distinction being whether what's being controlled or influenced has any degree of freedom in deciding what new state it will take (no freedom for control, at least some freedom for influence, though you can see how this may be subjective).

[@lasttheory]

That's interesting, and well stated. You only need to divide the universe into two sub-systems and yes, these two sub-systems _influence_ each other along the dividing line. Thanks!

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Hello Last Theory, Thanks for the video, as always. much appreciated.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks as ever!

[@bartwisialowski4634]

"If one event plays a part in creating the necessary conditions for another event, there's a causal connection between the two events." This formulation of how we should talk about causality is, I would argue, not that different than some of our familiar ways of talking about causality. One can talk about the causes of WWI in this way, and causality in this sense has a place in history as well as physics. The abstract conceptions we have of causality do not become "meaningless" when we apply them, they just require care and rigor to remain meaningful. It would be more accurate to say that the concept the video wants to tell us we are wrong about is freewill, with some clarifications about causality. I do not think our concept of causality comes from our concept of freewill. That is too linear, and some of our concepts of causality are better than our concept of freewill. Our concept of freewill and our concept of causality in the form of "x caused y" are both shaped in part by something more fundamental than concepts: grammar -- subject verb object. You don't have to believe in freewill to believe in accountability or responsibility. The former is metaphysical but the latter can be rendered in mechanical, biological, and practical terms, applied to an organism, its consciousness, and its behaviors. Dismissing the existence of metaphysical freewill is easy, and correct. The more interesting and challenging task left undone here is articulating a concept of accountability or responsibility compatible with the concept of causality as formulated above. If a conception of physics or causality leads to dismissing the existence organisms, consciousness, and behaviors, it has failed to appropriately conceptualize certain sorts of emergent structures and phenomena.

[@willnitschke]

Agreed. Cartesian or Newtonian mechanics are causal but do not bring freewill into it.

[@beamshooter]

Take the 3-Body Problem for example. There exist some general solutions which can be entirely described by a function of time. In such a case causality appears meaningless, since we could just plug in some change in time, and get the result withiut having to actually evolve the system. Now, what if there were some conditions which simply had no function over time to describe them? That is, they evolve generatively. The generative function has no explicit dependency on time, rather its inputs are the current state of the system. In a continuous system, the output of this function is an infinitesimal change in the state, which is only applicable to infinitesimal slices of time. The only way to construct the causal function is to then integrate over the generative functions... but each integration step is dependent on the previous. The result: if you want to determine the state of the system some time in the future, you have to evolve the system simultaneously! A common example of such a system is a fractal. So in some ways, you could think of time having such a fractal-like evolution. We are surrounded by N-body problems, perhaps which only have generative functions that describe them. Thus our reality evolves before our very eyes.

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes, what you're describing is computational irreducibility: a system where it's not possible to reduce the complexity to a simple equation, but instead have to compute all the complexity. An example of such a system is the Wolfram model... which is what this channel is all about!

[@willnitschke]

The 3-Body Problem (as per the above example) is not actually a problem, even though it was made fashionable by the Science Fiction series. In our reality, 3 stars orbiting each other will quickly stabilise, for example, two stars orbiting each other and the third around the center of mass of the other two. Computational irreducibly is not applicable to physics on a large scale. Which is a roundabout way of me saying I still agree with you, but choose your examples carefully.

[@TechyBen]

I do! I'd love to chat about Wolfram's model. I've thought too deep on it, but it can be visualised! Which is great. We could define causality. We'd have to be rigorous at it. The computational universe still has "causality", there is a defined boundary condition to what can be modified and what cannot (computationally), even if we can't fully track *what* did the modification. :)

[@TechyBen]

PS, as space and time are emergent, we don't nest "before" and "after" we don't nest "here or there", we nest *constructively*. Some parts can't be constructed without other parts. Thus we can note "causation", though of a different scale/type.

[@TechyBen]

PS ps, you can't undefine "I" by stating the laws/systems previously are deterministic to them. Because that suggests you've solved Gödel's theorem or the halting problem. You *can't* define some algorithms. So while non-trivial, I could claim "free will" by just listing halting programs. You'd not be able to "predict" these (though random sampling is needed). Thus I'd prove to you a system, though not free will, you can't "predict". It's rather obtuse to recon you can define the "will" (system of computation) of another system.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for your thoughts! I agree that we can define causality, rigorously, as long as we're OK with it being no more than a causal connection between events. I'll be going into this definition in my next video.

[@TechyBen]

@@lasttheory Thanks. That would be fantastic, would really help. Sorry to sound argumentative. It's that I can see a lot of structure in the theories that some miss. That is, if some systems are "free" vs "constrained", and if in humanity we have difficulty describing them with self reference to "free will", I'm more open to helping people describe that, than telling them they don't have it. :)

[@georgesquenot1404]

It may be that the equations are time-symmetrical while the "boundary" conditions are not. If we think of the universe as a 4D timeless block, causality and time flow perception are internal emergent phenomena due to the fact that the universe appear to be more ordered on one side than on the other. The universe might actually be boundaryless as Stephen Hawking once suggested so the "boundary" condition might boil down to something like "the universe is as much as possible more ordered on one (temporal) side than on the other".

[@lasttheory]

Right, that's interesting, thanks Georges. By boundary conditions, do you mean conditions applied at the beginning of the universe, or at the end of the universe (if there is such a thing), or around the edges of the universe (again, if there are such things), or something else?

[@georgesquenot1404]

@@lasttheory Definitely something else. The idea of defining conditions on the universe’s beginning, end or side boundaries is indeed problematic in many respects, starting with the fact that there might not be such things. That’s why I used quotes around “boundary”. By this I mean an alternative way to pick one particular solution in the Vast set of those for the “universe’s equation”. Conditions on any slice of the spatial dimensions might do but this is not much practical either. Conditions on boundary or slices are just one way among Many to specify a particular solution. I was thinking of one of a different type, of “higher level” and possibly avoiding arbitrariness or the use of the choice axiom. That largely needs to be refined but something like “as much as possible more ordered on one (temporal) side than on the other” could be quantified as something like “the integral of an entropy gradient over the whole 4D universe” (or some average value of that in order to avoid infinities), which could be maximized over the set of possible solutions for picking one or a much smaller subset of them.

[@lasttheory]

@@georgesquenot1404 Ah, OK, thanks Georges. We certainly agree that boundary conditions on the universes beginning, end or edges don't work; but in my mind, that means that there _are_ no boundary conditions on the universe, only the laws of physics. What you're calling boundary conditions, a "way to pick one particular solution", I'd call the laws of physics. Ideally we wouldn't need to pick any particular solution. Sure, we could impose a condition on the universe that it has to be more ordered at the beginning than at the end, but by doing so, aren't we just defining the laws of physics?

[@georgesquenot1404]

@@lasttheory Thank you too. “Boundary condition” is not appropriate and may be confusing even with quotes. However, “the laws of physics” potentially have a huge set of solutions, of which our universe is (or correspond to) a particular one so something more is necessary for specifying it. Also, the known laws of physics are time-symmetrical while the universe appears as time-oriented in relation with an _extreme_ asymmetry in entropy / order, and we might want an explanation for that. If a system exhibits a time-asymmetry behavior with time-symmetrical laws, it seems quite natural to attribute it to boundary conditions or to some other additional condition that explains the asymmetry if boundary conditions do not seem workable. Considering the observed extreme asymmetry in entropy, postulating an additional condition precisely specifying its extremeness might make sense. Though it may not reduce the set of solutions to the laws of physics to a single one, it may significantly reduce its size. Sure, it might be that the laws of physics only have one solution, which happens to involve a very strong time-asymmetry, even though the laws themselves are time-symmetrical. That is not obvious considering the current “known” form of these laws.

[@lasttheory]

​@@georgesquenot1404 Thanks Georges. Personally, my response to time-asymmetry behavior + time-symmetrical laws would be to suggest that those time-symmetrical laws are wrong. That's one of the attractions of Wolfram Physics for me: the laws are _time-asymmetrical,_ so we don't have to do any gymnastics to explain the time-asymmetrical behaviour. I don't know, it seems pretty simple to me: the universe is time-asymmetrical, so a good framework for physics should be time-asymmetrical, too.

[@KeithMoon1980]

Great video! Incredibly complex topic, explained clearly, step by step. Well done!

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Keith!

[@Chris-op7yt]

free will has never been proved to exist, but whatever. lets keep to physics. people perceive a cause and effect relationship when it comes to collisions, eventhough (like you stated) there is no discrete turns taken by this or that object in formulas. i've come to conclude that (in physics) looking at isolated events leads us to think there's causes and effects, but in reality no such isolation is possible. rather than any bit of rock in space having a turn to causally bump into another, the entire universe--also down to microscale--is in a deterministic dance all in parallel, with no single thing preceding another. this is not useful for physics, as for every thing you're interested in would require computing all forces and all objects in whole universe, so physics makes approximations and separates things to provide useful output for particular purposes that are close enough on a short time scale.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, that sounds right, thanks Chris. We're so used to dividing up the universe - the Earth from the Sun, oneself from the rest of the universe - that we forget that it's a single system evolving in ways so complex that we can find only pockets of simplicity, such as the equations of General Relativity.

[@Chris-op7yt]

@@lasttheory : now if i could only pass a message from one me in the universe to the next incarnation of exactly same me in next same universe...alas all determined. the real hell, that we're not aware of :) we're in a loop

[@peterschmidt3551]

I think the observer phenomenon is the essential example of causality. An object in a superposition collapses into an object in a discrete state, and it suddenly becomes relative. Perhaps relativity is the grown-up concept of causality. The naive causality which you speak of seems to be an artifact of our language, trying to describe in literal objective words a seamless motion which only a function with complex terms can describe-- the story of the universe indeed... _this_ universe. The redemption of free will would lie in the confirmation of the Many Worlds Hypothesis. If every signal that traverses every synaptic cleft in our brain introduces quantum uncertainty through the breaking of hydrogen bonds during neurotransmitter reactions, our neural networks represent classical information projected into a sort of chaos space. If there are an infinite number of universes encapsulated within a prime singularity, and our minds are interactive with information from other universes, even a little, then although the novelty of ideas exhibited by our "free will" would still be limited at least by what universes it can interact with, that novelty could still far exceed the complexity of the classical information alone, contained by the brain.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Peter. There's a lot there! I agree that there could be a role for causality in the traditional (Copenhagen) concept of an observer, but I'm not sure that interpretation can (or should) survive. It's just not scientific: it doesn't even define what an observer _is._ I think we can do better by recognizing that we, as observers, are bound by the same splitting of the multiway graph as the things we're observing. And I think of the many worlds idea, too, as unscientific. If each of the many worlds into which the universe divides is unable to communicate with any of the other worlds, then there's no way that we, in one branch of the universe, can either prove or disprove the existance of any of the other branches. It's good as a thought experiment, but as a _theory,_ the many worlds idea is unfalsifiable.

[@peterschmidt3551]

@@lasttheory I deeply appreciate open discourse, much more than arguing any point. Thanks for your response man! Ingenious experiments have surprised us in the past. The million dollar question is whether parallel universes can interact. Perhaps at the quantum level- perhaps this is what dark matter is: coalignment of the local spectrum of parallel universes sharing gravity.

[@monkerud2108]

So the final thing ill explain is how matter responds to the gradients produced by other masses, basically lenght contraction happens with motiom relative to the medium, but there is also a scalar Variant, the reduction in scale of the phenomenon to a smaller congruent version that happens andncauses expansion as the top layer of vacuum depletes between phase transitions also hapoens as a function of space closer to masses, and this is critical for getting the full effects of general relativity and not just some scalar vector theory of gravity, so the closer to a large mass sime particle of matter is the smaller the characristic lenght it and alsonits interia but its intrinsic properties remain congruent and so space in terms of the changing units associated with the congruent changing matter maos out a curves space, while the curvature involving time depends on both the spatial intrinsic curvature that emerges, and the gradient in the speed of light and the vector speed of light coming from the flow of the emergent medium. So we do indeed get curved spacetime, and when you do it rigorously with mathematics based on laws by fiat for the smaller scale higher entropy vacua and the rest of the dynamics as emergent from its effective laws and entities, it even gives you a derivation of Einsteins equation with higher order corrections. But thats like 10 papers and can't really be done rigorously without addressing the gauge forces as well which is the really interesting story, more complicated and also provudes things like emergent quantized angular momentum and such things.

[@AndrewWutke]

I confirm the usefulness of discrete fundaments of cause. I found that Popper gave a great practical definition without metaphysical flavours. Cause is a situation including events associated with initial condition. Effect is an event associated with a prognosis. Managed to prove that there is no non-causal motion in special relativity even if superluminal.

[@lasttheory]

Clearly I need to go deeper into Popper: it's a while since I looked into his ideas! I'll be interested to see what you make of my next video, Andrew. As I say, I think the causal graph in Wolfram Physics allows for a more precise, albeit limited, concept of causality.

[@willnitschke]

And what is the pragmatic differences between Popper's definition and Hume's ?

[@AndrewWutke]

​@@willnitschke Hume's Causality is not constructive but a critique of the man made concept in contrast to Popper's which gave me an algorithm to prove that every motion is causal including superluminal if existed .

[@willnitschke]

@@AndrewWutke But Popper DID NOT solve the problem of causation.

[@AndrewWutke]

@willnitschke Not sure what you mean. Where cause really matters is the prime cause ;why anything exists and why it is as we see it. Popper approach gave me enough arguments to eliminate time as an underlying foundation of causal chains unles you read the state of a clock and force events using its state by design . I have abolished a myth introduced by Tolman that superluminal signals do not exist because Lorentz transformation leads to situation where the signal transformed to a moving system, going backwards in time leading to cause succeeding effects. To much to explain here. At least all uniform motion is causal hence without additional proof I conjecture there is no non causal motions in nature. This allowed me to prove absolute rest and detectability of absolute motion in a limited scenario, which requires further generalisation. This all , thanks to Popper's approach. I don't think we can explain the prime cause this way, but everything what is happening thereafter. For practical needs cause is initial conditions and relevant law of nature predicting effects ignoring micro causes for the law known only empirically.

[@zackbarkley7593]

What I don't understand is how a "causal connection" between two different histories of a hypergraph would have relevance to a single hypergraph. Does anterograde causality arise statistically in the likelihood of something happening in a multiverse (or between multiple observers)? If that is the case, such examples would be more convincing if Wolfram and his colleagues have these. I still think something is missing however, and I wonder if Wolfram is being too strict and not being strict enough with regard to causality for a "given observer" or "given hypergraph" which has no access to alternate histories. In this I mean in one way, he is using a automaton with simple rules that is MORE EASILY but not DEFINITIVELY able to discern a unique past. I think an alternative stricter application of a type of retrograde causality "within" a hypergraph (or some other abstract discrete information structure) may be more interesting AND apply to SINGLE observers. 'If we are to take the measurement problem seriously, I think we need to adopt the concept that discrete measurements themselves create the reality of the observer via a consistency criteria related to causality, and such observers might indeed have some form of strict causality in the retrograde but not necessarily anterograde pattern. This is because we need to ASSUME as a conscious observer we can AT LEAST have faith in our ability to reconstruct our personal past and memories, as we perceive them IN THE MOMENT, although not necessarily for another observer or even the same observer in some future moment. Instances of anterograde causality, or classical determinism, which as reward seeking life forms, is what we seek out might be a derivative of such, but not absolute. While such models might not directly produce physics as we understand it, they might be able to be simulated on quantum computers and model conscious observers...including physicists, non-physicists, certain animals, and certain localized measuring and computing devices. I would argue that while a mouse may not be able to create THE universe (as humans now understand it), that mouse may be able to create ITS universe as the mouse understands it. While not being able to create directly physics models (as Wolfram hopes), it might be more true than physics and solve the measurement problem, and lead us to find the most useful physics models where different observers or observations at different times with the same observer have the best chance to observe the same anterograde causality in certain experiments (and thus real physics). In this I think the causal connection idea would be useful, but for the reasons stated before, I think it is incomplete without identifying some intrinsic causal characteristics of local observers.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Zack. There's a lot here, so let me focus on two of the things you say. After speaking to Stephen Wolfram, I've realized the extent to which he's no longer considering a _single_ hypergraph as representing the universe, but is considering the entire mutliway graph as contributing to the universe. This means that we as observers can "equivalence" or "coarse-grain" many paths through the multiway graph into a single thread of time. Which gets to your comment about observers: "I think it is incomplete without identifying some intrinsic causal characteristics of local observers." I suspect Stephen Wolfram would very much agree with this statement. It's our nature as observers that makes the universe appear to us as it does.

[@willnitschke]

Hume defines causality as a mental phenomena of discrete events conjoined through time. He was correct.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I think Hume was right to see causality as a primarily psychological phenomenon: it's our way of making sense of events in time. I'd be interested to hear what you think of the more limited, physical concept of causality I'll introduce in my next video on the causal graph.

[@willnitschke]

@@lasttheory Based on what you've articulated already, my main concern is that the term 'causation' now carries so much historical baggage with it, that it might be best to jettison the use of the word entirely. That would, however, also have its own set of downsides.

[@lasttheory]

@@willnitschke Yes, I'm inclined to agree, a new word would be better. I think most people will find that this new, limited concept of causality doesn't match up to that old, mental concept with all its historical baggage. As I say in the title of this video: "Causality ain't what you think it is".

[@willnitschke]

@@lasttheory Yes. Rather than assert "X caused Y" what should be expressed is "from X follows Y". There are no causes, only _transformations_ of states.

[@darrennew8211]

I heard someone say causality is coincidence plus explanation. Sounds very similar to Hume.

[@keithbessant]

Studying History, I found that the clear ideas I'd had a about historical causes broke down. It seemed that there were just trends and events existing at the same tme. There was only correlation. Also, surely in a four-dimensional block universe, the whole idea of movement , change and causation becomes a problem. There are things exisitng side by side forever, eg a living being at one point in spacetime, their remains at another. But both exist eternally and one doesn't become another. Things can't become what they're not. I agree with Parmenides and Zeno of Elea. Being, rather than becoming. What is, is.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Keith, that's good to hear it from the historian's point of view. And yes, things don't become what they're not, they evolve according to the laws of physics, and physics, for some reason, does favour continuity, e.g. of particles, and the things those particles are made of, including living beings. In a way, that's the most important emergent phenomenon that Wolfram Physics will need to demonstrate can come from the hypergraph: continuity of particles, etc. Thanks for the comment!

[@monkerud2108]

I liked your take, i'm not sure why you think discreet variables and operations make any difference, so I outlined my thoughts on the subject. The short story is, causality is what nature does, ultimately no there is no difference in kind between general relativity and history, they are both just approximations to the full, pattern of what nature does. But im also quite skeptical about arguing that the equations of general relativity are relevant to the question at all. They don't need to represent any causation at all, they just have a pattern of solutions, possible worlds if you will that are approximations to what the really causal pattern of nature does. And by real, i simply mean that it, what nature does in full detail is the only thing that can serve as a proper definition of causality, and ultimately any sub pattern like general relativity might have just as plausible mechanisms we could apply language similar to the language we apply to history, that is our casual use of the word for history might be just as applicable to any of the details of the real pattern. To understand what i mean you really have to read what i write about analog variables.

[@setaihedron]

Rupert Sheldrake would say that causality is a list of reliably predictable habits. I would think that Wolfram would say that causality is the aggregation of increasing uncertainty (entropy).

[@Sam-we7zj]

this is deep i shall be pondering this video for days! im wondering if you are getting rid of causality or are instead assigning it to one place: the computational rules for the universe. this reminds me of a passage David Deutsch has in the beginning of infinity where he says if someone asks why is there a bronze statue of Winston Churchill in parliament square and you answer by talking about elementary particles and the big bang then you've lost explanatory power. but this feels like something deeper. like you are saying cause is a human overlay on something more fundamental. i guess where im confused is if there is no cause in the universe then why should we care about computational rules? doesn't the word rule invoke a notion of cause? or are the computations something which are 'just happening at the same time' as i decide to throw the ball. i like your notion of causality as it applies to the hypergraph but here's what im wondering. there's not only one rule being applied after the other, there's also parallelism. as with a non-deterministic Turing machine, in the Wolfram picture there is a choice of what rule gets applied next. i think this is critical. in a parallel setup not only does the output of any given computation matter, but the propagation of information about that output through the network matters as well. it determines what rules get applied next. Wolfram has talked about an entanglement speed, an upper bound to the flow of information in the network. we also know regions can form in the graph which slow or trap information. so called black holes where regions of the graph are temporarily disconnected. markov blankets are another example. in a setup where information is causal can macro features of the data structure which slow or trap information be considered causal also? and do they recover my grandmother's concept of causation ha? another great video this is one of my fav channels

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Sam, I really appreciate this response. So much for _me_ to respond to in what you say. "im wondering if you are getting rid of causality" - Not entirely. I'm hoping that with the paradigm shift from continuous equations, where there seems to be no place for causality, to discrete computation, we'll be able to retain a concept of causality that has explanatory power in physics _and_ conforms, to some extent, to our intuitive ideas of causality. More on this in my next video. "doesn't the word rule invoke a notion of cause?" - I don't think so. When we're creating our models of the universe, including the Wolfram model, I'd say we're merely _describing_ the behaviour of the universe. So the rules, like any other laws of physics, don't _cause_ the universe to behave as it does, they just describe what happens. It's a subtle, philosophical distinction, but I think it's important: our concept of causality should apply to one thing in the universe _causing_ another thing in the universe, not to our models _causing_ the evolution of the universe. (If only our models were so powerful!) "in the Wolfram picture there is a choice of what rule gets applied next. i think this is critical." - I agree, this is critical. More specifically, I think that _not_ choosing which rule gets applied next (or where it's applied), but instead considering multiple timelines through the multiway graph, is critical to the Wolfram model. This is where a precisely-defined concept of causal connection becomes really important. Again, more on this in my next episode. I don't know enough about Wolfram's ideas about information yet to be able to answer your questions on that, but I'll get there! Thanks again for watching so closely and inquisitively!

[@willnitschke]

*you are saying cause is a human overlay on something more fundamental.* No, your brain, and not just your brain, the brains of animals too, build an internal model of their environment. This model imposes cause-effect relations between events because doing so has evolutionary value. This "cause-effect" framing is internal. It's not "out there". *should we care about computational rules? doesn't the word rule invoke a notion of cause?* Huh? Consider 1 +1 = 2 Did the 1 + 1 _cause_ the 2? Or has the above notation merely expressed a tautology. I see no room for 'cause' here. *as with a non-deterministic Turing machine* There is no such thing as a non-deterministic Turing machine. If you can't build it, or even think of a way something _might_ be built, then it's make-believe. *in the Wolfram picture there is a choice of what rule gets applied next.* No there isn't.

[@geoffclements269]

Where did you get the data that once you reach 22 you don't change your mind about free will? I'm 63 and I changed my mind about it around 5 years ago. Somewhat appositely I felt I had no choice but it change it :)

[@lasttheory]

Aha! You're my first counter-example, thank Geoff! I have no data, just personal experience. I'm very happy to come across someone who bucks the trend!

[@monkerud2108]

Just for fun, the type of analog variable i outline, can have analytical properties that are nice, even if the variables cannot be written down on any other fabric than reality itself. You could just as easily derive left from right, as future from past, or past from future, when the variables are dependent in a certain way, which is possible with these sorts of analog variables, then just habing any finite subsystem of the world in these variables, the rest of time and spatial extent of content can be analytically continued from whatever small piece you have, but this isn't a practically realizable operation, operating on these variable correspond to experiments and physical evolution, not oractical mathematical operations, but they way they are defined enable us to know these properties of analyticity of a more general form than currently known in math, are there, this might slund shocking, but if you think carefully about how they are defined formally, as a limit of infinite reductions to lost detailed patterns with ever more dependence coming from wach layer of formal causation by fiat and detail, it turns out ti be necessary. In practice this means that you could not substitute a subsystem without having to change the entire universe along with it, or the causal jigsaw will not fit together. Read the first comments and come back here if you are confused. This kind if variable is the most comprehensive verison of causation, it is still just a pattern in nature that defines causation, but the separation between state and law is removed entirely. The result is that causation is just what happens, and no more satisfying answer can be obtained. Whether you choose discreet operations or continuous, if you dint make this move you get the same kind of thing, just with no necessary connection between law and state, or content.

[@chicosajovic7680]

Space, time and gravity are connected in some fashion. It is conceivable because they are connected, there is no causality between them. Electromagnetic interactions do seem to exhibit causality, where one action precedes another.

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes, space, time and gravity are connected. But aren't electric and magnetic fields connected in the same way? Sure, you can say that the change in the electric field _causes_ the change in the magnetic field, and that the change in the magnetic field _causes_ the change in the electric field, but isn't it all just happening at the same time, according to Maxwell's equations?

[@janschneider8647]

I'm older than 22 and every week I change my mind about free will :)

[@lasttheory]

Excellent, good to hear than you're a counter-example, Jan! Which way did you change it?

[@janschneider8647]

​@@lasttheory During my teenage years, after my first course in Physics and Chemistry, I realized that if the universe is deterministic, then there is no space for free will. But then I started thinking, how is it possible that every piece of the universe "knows" how to follow the "Laws" of Nature? Moreover, I also started thinking that if I'm a piece of reality, made by reality itself, as reality itself I'm somehow deciding how to act. But then I realise that I cannot even control my thoughts, so for sure there is no free will. Then looking at LLMs we can see that it is impossible to understand and know what it is encoded there, but you can prompt it and get some results... So maybe that is how our brains work, brains are tools that work as LLMs through our senses, body sensations, beliefs, aversions, and desires we continuously give them prompts and they come up with an answer. So that opens the door a bit to a certain type of free will there. Also based on the concept of time there are some ways of interpreting time that seem to close all possibilities for free will, and some others like "the application of rules" that in some way open the possibility. However, to sum up, my deepest belief is that as humans living in this plane of reality, it will never be possible to know things like: is there free will? why is there something rather than nothing? or any attempt to solve the hard problem of consciousness. Therefore, my first reaction when I hear someone making a claim on this topic, my first reaction is: "For sure this person has not invested enough time studying the topic." :)

[@gavinlangley8411]

You don't need to invoke free will to get a cause. Just an idea of inside and outside of a 'system' will generate an external actor. Are you trying to trade fine grain increments in a graph for higher level causes? How would a graph explain an asteroid crashing into the sun? I kept thinking about calculus during this video.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Gavin, those are interesting thoughts. You're right, I think, splitting the universe into an _inside_ and an _outside_ can give us an idea of the outside _acting_ on the inside, or vice versa. But any idea of causality based on this splitting is, well, predicated on the splitting. It's a very human thing to split the world, e.g. into _me_ and _the ball,_ but there's nothing in physics that suggests that such splitting is anything more than a distinction in our minds. Which still leaves me wondering whether _causality_ is anything more than a concept in our minds. So yes, higher-level causes make sense, maybe precisely because of this splitting. We make a distinction between an event in Sarajevo and the First World War, so we can have a high-level concept of the one _causing_ the other. I just don't see how such a concept of causality applies at the lowest level of the hypergraph, where such splitting seems arbitrary.

[@lasttheory]

Your example of an asteroid crashing into the sun is a good illustration. Even if you separate the asteroid and the sun into two systems, I'm not sure you can say that the sun _caused_ the asteroid to crash into it, any more than you can say that the sun _causes_ the Earth to orbit it. I like to think of it more as nodes and edges, all just evolving according to rules, and the high-level consequence is that crashing of the asteroid into the sun.

[@gavinlangley8411]

@@lasttheory It's just how you draw the boundaries. In that example the solar 'system' is our inner system. The asteroid is the outer. The asteroid is an agent that causes the impact on the solar system. It's just how you draw the boundaries.

[@lasttheory]

@@gavinlangley8411 Yes, but why draw boundaries? If the concept of causality makes no sense without boundaries, and the boundaries are human inventions, then doesn't that make the concept of causality, too, a human invention?

[@gavinlangley8411]

@@lasttheory I think that if you want to remove that concept there will not be much physics and maths left to rely on. Also isn't a graph or nodes and edges already a system of entities with boundaries. It almost impossible to think with the boundary concept but I do take your point.

[@monkerud2108]

I'm sorry for typos, too sleepy to fix them, but here i outlines exactly how you should think of causation within any formal theory, and with respect to nature itself. And you will findnit more ornless satisfying i think if you are patient :)

[@harutyunamirjanyan8005]

There is free will in Wolfram model, because. 1. What a human (or any intelligent creature) will do, depends only on state of nodes inside that creature not on entire universe/hypergraph. and 2. due to computational irreducibility there is no way to predict what that choice will be, because any computation to predict it will be equivalent to that creature living and making the choice it wants.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Harutyun. I can certainly agree with 2. We can't predict what an intelligent creature will do. But I'm not so sure about 1. I mean, I just replied to your comment, which means that what I did depended not only on myself, but on _you,_ who are outside of myself. If you hadn't written your comment, I wouldn't have written this reply.

[@harutyunamirjanyan8005]

​@@lasttheory What you do of course depends on information you receive, but it does not depend on me directly. It is possible to have a situation when your part of hypergraph is simulated on a computer, and i am outside of simulation, or from another simulation with different rules, or i am even something similar to chatgpt. Contrast this situation with a superdeterministic theories which suggest that our conversation must have very specific correlations, so that if you decide to use the text as a source of randomness for entanglement experiment it doesn't reveal conflict with bell inequality. Or some kind of holographic theory, that would say that to accurately model one person we have to model the entire universe, since far away things are more connected than it seems.

[@Acryte]

But does the Rule 33 cellular automaton have free will even if it doesn't know what color the pixel in the central column will be next row? It chose that pixel because it has a defined process whereby it makes a selection. If the rules of the next iteration change at each step based on the current state of the neighbors in that row etc. then now it's randomized in some way. However this selection of rules still doesn't make the "choice" at the next stage chosen of free will just because it's random enough to be influenced by the current state.

[@harutyunamirjanyan8005]

​@@Acryte Using rule 33 as an example can mislead our intuition, because the kind of computation performed by a human brain is very different from rule 33. We still don't know how to describe that difference in mathematical terms, but most likely it is related to the ability to explore the ruliad. Keeping this difference in mind, there is some kind of equivalent of free will that can be applied to simple systems. Compare cellular automaton following rule 33 with a one that is being manipulated by some external system to change states of some cells after each application of the rule. In the first case the automaton has an equivalent of free will, in the second case it has an equivalent of will but it is not free, as it is being directed by some other system. In the case when the rules of the next iteration change based on the current state in some systematic way, we merely have a different more complicated rule, and this automaton again has an equivalent of free will. But if rules are changed based on some external state then the automaton by itself won't have an identity and therefore an will.

[@pilotnamealreadytaken6035]

At the end of time, this channel only uploads one video. Becomes the most watched and important channel of all time 😂❤

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

In my view, it is incorrect to assume that your hand causes the ball to jump. What truly happens is the interaction of multiple elements, and that interaction changes the state of each participating element. One might colloquially say that X causes Y, but that is merely a simplifying convention. In reality, it is impossible to determine all the factors in an interaction. There are the obvious elements (hand, ball) and also the factors that form the framework in which the phenomenon occurs (every component of the universe that could potentially affect the interaction, gravitational fields, electromagnetic relationships, quantum relationships, etc.). We simplify the interaction and its outcomes based on the probable consequences we have observed in our experience regarding that phenomenon.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Eduardo, we seem to be thinking along same lines. Causality is a conceptualization of the complexity of the phenomenon, or, as you put it, "a simplifying convention".

[@tonybarry787]

We have objects, in the universe. They move , or change. So why do they move or change over time? Well there are forces, as described by Newton, Einstein etc. So something changes over time from t1 to t2, because of forces. The forces “cause” the change in position, velocity etc, no need for separate systems. You acknowledged that your hand moving “caused” the ball to move. So unless I am missing something I don’t think what you are saying makes sense. Either all events are random in time, or there are rules , as you described. Therefore state a becomes state b, because of the rules. Hence causality.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Tony. Thing is, I don't even believe in forces, much less causality. I think force is a concept we use to make sense of the evolution of the universe (the trajectory of the ball, the motion of my hand, the firing of the neurons in my brain). Same with causality. All that's _really_ happening, though, when we strip away all these human concepts, is the evolution of the universe, according to certain rules. Yes, state A becomes state B, but how does that imply causality?

[@Necrozene]

You lost me when you said "no-one over the age of 22 changes their mind about free will".

[@lasttheory]

Well, that's an exaggeration for effect, of course - there are people in these comments who have, indeed, changed their minds about free will after the age of 22 - I'm just trying to communicate how rare it seems to be and how hard it is to change people's minds on that particular question!

[@Necrozene]

@@lasttheory Because I remember clearly changing my mind after a friend "dropped a bomb shell" on my world view. I was well past 22! I was shocked to my core for days, and still am rocked! My friend was very smart, and I was very receptive to new ideas that made sense. Free-will makes no sense, except that it is "your will" in that you are the witness most closely to your own perception. It is really hard to state in a clear way - it was more like a Socratic dialect that saw me through. All good.

[@SilentlyContinue]

​@Necrozene, The fact that you had a bombshell drop shows that your friend got through whatever barrier might prevent an average person from changing of you. So often our biases prevent us from changing our mind. The fact that you are either open-minded enough and have the understanding to see, or that your friend had the understanding to see what would move you, is remarkable in this day and age.

[@djbabbotstown]

Causality is easy. My girl says I’m responsible for everything.

[@Necrozene]

@@djbabbotstown 😉

[@jimsteele9559]

Can these guys hear themselves? The Hard Determinists, I mean. There is no free will but “if you’re willing to embrace this humbler concept of casual connection, well then you can go a long way with that”. The problem I think is obvious.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Jim. I'll go into what I mean by "causal connection" in my next video. I don't think there's any clash between this idea of "causal connection" and the idea that there's no such thing as free will. Let me know if you disagree!

[@jimsteele9559]

@@lasttheory well one problem off the bat is the use of the word will. And then there is the Schopenhauerian thing. And if that is what you want. Well, just give out, give up, give in.

[@andreasboe4509]

Claiming that there is no free will is a convenient way to escapre reponsibility for one's actions, so for the sake of our survival we must believe in free will. The sun doesn't have free will, but we do.

[@lasttheory]

Denying free will _can_ be used to escape responsibility, but _needn't_ be used that way. I think there's no such thing as free will, but I still take responsibility for my actions. It's complicated. Thanks, Andreas, for the comment!

[@Cinericius_est]

Have you heard about causal emergence (works of Erik P. Hoel and others)?

[@lasttheory]

No, but I've just taken a look. My immediate reaction is that it looks like it has something in common with arguments about the emergence of free will, which I think Robert M. Sapolsky has convincingly discredited in his book _Determined._ Maybe Erik P. Hoel's argument is different, but I confess I'm skeptical. Thanks for pointing it out to me!

[@jperez7893]

Causality is a product of the logical implication. logical implication considers all possible worlds or interpretations, making it a robust concept for establishing necessary truths, or in other words: causality is a path of truth preservation

[@lasttheory]

Yes, considering all possible worlds or interpretations is a good way to get into this. And I think that's where the concept of causal connection really makes sense. I'll be delving into this more, with causal graphs, over my next couple of episodes.

[@zakariaabderrahmanesadelao3048]

I beliebe causality to be intimately tied to entropy.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, it's an interesting idea, that entropy is connected to causality, and, indeed, the arrow of time. I'd like to say more about that connection in a future video, specifically on the arrow of time. Thanks Zakaria!

[@nealesmith1873]

Sounds like just normal causality just without free will.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Neale. The idea of causal connection is a bit more precise and a lot more limited than what we normally mean by causality. I'll go into it in my next video: let me know what you think!

[@nealesmith1873]

@@lasttheoryLooking forward to this. Along these lines: If a set of events creates the necessary and sufficient conditions for another Event, then there is a causal connection between the set of events and the Event.

[@nealesmith1873]

@@lasttheory I've been pondering this. It seems that normal causality in a single universe ("one way graph") is: If a set of events creates the sufficient conditions for another Event, then there is a causal connection between the set of events and the Event. In the version that you propose, the future Event actually is the proof of the prior event...you could even say that the future causes the past. My father was a physicist and told us that he suspected that the future influences the present. Very interesting.

[@lasttheory]

@@nealesmith1873 Yes, though it gets a little more complex when you consider that more than one event may contribute to the necessary conditions for another event. You can make a hypergraph from all those causal connections... and _that's_ the causal graph. Your future-influencing-the-present angle is an interesting way to think of it. Time's arrow is a lot clearer in the Wolfram model than in the physics of continuous equations, but still, this is an idea worth playing with. Thanks Neale!

[@nealesmith1873]

@@lasttheory One important point is that events are usually caused (in the conventional sense) as soon as sufficient conditions arise, not necessarily necessary conditions. For example, a forest fire may happen due to lightning or a match, so neither is necessary, just sufficient. It's very interesting to me that you focus on necessary. Another example, for causality based on necessary conditions, one could say that death is never caused, because it can come about in so many alternative ways. Another idea that comes up is that the graph does not contain conditions, only events. Each step of the construction of the graph is just another event. Where are the conditions "documented" in the graph?

[@JungleJargon]

Yes, I know what causality in general relativity is. When are scientists going to figure out that the changes in the measures of time and distance due to the amount of gravity in the vicinity change the speed of light relative to our measures of time and distance where we are inside of a galaxy? Scientists can’t seem to figure out that where gravity changes time and distance it changes the speed of light and the rate of causation. Space is not flat in the measures of time and distance on larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed *always* travel 186,000 miles an hour at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched from having less gravity, light must still complete traveling that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference where there is more gravity. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more. It’s really not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster away from the center of the galaxy yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass. Speed is measured by time and distance which both change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Things happen faster. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity the farther away it is from the center of the galaxy which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated. No dark matter is needed.) 😎 Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being equal, the light will be redshifted as it leaves a galaxy and then blueshifted back again as it enters our galaxy. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the distances between here and there is excessive causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is from nearby masses causing more redshift.

[@kokopelli314]

Studying automata changed my mind.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, it kinda changes everything, doesn't it?

[@niekiejooste4637]

Causality is just another way of approaching the concept of time. If you presupoose the presence of time in your explain of causality, then you are engaging in circular reasoning. The concept of time has no use outside of the concept of motion. If nothing ever moved relative to anything else, there is no use for time and therefore there will also be no causality. The whole free will argument is just a red herring.

[@SamsaraRevolves]

The earth orbiting the sun is a system. The system didn't cause the system. The system is the system. Causality is the set of preceding situations and conditions that led to the emergence of the earth-sun system. The system stays the same until interfered upon by external, interactions. Seems straightforward to me, but I'm just an ignorant layman...

[@lasttheory]

Right. I agree, the system didn't cause the system, the system _is_ the system. But if that applies to the Earth-Sun system, doesn't it also apply to the universe as an all-encompassing system? Maybe my problem is that I see any division of that all-encompassing system into sub-systems such as the Earth-Sun system as arbitrary, human impositions.

[@chicosajovic7680]

A billiard ball system with no friction and no pockets would theoretically continue until the end of time with each interaction preceding then next interaction.

[@lasttheory]

@@chicosajovic7680 Right, yes, thanks Chico. In the current paradigm of continuous equations, I'd see that as an example of just-one-thing-after-another, i.e. an illustration of _time_ rather than _causality._

[@jameshunter9632]

Causation is imputed within a reference frame. That is all.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

I just think of it a-temporally. So really it's just relations, rather than cause-and-effect. As for the hard problem, that's only an issue in physicalist frameworks. Idealism will set you free. ;0)

[@lasttheory]

Yes, take the time (and the human conceptions of time) out of it and it all seems much more straightforward!

[@EricDMMiller]

If information is lost to the soft mode of cosmological horizons *in fact* then the aggregation of entropy actually undoes causality retroactively.

[@samuelprice538]

Dunno if it's just me but the video seemed to be at 2 x speed for a period.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Samuel, that was a deliberate doubling for effect... and so that no one would get too impatient with that long list of things leading to my throwing the ball!

[@NokiaTablet-pl7vt]

Einstein's model describes reality at some level. It's a category error to bring up things like causality.

[@lasttheory]

Well, yes, I agree, it _is_ a category error to apply the concept of causality at the level of physics. But if it's a category error at the level of physics, then it's a category error at _any_ level, since, if you're a reductionist, at least, everything can be reduced to physics.

[@NokiaTablet-pl7vt]

@@lasttheory while there might be a reduction possible, in practice we will never get there. we never will reduce why kittens are cute to the rules of quantum mechanics.

[@lasttheory]

@@NokiaTablet-pl7vt Yes, you're right about that, for sure!

[@setaihedron]

I simply don't understand people's confusion about free will. It exists necessarily because decisions are performed in a non-linear neural network of the brain. Even though every aspect of our decisions might be a deterministic linear product of rules, the actual output of that process is configured as a non-linear Network with feedback loops within feedback loops. Even if there is no free will when we decide to act or think, there is true Free Will when we decide to decide to act or think. All the deterministic components are processed through the non-linear feedback that is Free Will.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the push-back. As I say in the video, I don't expect to convince _anyone_ that there's no such thing as free will. But here's my briefest of attempts. If our brains obey immutable laws of physics, that everything we do is determined by those laws, and we have no free will. So if we have free will, then there must by something our brains do in the exercise of that free will that does _not_ obey immutable laws of physics. My question for you is: what _is_ this un-physics thing our brains are doing?

[@setaihedron]

The "un-physics" thing the brain is doing is the non-linear feedback network. We can't model those physically really. We pretend to, but the actual fact is that Chaos Theory showed us that even simple feedback systems produce an infinite fractal or something trying to approach Infinity in complexity. Consider most of the NP complete problems like the feedback vertex set are all about feedback systems, systems containing themselves and what not. We don't really have any physics for that and I think that's where and what consciousness is. Ultimately about the way that complex feedback systems with self-controlled dampening processes feel subjectively to themselves, whereas other linear processes and deterministic processes don't feel anything because they don't have this property of reflecting into themselves. Feedback systems bind all of the outputs of nodes in the network into one big blob of signal. Feeding back into itself integrated into a whole, like consciousness, The nature of awareness is not simply noting a signal. It is being aware of noting a signal. It is being aware of being aware of noting a signal... Similarly, free will is not a matter of making a decision. It's making a decision to make the decision, a decision to accept the decision about a decision.. qualia also comes out of this description automatically- because any feedback structure that works in this way acts like a video fractal- building infinite complexity inside the feedback structure- but any formal explanation of that complexity lacks all of its detail and form- that detail and form are the qualia- qualia are simply the structures generated by information fed back on itself- information about information about information- the subjective interiority of this information fractal has all of the inscrutable qualities of qualia- and all of the inability to express or formalize those structures outside of the feedback system- A simple system of memory also arises naturally from a network as fedback loops of signals continue to "echo" in the aggregate brainwaves and as time increases they decrease in amplitude and increase in distortion, providing spectra of differences that evolution could harness to effectively store past experience and thought in a way that was easy to tell what signals are from the present and what is past, and how far in the past events happened and their order. It also filters old unimportant information as lesser signals from the distant past fade into obscurity.

[@lasttheory]

@@setaihedron Right, thanks for the response. I think the crux of what you're saying is that though the laws of physics may be simple, the consequences are complex and chaotic. I agree with you about this. I think you're also saying that it's _so_ complex and chaotic that we simple can't calculate it. Again, I agree: in Wolfram physics, this is the idea of computational irreducibility. Where we disagree is that you propose that consciousness and free will arise from this chaos and complexity. I suspect we think in similar ways about how the human experience arises (I've written about this in a previous book). I guess I just don't see the step that allows us to leap from purely physical phenomena, such as thought, to phenomena that seem to have a non-physical element, such as free will and consciousness.

[@mbmurphy777]

Catholic Church also believes in evolution and has for decades had this as official policy.

[@lasttheory]

Good to hear that they're slowly catching up!

[@badashphilosophy9533]

@FutureAISociety on youtube have created something like the hypergraph but for language

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the pointer! You might be interested in my Open Web Mind project, which uses a hypergraph for human knowledge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ema9eYqka72kjJo

[@badashphilosophy9533]

@@lasttheory open Web mind looks good, you have some good ideas. I had thought of a fast way to create a hypergraph system, il tell u I case u want to use any of the ideas yourself it's like social media but when you create a post you choose or create a catagory for it, once it exists it exists for everyone so the next person to create a post and start typing the same catagory will see it appear and they can just click on it, if not they can opt to make it exist and one of the 'anything nodes' will be its placeholder. It means people can make loads of posts and articles for that node and place them in the correct place, people can also find that node and see all of those posts and articles, but of course those posts also need to be ordered and clustered so that can be done with subcategories created in the same way or with good ol tags. If the platform was popular people could get their social media fix while at the same time contributing to something bigger than themselves, something universal, a giant database hypergraph. But it doesn't have to be just social media, it could be a fb, KZbin, tiktok, wiki, science publications all in one place, you just click another tab and open Web keeps the content within a certain type eg only showing peer reviewed articles, or only influencer/personal creator content, whatever the type your looking for if someone wants to search for a type, and you have also your feeds, where you can select all the categories (and subcategories) you want to show on that particular feed and it can come to you as nodes are updated and you can apply them to the other tabs, say you just want the latest microbiology science video content, cool u can do that, or you might want videos as well as publications from 10different categories showing and just go where your heart leads you, you can do that too Lastly I think having one's own personal mind would be good, but it's also cool to see what others have been looking at, but in that case ranking by visits, or likes, while ok, is maybe to simple, once anything becomes rank 1the fact that it is rank 1 tends to get it more views and so more likes, so there would have to be a limit, a cap, so others can never get left behind and aweful shallow content doesn't stay rank 1 for to long, it could still work with caps or u could use other nuanced forms of rankings also, maybe ranks in intellectual, in heartfelt, in depth, profoundest, etc like awards people can give things and maybe a person can only give 3 of 10 awards to each node. I'm not sure if this would go with your vision for openweb but feel free to consider it and I'd love to be part of the conversation if there's a public place you talk to people about your ideas

[@AndrewWutke]

So it seems that when you say cause and effect it implies two discrete categories that cannot be mapped to continuous category. In continuous theory there is no place for discrete events except initial conditions that are determined outside domain of simplified General relativity

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Andrew. I think that's right: cause and effect requires us to divide the universe into discrete systems, so that we can call one system the cause and the other system the effect. But there's simply no reason to do that (other than to satisfy our human desire for dividing). With continuous equations, as you say, there's no place for discreteness.

[@AndrewWutke]

@lasttheory The World is a mix of discrete and continuous or may be discrete only but either dense or sporadic. With sporadic there are many causes and effect. House fire can be caused by lightning even though house and the atmosphere are mutually polarised. Like your videos. Always something to think about.

[@KritchieXX]

Respectfully, you are monumentally incorrect at 3:45, which forms the basis of this video. The two g_μv terms in the Einstein Field Equation (EFE) you display are known as metric tensors, and directly relate to causality. The metric tensor captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as time, distance, volume, curvature, angle, and separation of the future and the past. And the EFE equation as a whole is our best description of what governs spacetime, and spacetime itself defines how causality works in general relativity. Causality is deeply embedded in the structure of the metric tensor, and therefore causality is undeniably present in the equation. Also, and sorry to be such a stickler here, but I really don't think it is a reasonable thing to do; showing the Einstein Field Equation, which relate the geometry of spacetime to the distribution of matter within it, and presenting it in a way as though it relates specifically to the orbit of the earth around the sun. To say the EFE is vastly more complex than you have presented here would be an understatement; when fully written out, the EFE are a system of ten coupled, nonlinear, hyperbolic-elliptic partial differential equations. So while it is not incorrect to say the earth's orbit around the sun is governed by the EFE equation, it's most certainly not what is typically used to directly describe the orbit. It would have been much more appropriate to use the Swarzschild metric, for example.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, of course, you're right, there's far more to General Relativity than just the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, which can be adequately described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, without any need for Einstein's. It's just a simple example of how the universe evolves according to continuous equations. And yes, your deeper point, too, is correct: you _can_ read causality into the Einstein Field Equation. I just think that's a mistake. You _can_ say that the presence of matter _causes_ the distortion of space-time which _causes_ the motion of that matter. I just don't see what _work_ the concept of causality _does_ here. Why not just say that the universe evolves according to these equations? What do we lose by not mentioning causality?

[@entropy608]

First timer here. Interesting video thank you! If there is no causality at planetary scale because there's a causeless equation that describes orbits then why would there be causality at smaller scales including mental? You explained the impossibility of deriving the causal chain for throwing a ball. I agree with you. What was the causal chain to derive the formulas of QM. Aren't those formulas just effects of some unknown cause? Likewise wolframs causal graph (which I know nothing about) seems to depend on rules. By what mechanism were the rules caused? I don’t believe in either Freewill or Determination. But the fact as indicated by HPoC is that Cause and Effect are perceived...whether its Sun and Moon or Mind and Mathematical Formulas. Not sure where I am going with this 😂

[@lasttheory]

Welcome! Always good to see a first timer here. "...why would there be causality at smaller scales..." is the right question, I think. I don't think there _would_ be... _if_ what happens at smaller scales is _also_ described by equations. Thing is, though, I don't think what happens at the smallest scales _is_ described by equations, I think it might be described by applications of rules to a hypergraph. In my next video, I'll say more about how I think this lets causal connection back in. "By what mechanism were the rules caused?" is a more philosophical question. That might be like asking: "What caused the laws of physics?" or "What caused the number 4?" It might be that we'll never have answers to these questions: the laws of physics just _are;_ the number 4 just _is._

[@entropy608]

​@@lasttheory I had to read your reply a few times. The conclusion I'm drawing is that: Equations are not the same as Rules. Is that right? Equations with a "=" sign are causeless since whatever happens to one side instantly applies to the other. Whereas Rules are applied iteratively to some initial state to get the next state, so on and on. Please do correct my understanding. "the laws of physics just are; the number 4 just is." Fair enough. Lets say Laws of Physics (LoP) and numbers have existed and will exist for all time. Yet they have no useful existence without being known. In which case, the LoP and 4 are dependent on that Conscious entity which knows them. Because a Conscious Entity can just be, without knowing LoP and 4. Hence, it could be said Consciousness is the apparent cause of these useful effects called LoP and Numbers. But this particular cause/effect is known (ie I just pointed it out!) hence it is also apparent! If you are with me so far 🙃, then you can add Equations, wolframs rules, directed graphs, causality etc as apparent effects because they are knowables (ie known or can be known) 🙂

[@lasttheory]

@@entropy608 Yes, that's right, I'm drawing the distinction you describe between continuous equations (no obvious role for causality) and discrete applications of rules (where there's a more concrete concept of time and a more coherent concept of causality). I'm not sure I can follow you down the path of numbers and laws of physics having no useful existing without being known by a conscious being (that way, perhaps, madness lies!) I'm not sure, either, I can follow Stephen Wolfram down the path of numbers, and therefore the laws of physics, existing independently of being known by a conscious being. I'll certainly go into these ideas in future episodes, but I'll remain skeptical, I think!

[@danellwein8679]

thank you for this video .. i don't understand it .. maybe one day i will

[@lasttheory]

You're not the only one, Dan, I'm not sure I fully understand causality myself! Fortunately, it makes more sense to me in the context of the causal graph, and that's where I'll be going next. Thanks, as ever, for watching!

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

What am I missing? I thought causality is just one thing happening after another, the thing happening is caused by the totality of influences that preceeded it. It seems like a denial of causality is tantamount to a denial of cosmic evolution, or biological evolution, or age and history. Isn't free will just a misappropriation of causation, here I've been thinking that causality properly understood precludes all notions of free will. I actually lost my belief in free will after reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Denette somewhere between 25 and 28 I can't remember precisely as I was reading and rereading the book cover to cover for a few years.

[@lasttheory]

Right, no, I'm not denying evolution, I'm not denying that one thing _follows_ another, not denying _time_ or the evolution of the universe. Rather, I'm denying that, in a physics of continuous equations, we need any concept of causality to make sense of it. According to those equations, you can plot the state of the universe (e.g. the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun) at any future time. I just don't see how causality fits into this picture. And yes, I agree, the concept of free will could be seen as the misappropriation of the concept of causation, but I'd like to switch that around. Our idea that we have free will comes _first_ - we feel it in our bones that we have free will - and our concept of causality comes from our idea that we have free will, along with our dualistic dividing of the universe into (i) _I_ and (ii) everything else. Good to hear that Daniel Dennett was persuasive even _after_ the age of 22!

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

@@lasttheory That second part really makes my head spin. The free will assumption sets us up to be wrong before we even begin! We have to find our way around it to see a holistic existence of which we are mere expressions. Maybe I'm taking this too far but it seems from this view the idea of measurements and observers are kind of absurd assumptions as well. How can a dynamic system measure itself and wouldn't observers be everywhere at once and also nowhere like the center of the universe? I think I'm getting dizzy, thanks for the reply, I'm going to watch more of your videos.

[@lasttheory]

@@christopherchilton-smith6482 Hope you're feeling a little less dizzy... but yes, I agree, the idea of measurements and observers, according to the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, makes no sense to me either. An observer isn't _separate_ from the universe, it's part of the universe, as is an measurement an observer makes. With any luck, Stephen Wolfram's observer theory will make better sense of observation than that traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics ever did!

[@chaoticmoh7091]

If we get equations to predict actions attributed to free will to say 95% accuracy, the way we predict the position of moon in the sky, it will be easy to convince everyone that freewill doesn't exist. If we can't get such equations why assume they exist? (This is a genuine question not rhetorical question.)

[@willnitschke]

That would convince no-one. 100% accuracy, would.

[@chaoticmoh7091]

@willnitschke . It will at least convince me, and those that are now convinced even without the 95% accuracy.

[@willnitschke]

@@chaoticmoh7091 People are creatures of habit. Being able to predict what someone is likely to do most of the time is no great insight. Chocolate ice cream is my favourite flavour. Your algorithm predicts with 95% accuracy I will return with chocolate ice cream from the supermarket. Except when I feel like something different. Woopie. In other words, your fancy equations don't prove shit, unless they also predict the times when I choose a different flavour in advance.

[@lasttheory]

I think the most compelling evidence here comes from neuroscience. Brain scans show that the electrical impulses in our neurons that result in our making a decision happen _before_ we're conscious of making a decision. In one way, it's obvious that they would: the decision comes from our brain, so of course there's activity in our brain that culminates in the decision. But in another way, it shows that there's no magical "me" with free will who makes my decisions: it's all just electrical impulses in my brain. I don't know if you'll find this convincing, @chaoticmoh7091, but that's the problem with evidence on free will, I tend to think that _no_ weight of evidence will convince many who believe in free will.

[@chaoticmoh7091]

@@lasttheory . Yeah it's difficult to convince a lot especially because I can change most of my "free willing" behavior the moment I know the prediction of your sophisticated model of me, or so I think. But I used to wonder what leap of logic there is to think, because our brain fires up before we make decision it means it is not free. As a computer scientist, I would have assumed, when the brain fires up, it is computing things. We become conscious of the decision after it finishes the calculation. That is how computers work. But that doesn't prove in any way the computers are doing something deterministic or stochastic

[@Necrozene]

The past causes the present. The present causes the future. All is connected. Time is mysterious. It works even if you have different frames of reference.

[@lasttheory]

I can agree that the future _follows_ the present which _follows_ the past (that's kind of the definition of past, present and future!) I just don't see why we would substitute the word _causes_ for the word _follows._ What does that add?

[@Necrozene]

@@lasttheory It adds that if it were different, you would have different results. Saying "follows" removes so much of the sense that reality is comprehensible. Yet, it follows because it was caused. The set-up, and then the play out. Not just a jumble of images. The equation of Einstein show what changes must ensue, or follow, because they are *caused* by a particular set-up.

[@lasttheory]

@@Necrozene I agree that the future follows the past in a way that's not jumbled, but that's because the future follows the past in a way that's determined by the laws of physics. Again, I don't think the word _causes_ adds anything.

[@Uri1000x1]

If you look at a human as a system that changes state continuously over time. There are an infinite number of future states within the next second after any given state. Why, is because time takes on an infinite number of values over the interval of one second. Infinity has thus entered the equations (or the natural laws that govern the behavior of physical systems), so how can determinism hold sway over behavior?

[@Necrozene]

@@Uri1000x1 The way I see it is that we choose one thing that is actually chosen for us by the evolution of the Universe. The only "true free will" I can imagine is where we can freely go back in time, and try again. What is your conception of "free will"? How do you know time is "infinitely divisible" btw? No drama, not trying to "cause" a scene here!

[@LukeEganLyrics]

I disagree that it "feels like something" to be me. I have innumerable feelings, sensations, etc., but there is no "feeling of me" at the bedrock of those other experiences. Deep reflection/meditation reveals the illusion of this supposed "feeling of me". I believe the "hard problem of consciousness" is not a genuine philosophical problem. The word "conscious" should be reserved simply for labelling organisms that are not currently unconscious (e.g. not dead or comatose).

[@lasttheory]

Interesting, thanks Luke! I've never fully understood consciousness, and I suspect no one else really does, either (in spite of the extraordinarily ambitious title of Daniel C. Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained"). I would ask, though, that if you reserve the the word "conscious" for an organism that's dead or comatose, what would you include in organism? (a human? a mouse? a spider? a bacterium? a virus? a fungus? a plant?) and what would you define as dead? (a bacterium dormant in space that might one day land on a planet and reproduce?)

[@LukeEganLyrics]

@@lasttheory Every time you ascribe consciousness to a human or other animal, you do so on the basis of criteria (e.g., certain kinds of responsiveness to external stimuli). As long as you apply those criteria consistently, you can ascribe consciousness appropriately. When people like Dennett or Sam Harris talk about consciousness in terms of whether "the lights are on upstairs", they are engaging in sheer mysticism and are bewitched by the complexity of their own myriad sensations and responses.

[@lasttheory]

@@LukeEganLyrics "Every time you ascribe consciousness to a human or other animal, you do so on the basis of criteria..." - Well yes, that's true when you're ascribing consiousness to _another_ human or _another_ animal, but it's not true when I'm ascribing consiousness to myself. I don't know what, if anything, it feels like to be you, but I _do_ know what it feels like to be me.

[@LukeEganLyrics]

@@lasttheory That's just a mystical way of saying that you have certain experiences that others don't have. But anyone in the same position would have the same experiences. At bedrock, there is no mystical essence within you that only you can feel.

[@tillokoli521]

​@@LukeEganLyrics This is a very materialist view. Of course, if everything is just mere neurons firing then you may get away with it. Some people, however, suspect that there is more to experience, feelings and sensations than just neurons firing

[@duytdl]

Where is consciousness in all of this? Stuff happened, its effects propagated through our mind (forming memories n such), then some other stuff happened (we moved our arm). Why is there a film of consciousness localized in space (our brain) and time (now).

[@lasttheory]

Right, that's the question, the hard problem of consciousness. I don't know the answer... though Stephen Wolfram does have some ideas about it!

[@brettforbes]

There is causality in equations, in fact they are a beautiful example of it. If i take Newton and Einstein's relations and I double the mass, what happens Well there is a consequential impact on the other side of the equation, and in fact the equal's sign denotes a strict form of causality, even though you conveniently ignore this

[@lasttheory]

Right, it's true of the mathematical equations that if you double one side, you have to double the other side. But it's not true of the reality represented by the equations. You _can't_ just double the mass of the Earth, for example, and see what happens. The universe just evolves according to the equations, whether I'd _like_ to double the mass of the Earth or not.

[@brettforbes]

@@lasttheory true, the universe evolves due to the causality in the equation, and there can be no arbitrary changes in one side because of this causality

[@sv34612]

Check out quantum physics, you will realize what a free will is.

[@lasttheory]

I've never seen quantum physics as changing anything about free will. Sure, it introduces randomness into the equation, but randomness isn't free will, e.g. if my throwing the ball were caused by random quantum events in my brain, it doesn't give me any more free will than if the events in my brain were fully deterministic. As for the idea of an observer in quantum physics, I'm not so sure that it's really a sound theory, much less an explanation of free will. I'm hoping Wolfram Physics will change that!

[@YarUnderoaker]

Zeno's aporias reach a new level

[@lasttheory]

Ah, Zeno! His confusion can be stated succinctly: he didn't understand that the sum of an infinite series may be finite. Is there some similar confusion in my video? If so, can you state it similarly succinctly? Thanks Yarov!

[@willnitschke]

@@lasttheory Mathematical convergence is an interesting way to think about the resolution to Zeno's paradox. On the other hand, the more straightforward way is to point out that infinities don't exist. The universe is discrete.

[@VladislavGoryachev]

Let all criminals go free then, they suffer for something they had no control over! I've been waiting for this discussion of free will, as I read the book by Sabine (who also denies it) to see her arguments. I agree the mechanical application of the rules led to my existence and causes all that happens next in the universe. But I can also imagine an independent universe inside every person's mind, that came about from nothing upon birth and governed by own learned rules to govern the material body. A simulated sandbox inside the wider universal hypergraph. Insulated from its computations by the coarse-graining filter of our sensory inputs. In that simulated individual universe, I can imagine free will.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Vlad. No free will doesn't mean no control or no change! When we put criminals in jail, we prevent them from committing more crimes. We also express our society's disapproval of their criminal behaviour, which may elicit a sense of shame, such that they change their ways when they're released. All this is independent of free will. When I turned the thermostat up in my house this morning, the furnace came on. The heating system has _control_ over the furnace, and it's capable of _change,_ but it has no _free will._ If there's an individual universe inside each of our minds, does it conform to the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe? If so, how is it different from the rest of the universe? And if not, shouldn't we simply attempt to discover the laws of physics that govern it, just as we're attempting to discover the laws of physics that govern the rest of the universe?

[@VladislavGoryachev]

​@@lasttheory No, it does not. The "internal universe" is just a model, a simulation, an attempt of a mind to make sense of the sensory inputs and acquired memory, a deep learning algorithm if you will. It is not ruled by the laws of physics of the external real universe, but it tries to understand them to survive. Some people have flat Earth in their minds, some are autistic, some suffer from other mental illnesses, so their models are broken. But these emergent internal models are what govern our behavior, not the external hypergraph. You can experience that simulation in a dream or lucid dream: the laws of physics are more flexible and depend on your beliefs. This is psychology, not physics. There is a natural firewall between the two, caused by limited sensitivity of our sensors.

[@lasttheory]

@@VladislavGoryachev OK, thanks Vlad. Here's where we really differ, then. I see our brains as being made of the same stuff - mostly carbon atoms - as the rest of the universe, and as having evolved in the same way as the wings of flies and the spores of fungi. So I don't see any reason why our brains should be subject to laws of physics any different from any other collection of carbon atoms. Certainly, _mind_ is an emergent phenomenon, and we do need whole new theories of psychology to account for it, but I don't see why this phenomenon wouldn't also reduce to the laws of physics. That does leave me unable to account for consciousness, it's true, but I prefer to concede this limitation in my knowledge than to postulate a separate set of laws of physics.

[@willnitschke]

@@VladislavGoryachev *It [the mind] is not ruled by the laws of physics of the external real universe* This is a statement, not an argument. How can something built out of the materials subject to physical laws not also be subject to the same physical laws? Magic?

[@AndrewWutke]

​@willnitschke It sounds controversial but something that does not exist other than by convention and philosophers were unable to define consistently for thousands of years cannot be the part of causation. Time does not define change in reality. It's a change plus a convention defines time as reference change for convenience

[@willnitschke]

Don't know what your first sentence is in reference to. As for what time is, it's not unremarkable to speculate that it's a physiological (and psychological) phenomena.

[@AndrewWutke]

@willnitschke The first sentence referred to your previous message and specifically to time. For some reason sometimes my direct reply does not work well on my phone. I will comment more next week when I have access to my laptop. You can keep adding more comment if you wish.

[@willnitschke]

@@AndrewWutke You'd need to be more specific if you want comments...

[@samuelprice538]

To me free will exists or doesn't exist depending on your zoom level. A computer could be said to have free will in that it decided to do whatever it did, despite a programmer having very carefully instructed it. Likewise our brains are programmed by our genetics and environment with a healthy dose of pseudo-randomness. We have free will, ... Sort of.

[@harutyunamirjanyan8005]

Fee will, means that what you do depends on yourself and the information you have, and is not obviously predictable. Pseudo-randomness completely violates the first part, as it means that what you do does not depend on yourself.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I tend to agree with Harutyun here, neither randomness nor pseudo-randomness allows for free will, since it's something else - chance or genetics or environment - rather than the mythical self that's deciding what happens.

[@niekiejooste4637]

I think it is a problem to link causality and free will. If there is no causality, then we can not possibly have free will. If there is causality then everything is inevitable from what has happened before, therefore you have no free will. So, you are setting up a straw man when taking this line of thinking. Free will is emergent, same as pretty much everything else.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Niekie, but I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that we _don't_ have free will, or that we _do_ and it's an emergent phenomenon?

[@niekiejooste4637]

@@lasttheory I am asserting that free will is emergent. As such it is just as real as atoms and light which are also emergent phenomena. If you try to argue free will from a "fundamental" starting point can only ever suggest that free will does not exist. But then atoms don't exist at a fundamental level either.

[@audiodead7302]

I agree that free will is a tricky concept. Some of the disagreement comes down to how you define it. By some definitions, I think free will exists. By others, nope. But that's a video in it's own right.

[@niekiejooste4637]

@@audiodead7302 Agreed

[@lasttheory]

@@niekiejooste4637 OK, thanks for the clarification, Niekie. We disagree, I'm afraid, on free will being an emergent phenomenon. The best argument I've heard against this idea of free will as an emergent phenomenon is from Robert Sapolsky is his book _Determined._ He covers this in his conversation with Sam Harris on his Making Sense podcast episode 360: www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/360-we-really-dont-have-free-will Have you come across Sapolsky's counter-argument? I'd be interested to hear what you think.

[@GeorgesDupont-do8pe]

A logical construction? A = B = C, therefore A = C? Anyway, thought quantum actions (as represented in Feynman diagrams) run backwards in time as easily as forwards, had no causality to them, and causality only happened at macro scales, in line with thermodynamics and entropy. Sorry, I am spouting a lot of nonsense with your videos while I try and get my head round this stuff. I'm like your 19th century physicist trying to get his head round General Relativity before he (and it would most likely be a he, apologies to Mme Curie) runs out of time.

[@darrennew8211]

Causality is coincidence plus explanation. ;-) Causality in the macro/history sense is based on counterfactuals. Your hand caused the ball to fly up, because if your hand hadn't done that, the ball wouldn't have flown up. The sun causes the earth to orbit because if the sun disappeared, the earth wouldn't keep orbiting. We have free will. We certainly have free will of the kind Wolfram thinks we have (the kind based on the unpredictability of turing-complete computation). I've yet to hear a coherent definition of "free will" of the kind we don't have. "Could have done otherwise"? When could we have done otherwise? Do we have the kind of free will that makes you responsible for shoplifting? For sure. The kind of free will that a deterministic universe keeps you from having is of interest only to theists who believe in an omnipotent omniscient just deity. The people who won't change their mind are the people who refuse to understand there are different kinds of free will. If you don't think causality is real because it's all just physics, the hard problem of consciousness reduces to "it's physics." :-) But for sure, we don't know if there's any level of causality below the basic formulae we have for fundamental physics. If Newton asked "why does the Earth orbit the Sun" and you said "because mass causes warped space and that causes the orbit" well that's the causality. You're just deconstructing it down, following down the rabbit hole until you find questions we don't have answers to. Why? Why? Why? Well, because. 🙂

[@willnitschke]

We observe people make free choices, hence free will exists. Because it's empirically observed. Next question. WP is not causal. The word 'causal' is often used, but that is a mistake.

[@darrennew8211]

@@willnitschke Right. That's the kind of free will that any normal person cares about. Not the kind where you're worried about superposition collapses. What's WP? Wolfram Physics? I think his point was that he's defining what "causal" means inside the physics, and somehow trying to argue that if it's discrete changes you get causality and if it is a continuous function over time then for some reason it isn't. He's looking at the formulae of fundamental physics, noting they're continuous, and saying "thus, not causal, just explanation." He's not looking at "photon hits excited atom and causes valence transition and now you have two photons." But then he looks at individual transitions of the graph, instead of showing the complete collection of all possible graph transitions as a single thing, which of course would be non-causal in exactly the same way that Einstein's tensor is. He's crossing levels of abstraction.

[@willnitschke]

@@darrennew8211 *Not the kind where you're worried about superposition collapses.* It doesn't personally worry me, as I am skeptical that's even what is going on. *I think his point was that he's defining what "causal" means inside the physics, and somehow trying to argue that if it's discrete changes you get causality and if it is a continuous function over time then for some reason it isn't.* I don't understand his claim, but admittedly because 'cause' is a non-starter for me, I'm not trying very hard here to confuse myself, by going down that rabbit hole. Consider: 1 + 1 = 2 Did the first part of the equation 'cause' the 2nd part of the equation? These are transformations, not causes and effects.

[@darrennew8211]

@@willnitschke Equations don't describe causes and effects. Equations describe things that *don't* change. That's why they have "equal" in the name. There's no equation describing the Earth circling the Sun. There's an equation for gravity, but not specifically the Earth right now circling the Sun right now.

[@willnitschke]

@@darrennew8211 I don't know what you mean by "specifically" because physics is all about defining laws, not specific instances. If we want to predict where the sun is in relation to the Earth, we need the equations _and_ the specific numbers need to be fed into it. Now, you can say gravity is "causing" the motion, but it's also redundant. We don't need "causes" to predict.

[@CalendulaF]

There is a long history of arguments along the lines presented in this video; most notably by Hume and Russel. Russel says basically exactly that: any equation is fundamentally non-causal, because the equal-sign destroys any important difference between cause and effect (and in particular that one must precede the other). Humes argument is even broader and I think it brings us a bit further than both Russel and this video. He links causality not to freedom (as erroneously done here) but to explanation. He denies there being causality “out there” or even within us or within the way our physical brain works; but to what we call an explanation. Any explanation has to give two different accounts: (1) why things happened such and such (this can be done using eg equations) and (2) why thing’s could have not happened in another way (this is, where causality creeps in). This second part is basically what sets an explanation apart from a description. Explanations are necessary for us to understand and to communicate. This is, why we can’t get rid of causality, even if it does not pop up in the basic (psychical) description of the world. Also, the account of free will, as outlined in this video, is largely wrong (albeit commonly told along exactly this way). Freedom (as in free will) is basically a question about ways to combine deterministic and non-deterministic evolutions in specific ways. I know that this sounds a bit cryptic, but that is basically what it boils down to; it is a question about types of laws of motion (or types of evolution) and if those types of motion can exist at all (without being self defeating). Turns out, they can.

[@lasttheory]

I'm sorry, but you're a little too certain of yourself. It can't possibly be true that my account of free will in this video is "largely wrong", because I don't actually give an account of free will in this video. I deliberately avoided doing so because, well, as I said, I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this point. And you give yourself away when you say that my linking causality to freedom is "erroneous". I do _not,_ in fact, link causality to freedom (freedom is a very broad concept that I don't cover in this video; did you mean free will?) but your suggestion that if I don't say _precisely_ what Hume said then anything I say must be "erroneous" suggests that you prize authority over argument. I'd be happy to engage with you on the details of my arguments - you're clearly learned and I appreciate that - but not if you're going to be patronizing.

[@CalendulaF]

@@lasttheory I apologize for coming across so patronizing. I wrote this at 4am on the night, while I could not sleep. So my wording was all too apodictic. Thanks for your comment, I hope to find time to answer properly this time. And the video was good, concise and thought provoking. Sorry again for being rude.

[@lasttheory]

@@CalendulaF Thanks, I appreciate that. And sorry for being so reactive myself! I'd love to continue the conversation.

[@CalendulaF]

@@lasttheory Hey, me again. I am, in fact, also very interested in discussing the matter. In particular, when it is not late at night... okay. Let's see, were we are: I think, we need to sort out misunderstandings in the first place and then go from there. Fist misunderstanding, I think, would be that I am with Hume. I'm not. I'm still exploring. Also, I don't think anybody who does not agree to Humes criticism of causality, would be wrong or seriously mistaken. Instead, my starting point would be to propose to investigate the question, if causality is just a feature of explanations *and nothing else* -- or if it is more than that? I don't know. Let's see, if causality could be "really out there": Causality, as you rightfully say (and has been noted by others, like Bertrand Russel, too), does not seem to be entailed within the mathematical structure of QM or GR (or in any equation). However, it might be found in the foundations of thermodynamics, which I think, have never been fully clarified and justified. In particular, many have tried to justify the second law (famously Boltzmann and the Ehrenfests, proving the H-theorem), but I still don't buy it. Also, I don't buy the recent proof by Stephen Wolfram. I think, a rigorous proof must be physical; in a way that really shows, that certain types of information *really* disappear in many-constituent-systems. Such a proof could be a foundation of causality being *out there* (within the laws of thermodynamics). But I have doubts that such an approach can be successful. If we can not find causality there, then I don't know, where. In this case, we would be seriously thrown back to Hume. Well...maybe, there is another way to find causality within complexity, that is, within the laws of combining constituents. Unfortunately, these laws have not been really found as of yet, so this hope is rather slim. And that would be my first attempt to clarify what I am thinking about. On a sidenote: whenever I have talked about "freedom" in my first post, I was indeed referring to the freedom in "free will". But that is another topic (which is my field and into which I have a much better insight, but I think, it is not crucial for understanding causality). Greetings!

[@lasttheory]

@@CalendulaF Thanks for getting back to me. I like your framing: is causality just a feature of explanations? I agree with you about thermodynamics. I, too, don't buy attempts to rescue causality - and also the arrow of time - through the second law. It's a compelling idea: the arrow of time is the direction in which entropy increases. But it just doesn't ring true. Entropy is clearly a statistically derived measure, and it seems topsy-turvy to suggest that a statistically derived measure can determine something so fundamental as the arrow of time. The Wolfram model, however, unlike these continuous equations, bakes in time at the most fundamental level: as rules are applied to the hypergraph, time goes forward. (There are complications when it comes to observed time, same as in special relativity, but at the most fundamental level, it's that simple.) This allows a similarly simple concept of causal connection to be introduced (I'll talk about this in my next video). Arguably, this concept of causal connection isn't the same as our concept of causality, and it could be described as just a feature of explanations. But it does have extraordinary explanatory power. It's a bit like Newton's concept of a force - or, indeed, _any_ concept in physics - it's not _real_ (no one has ever _seen_ a force) but it _is_ a concept with explanatory power.

[@MusingsAndIdeas]

I'm sorry, but saying that you can't see causality in the equations says more about your lack of imagination than causality itself. Causality is on the RIGHT of the equation. The fact that time has an inverted eigenvalue compared to space forces events to have some sort of ordering to have a distance. The constancy of the speed of light then forces the propagation of information in only one direction, and that is causality. Note, simultaneity might not exist, but faster than light travel is required in order to circumvent the ironclad rule of unidirectional flow

[@lasttheory]

I apologize for my alleged lack of imagination. But I still don't see it. I don't agree that ordering of events, or even propagation of information in one direction, entails the concept that most people think of when they think of causality. As I say, I think there is a more limited concept that we can derive from an ordering of events, but such an ordering is inherent in the Wolfram model, whereas it takes some mental gymnastics to get it out of the continuous equations of General Relativity.

[@willnitschke]

Sorry how does asserting "cause" is the left side of an equation make the slightest bit of sense?

[@Uri1000x1]

Why don't you look at a physical system that changes state? Any state is said to be the cause of the next state. After seeing an interaction you know a computation has been implemented and a change occurred. Next look at events in space-time. They are points, which may be the starting time and place of an interaction. No change can take place except over time. A support for causality is that time is about effects always following cause. If no free-will any state is the cause of the next due to determinism. There is causality due to fact that any event in a system may be called a cause. Your brain caused this video or maybe your producer caused it. Just like a pool players brain causes a ball to move, or a stick moving in a cause, or the elbow that moves the stick.

[@lasttheory]

Good questions, thanks Doug. I agree, we need to look at changes of state in computational systems. I'm not sure it makes sense, though, to say that one state is a _cause_ of the following state. What if there are two (or more) possible states that may arise from that one state? I'm not sure that's what we really mean by causality, to say that the one state _causes_ one or other of those following states. Causal connection, on the other hand, seems to me to be a more coherent concept. If one _event_ creates the necessary conditions for another, then there's a causal connection between those two events. P.S. I _wish_ I had a producer to cause this video, but actually I don't, it's just me :)

[@Uri1000x1]

@@lasttheory With determinism in effect the cosmos is a physical system that continuously changes state, a present state determines the next state. Any state cantains all the information to determine all past states and all future states. The cosmos implements computation since it is made of interacting physical systems. During interaction of two systems the states of both systems change according to nature's laws. Computation is using information to get other information. Look at the state of a cue ball during its collision interaction extending over time with another ball. The cue ball's state is different after the interaction as well as the target ball's state. That's how the cosmos computes. The informational state of a physical system is the value of the variables of of interest, the variables we used to predict behavior of physical systems. The physical systems are only in one state at a time, specified by the values of all the variables in the state space. The cosmos would pass from state-to-state. Interesting, it doesn't repeat states due to entropy, possible a Markov chain diagram would represent it, for instance if the state is sampled at discrete time intervals. A smaller physical system's Markov diagam may show a state with branchs to two or more other states. Each connector line will show the probability that the state will change in that direction.

[@lasttheory]

@@Uri1000x1 Right, I think we agree on everything, except perhaps the use of the word "cause". I agree that with a discrete, computational model, one state, plus the rules, determines the following state... I just wouldn't use the word "causes" for that. And with a continuous equations model, in which everything - past, present and future - is mapped out by the equations, I wouldn't even use the word "determines". My next video will dig deeper into how causal connection works with a discrete, computational model.

[@Uri1000x1]

@@lasttheory Two systems A and B may interact over a time interval. The outcome is the state of A and B after the interaction.

[@Uri1000x1]

If you look at a human as a system that changes state continuously over time. There are an infinite number of future states within the next second after any given state. Why, is because time takes on an infinite number of values over the interval of one second. Infinity has thus entered the equations (or the natural laws that govern the behavior of physical systems), so how can determinism hold sway over behavior?

[@karabenomar]

Attempt at solving the problem of consciousness: Consciousness is a not a scientific term and the phenomenon cannot be objectively measured, placing it conveniently outside the realm of scientific inquiry. When you say it feels like something to be you, your source is basically "Trust me bro", because I can't verify this even if I understood your brain completely. So why should I believe you? Should I also believe you when you claim to feel the presence of God? I think I should believe neither of those things. I just know that there are processes in your brain that make you say you feel something, but that doesn't make it true. It's a delusion. There is just one reason why it's being taken serious at all, albeit an incredibly powerful one: Everyone unquestioningly believes in their own consciousness, so they are willing to believe it's just the same with others. But my own delusion doesn't validate your delusion. We're just two madmen assuring each other the little pink elephant is really there. Most people call me out on this, saying I'm denying something painfully obvious. I then say, well if it's so obvious, it should be easy to prove that you're conscious. Knock yourself out. To which they then say: "Well...trust me bro".

[@lasttheory]

I think you _might_ be right. I like the way you put this: "there are processes in your brain that make you say you feel something." But consciousness is a slippery thing. Just when I think that you're right that "my own delusion doesn't validate your delusion," I find myself wondering, hang on, if I'm not actually conscious, _who_ is it that's delusional, _who_ is it who _feels_ he's consious but _isn't?_ I'm not saying you're wrong - as I say, I think you _might_ be right - but it still leaves me wondering. Thanks for the well-reasoned argument, I hope one day you'll convince me!

[@karabenomar]

@@lasttheoryThank you for your answer! That one might be easy, actually: Delusion does not require consciousness. You might call a warehouse robot delusional when it's trying to move a crate into a space that's already occupied because in its "mind" that space is free. Trying to clear up terminology: "Consciousness" is also a problematic term because it refers to two different things: 1. The measureable awareness of itself that a somewhat intelligent organism or system displays 2. The subjective feeling of being here. The first lies firmly within the realm of science and doesn't cause any fundamental problems. We can put a paint dot on an ape's face while it's sleeping and watch it wipe it off in front of a mirror. It's the second that's the slippery one. I'd argue the philosophical term "qualia" is a better fit for this. The subjective feeling of being me is akin to the subjective feeling of seeing red - Is my red the same as your red? These kinds of questions will quickly lead us down a rabbit hole - as philosophy always does - but I feel these discussions are useless without a proper definition of the term "qualia". Thing is, there isn't any, and I suspect it's because it's a bogus term.

[@lasttheory]

@@karabenomar Yes, I agree with your framing: I agree that your 1. doesn't cause any problems, and that your 2. is the slippery one. I'm not sure it's just philosophy, though; I'd be happy to dismiss it if it were. I think it's experience. It's unlike any other problem in physics or philosophy, in that it's the only thing that I know exists. It might, as you say, just be a delusion, but if it is, it's a powerful one.

[@karabenomar]

@@lasttheory Thinking about it, maybe I'm just half right (at best). Consciousness might be like an image on a flatscreen. It's not measurably "there" in the same way as the light emitted by the pixels is. A fly crawling over the screen would not be able to see it, just the pixels. But to the viewer, it's clearly there because she can take in all the visual information and put them in a meaningful greater context. If consciousness is like that, only your brain can see the full picture and any scientist picking apart your brain would be like the fly on the screen, missing the point. In a way, it's still a delusion, but it works and has wide ramifications, so it's also real in a way.

[@lasttheory]

@@karabenomar Yes, I like that analogy. But I still can't get past the unique property of consciousness, that I have a subjective _feeling_ of consciousness. As we've both conceded, it might be a delusion, but it's hard to ignore!

[@lus97531]

👍

[@vladpetric7493]

A computing system does evolve according to some of the immutable laws of physics. By and large they are not chaotic at all, and causality can be understood for them. Of course, they are much simpler systems than the human brain, which we simply don't understand. Sorry, but I have a feeling you're ignoring something that doesn't fit your narrative.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Vlad. By a _computing system,_ do you mean a computational model, like the Wolfram model, or an actual computer, such as the one on which I'm typing this reply? If the latter, don't all the electrons that cause the non-chaotic, deterministic behaviour (e.g. I press the "k" key and the letter "k" appears on the screen) follow continuous equations, like the Einstein, Schrödinger and Maxwell equations? If they do, I don't see the need for the concept of causality, since it's all just the universe evolving according to those continuous equations.

[@vladpetric7493]

@@lasttheory I really appreciate your answer! Here’s my perspective: Yes, I’m talking about regular computers. In general, the state of a computer in a clock cycle (2-5Ghz, or 0.2-0.5 ns being common these days) is determined from the state in the prior clock cycle, and other inputs, according to the circuitry (and yes, there’s a lot of complexity over there, but determinism is pretty clear). Importantly, there is a very clear arrow of time there. One of the fundamental building blocks of a processor, a CMOS gate, only works from input to output, with an arrow of time. It is not reversible at all (you can’t make it go backwards).

This doesn’t mean that we couldn’t build reversible chips of course; this just means that fundamentally, our current chips work with a clear arrow of time. Do these gates obey the laws/equations that you mention? I’m absolutely sure they do. Problem is, which equation introduces the CMOS digital arrow of time? This is an absolutely honest question, I’m hoping to learn something here. And to be clear, I understand digital electronics quite well, but not quantum physics; and yes, TTBOMK the PN junction in a transistor would not function without quantum effects.

[@vladpetric7493]

@@lasttheory My posts keep getting deleted. I really appreciate your answer! Here’s my perspective: Yes, I’m talking about regular computers. In general, the state of a computer in a clock cycle (2-5Ghz, or 0.2-0.5 ns being common these days) is determined from the state in the prior clock cycle, and other inputs, according to the circuitry (and yes, there’s a lot of complexity over there, but determinism is pretty clear). Importantly, there is a very clear arrow of time there. One of the fundamental building blocks of a processor, a CMOS gate, only works from input to output, with an arrow of time. It is not reversible at all (you can’t make it go backwards).

This doesn’t mean that we couldn’t build reversible chips of course; this just means that fundamentally, our current chips work with a clear arrow of time. Do these gates obey the laws/equations that you mention? I’m absolutely sure they do. Problem is, which equation introduces the CMOS digital arrow of time? This is an absolutely honest question, I’m hoping to learn something here. And to be clear, I understand digital electronics quite well, but not quantum physics; and yes, TTBOMK the PN junction in a transistor would not function without quantum effects.

[@vladpetric7493]

@@lasttheory my posts keep getting deleted. I will split my answer: Yes, I’m talking about regular computers. In general, the state of a computer in a clock cycle (2-5Ghz, or 0.2-0.5 ns being common these days) is determined from the state in the prior clock cycle, and other inputs, according to the circuitry (and yes, there’s a lot of complexity over there, but determinism is pretty clear). Importantly, there is a very clear arrow of time there. One of the fundamental building blocks of a processor, a CMOS gate, only works from input to output, with an arrow of time. It is not reversible at all (you can’t make it go backwards).

[@vladpetric7493]

@@lasttheory This doesn’t mean that we couldn’t build reversible chips of course; this just means that fundamentally, our current chips work with a clear arrow of time. Do these gates obey the laws/equations that you mention? I’m absolutely sure they do. Problem is, which equation introduces the CMOS digital arrow of time? This is an absolutely honest question, I’m hoping to learn something here. And to be clear, I understand digital electronics quite well, but not quantum physics; and yes, TTBOMK the PN junction in a transistor would not function without quantum effects.

[@greenfinmusic5142]

You didn't cause the ball to fly through the air, you caused your spirit to choose a path through possibility space in which you experienced your hand tossing the ball (and we experienced seeing you do it). By invoking a multiverse/many worlds ontology, we can see how each particular path can appear to have a purely physical causally closed explanation, but from our god's eye view we can see that you exercised your free will not in altering any particular path (which is impossible), but in choosing between the paths, i.e. choosing which of the infinite/near infinite 'zombie yous' branching off at each moment that you 'follow' and 'stay in tune/phase with', which allows you to experience 'what it's like' to be that zombie you in that moment. Deep, libertarian-style free will (i.e. the kind we naturally tend to think we have) is overwhelmingly likely to exist. The almost perfect linkages between the 'goodness' or 'badness' of particular qualia of phenomenal consciousness and the 'goodness'/'badness' it would have if it were causally efficacious, is uncanny to the point of being practically impossible from a statistical perspective. For example, if phenomenal consciousness didn't have any sort of non-overdetermined causal efficacy, then there's no reason that touching a hot stove shouldn't feel fun and wonderful. But it doesn't. It feels awful. Which is strong evidence that the phenomenal consciousness of the experience (the purely mental qualia of pain and discomfort) has non-overdetermined causal powers. Physicalism implies epiphenomenalism (and a lack of non-overdetermined causal efficaciousness), but phenomenal consciousness almost certainly has non-overdetermined causal efficaciousness, so epiphenomenalism is almost certainly false, and physicalism is thereby also false. We traditionally think of causal power as being the ability to influence physical reality, but that's impossible, since a purely mental Spirit can't interact with physical reality (since something that is purely mental has no actionable properties in common with something that is purely physical) but what we do have is something near enough: the ability to steer yourself through possibility space so that you have control over the phenomenal consciousness you experience. (and not in a hallucinatory sense, but in a very real way in which all the people around you have experiences of phenomenal consciousness that are logically consistent with each other, e.g. we all experience seeing you toss the ball up when you experience doing it).

[@lasttheory]

It's a compelling idea: (if I understand correctly) our spirit can choose which of the many possible evolutions of the universe to follow (in Wolfram language, which of the many possible paths through the multiway graph to follow). The trouble is, I remain optimistic that we can formulate laws of physics that fully describe the universe. If our spirits can choose which path to follow, then the laws of physics _can't_ describe how the universe evolves, since it (presumably) can't describe the choices our spirits make. Yours is a coherent view of the universe, but it's not a scientific one, since it allows for this free spirit that can't be explained scientifically. Am I describing your point of view correctly?

[@greenfinmusic5142]

​@@lasttheory Thanks for the reply. I just subbed you, and am looking forward to wading into your videos. I only recently discovered Stephen Wolfram and his project/ideas. I immediately felt a kinship with his thinking. There's a bit of a learning curve, so it's great that you've made some videos to help introduce relative noobs like myself to his ideas. I would say that the laws of physics describe all of the possible paths through the multiway graph, and as such are sufficient for fully describing how the physical universe evolves, both as a whole and in terms of each particular branch. But I would say that we are actually immaterial spirits that are playing that physical universe like a game. These spirits can't exert any causal force on any of the physical reality/objects as they travel through the pathways, but they do have the ability to influence which paths they experience/travel through. In that sense I would say that the universe could be fully explained via physical science, but that a person's subjective experience could not be, and would need to be the subject of something like a science of phenomenal psychology. It would also be the case that a comprehensive physical theory of the universe would not include a description of what a conscious agent really is at its base ontological level; that would require a larger and more comprehensive theory of everything. But that appears to be our actual predicament. I went into my university philosophy studies as a physicalist, but I came out of them as a dualist. When I studied physicalism deeply, I found that it implied that phenomenal consciousness was epiphenomenal (i.e. it had no non-overdetermined causal efficaciousness). But deep study of phenomenal consciousness made me aware of an overwhelming argument in favor of phenomenal consciousness having non-overdetermined causal efficaciousness. So imo, epiphenomenalism is false, and physicalism is falsified along with it. But then the question naturally arises: *"How could it be the case that purely immaterial phenomenal consciousness appears to have non-overdetermined causal efficaciousness in what appears to be a causally closed physical world?"* This has been the main hurdle for interactive substance dualism since at least Descartes, and to my knowledge, nobody had ever come up with a cogent answer that wasn't of the "Because God says so" sort. So that's what I set out to do and why I went to grad school. Here's a quick sketch of the solution I came up with: ************************************** Let’s say Reality is composed of pixels a Planck length on each side that have both mental (M) and physical (P) properties (I mean mental in the phenomenal sense, not the psychological sense; see The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers for a lucid explanation of the distinction). The P properties 'drive the bus' and govern the interaction of the pixel's properties according to the laws of physics, while the M properties are just along for the ride. This will require a small number of brute facts of the world accounting for the consistent joining of particular M and P properties in pixels when those pixels are in a small number of various states. Think of pixels on a TV: an object 'moves' due to the transfer of physical properties across pixels without the pixels themselves moving. Similarly, think of Reality as being composed of pixels, so that what's really occurring in our world is a change in the distribution of P and M properties across the pixels, with these movements being governed by the P properties in accordance with physical law. Perhaps there are a small number of possible states for each pixel (similar to how physicists talk of a small number of possible states for the basic building blocks of matter, and how all the complexity we see on the macro-level arises from various combinations of a relatively small number of basic building blocks that have been combined and arranged in a stupendous variety of ways). Let's grant that the physical is causally closed (meaning if an event has a cause, then it has a physical cause), just as all experimentation indicates. And just for good measure, let's go ahead and be draconian and say that no M property can possibly interact with any P property (and vice versa). Now let’s bring in substance dualism and say I (like you) am really a spirit. Spirits are purely mental and can't sense P properties at all, only M properties. Spirits are somehow 'tuned in' to a particular set of M properties in Reality...the set corresponding to the M properties conjoined to all the P properties that compose your physical body. Let’s say there is not one World that moves through time, but that there are a near infinite (or maybe infinite) number of 'World-states' that are eternally frozen and unchanging. So what seems like one changing World is actually you as a spirit passing through a series of successive non-changing World-states that are slightly different, which generates an effect similar to that of seeing a movie on film. [It's interesting to note that physicists insist that the only way for everything in the universe to be in agreement over what occurs in a given universe-wide time-slice is for absolutely nothing to be moving relative to anything else in the universe; in other words, a frozen World-state. See the bottom of pg. 134 in the paperback version of Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos for a clear explanation of this. Note that this is not simply the effect of delays in information that can only travel at the speed of light; this is a much deeper and weirder issue.] There are rules governing how we may jump from one World-state to the next. The possible jumps allowed from one's current position are determined by our particular set of physical laws (in conjunction with the arrangement of physical properties in each World-state). Physical laws are the rules of the game, and not only are some jumps allowed and some not, but the options have various likelihoods. The likelihood of jumping from your current World-state to a World-state where you experience X is based on the proportion of possible jumps where X occurs, and is randomized within that. If 30% of your possible jumps can result in you landing on a World-state where you experience X, then we say (and can experimentally verify) that there is a 30% chance of X. [Imagine the set of all possible paths. One’s odds of experiencing X correspond to the percent of possible paths from your current position that yield X.] But how can a spirit know what's in store at those jumping destinations if the destinations are determined by P properties while a spirit can only sense M properties? Well, let's say that imagination is literally the ability to 'look down the paths' at the M properties attached to the P properties in those upcoming World-states. So one can use one's imagination to scout the paths a bit and see what's needed to make it down various paths. Let's say these M properties are the source of a spirit's phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness might literally be the experiencing of these M properties as our spirits move along from World-state to World-state. In fact, these M properties may literally be little bits of phenomenal consciousness, and spirits may just be entities with a sensory ability that allows them to experience these little bits. [Or maybe this Reality is a video game that we're actually plugged into on a higher level of Reality, and perhaps all the M properties we encounter are replicated in our higher level brains to simulate the experience. And maybe on that higher level there isn't an issue with the mind/body problem: maybe experiments on that level clearly show that their physical isn't causally closed and that M properties are allowed to influence P properties. But I digress.] The rich complexity of one's phenomenal experience would then correspond to the rich complexity of M properties along for the ride with the rich complexity of P properties in one's brain.

[@greenfinmusic5142]

(continued) The basic Mind/Body question is this: How could an immaterial spirit composed solely of M properties have a non-redundant causal impact on a physical body, given that the physical domain is causally closed (i.e. if an event has a cause at all, then it has a physical cause)? I would begin by re-stating the question in a way that tries to get behind its impetus: How could an immaterial spirit causally influence its own phenomenal experience in a way that would appropriately coincide with the phenomenal experiences of relevant others? For example, how could my purely mental spirit cause it to happen that I experience myself shaking hands with David Chalmers, and for my phenomenal experience to appropriately coincide with the phenomenal experiences of Chalmers and the other people in the room (who would have the phenomenal experience of seeing me do so, and even feeling me do so in Chalmers’ case)? And furthermore, how could I as a spirit have any non-redundant role to play, given that there is a perfectly complete, causally closed physical story that can fully explain all of the motions of my body without appeal to a causally efficacious spirit?? The answer is straightforward with my proposal: I as a spirit controlled my path through the World-states so that my experiences went the way I wanted them to go. To make this stark, let's say there were 5 of us spirits tuned in to what I naively thought of as "my" body when I experienced entering Chalmers’ classroom (if crowds make you squeamish, this is the wrong ontology for you!). Say all 5 of us pursued different paths: #1 applauded Chalmers, #2 mooned him, #3 offered him a Foster's, and #4 called him a zombie. Note that all 5 of us would have complete physical stories that could explain how we did what we did, and the physical would appear to be causally closed from each individual perspective. There would seemingly be no need to postulate any influence from a causally efficacious spirit, yet here we are - from our God’s eye view we see that 5 different spirits had 5 different outcomes, with the difference in outcome determined by the causal effect of the individual spirits choosing their own paths through World-states! [So we were all tuned in to the same World-state when we entered the classroom, but we quickly diverged and ended up tuned in to very different World-States.] See, we don't need a spirit to interact with the physical world in order for the spirit to get the phenomenal experiences that it desires and in a way appropriately consistent with the phenomenal experiences of others. There's another way to get what we're really after. And this other way is not only consistent with the very quantum randomness and multi-verse theory (with at least 10^500 universes) that state of the art physics is telling us is likely the case, it requires it. My proposed solution can’t work if there’s just one world/universe and it’s deterministic (although an alternate formulation of my strategy, one using a bazillion different deterministic worlds, would be fine; that is, it could be the case that every possible path through the World-states is actually a full-on physically deterministic world passing through time (as our world is normally conceived to pass through time) and spirits jump from deterministic World to deterministic World, rather than from frozen world-state to frozen world-state). BTW, one weird consequence is that everybody (literally every body, e.g. the litany of other "James bodies" I jump among) is really a zombie, so I’m really a spirit jumping among a near infinite number of my zombie bodies, none of which experience phenomenal consciousness themselves (they're just matter, much like rocks and trees and stars). BTW2, another strategic option, and perhaps the best, is to say that physicist Hugh Everett was correct with his postulation that new universes are created and branch off at every possible physical junction, to which I would offer that spirits have some control over which branch they choose to follow. This actually makes the jumping process easiest. BTW3, a basic rule of the game seems to be that we can only manipulate our own bodies; that is, if I want my car to start, I have to do so by jumping through World-states (or through Worlds) in a way that results in my body turning the key, or asking someone to turn the key, etc. I can’t intentionally jump to a World where the car has miraculously started: it's not possible to directly aim for a particular result of an event outside one's own body. This is an important point: every jump between World-states (let’s say there are a trillion jumps per second) is randomized while conforming to its associated probabilities unless you assert influence on that jump (this influence would almost always be weak, like deflecting the course of an asteroid by asserting a weak force over millions of miles. This weakness comes from not having control over each jump, but rather over every 1,000th jump or so (sticking with the earlier 'trillion jumps a second' figure). BTW4, in this proposal we never see the physical world, just the phenomenal world. The physical is probably forever beyond us, like with Kant's notion of the noumenal world. So why do I postulate the physical at all? Because it provides the objective grounding that allows my subjective phenomenal experiences to be relevantly consistent with those of everyone else. (Hmm...maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe in this view we could actually eliminate the physical entirely since the phenomenal M properties already have an objective nature. In such a scenario, there would be a number of laws governing the interactions of M properties, taking the place of the corresponding way that a physicalist normally thinks of the laws governing the interaction of P properties. That seems simpler; we've now reduced the number of such laws to the same number needed for physicalism. Oh boy, I think I might have just become an Idealist on you here. When I began, I was thinking that the pixels in our phenomenal world needed some sort of corresponding pixel-in-itself in the noumenal world. Now I'm not so sure I have any need for postulating a noumenal world at all. Do others agree? Regardless, let me go ahead and finish up as if that thought hadn't occurred.) BTW5, this solution would perhaps indicate that great athletes like Michael Jordan have the ability to control more jumps per second (say, influencing every 600th jump). Greater frequency of influence would result in better reaction times and a perceived 'slowing down' of the game for him relative to the perceptions of the lesser players. Two final points: one, we can only skew the randomness involved with our own body, and two, the ability to control even those jumps is variable and far from perfect. I think that’s what concentration is: it’s employing a force that aims your jumping. Concentrate harder and you aim better (and possibly also increase your frequency of influence). Concentrate hard over a large number of repetitions, and over time you steer yourself into situations with different probabilities for the same actions as before. [Consider the shooting of free throws in basketball if you start off as a 50% shooter: after a million serious practice shots, the World-state paths (or World, on that alternative formulation) would have higher probabilities of made shots among the destinations for successive jumps. What happens is that you’ve moved yourself to a place where, say, 80% of your possible jumping destinations involve made shots.] So the summary is this: classic Interactive Dualism may indeed be impossible given that M and P properties can't cross-interact, the physical is causally closed, and a spirit has only M properties, but what we were really trying to get at behind the concept of Interactive Dualism IS possible. And this route not only solves the Mind/Body problem, it also shows how Libertarian-style free will is possible. (Well, it gets libertarian-style free will over the mind/body hurdle, anyway; getting past Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument would be dicier.) This has obviously been extremely quick and informal, but the folks who are keenly aware of the strong need for such a solution should be able to catch my drift and start doing their own thinking about this avenue of solution.

[@lasttheory]

​@@greenfinmusic5142 Thanks for subscribing, hope you enjoy the videos. These are fascinating philosophical ideas. I'm afraid you lose me when you veer into dualism. The best argument for dualism for me, personally, is that consciousness seems to entail some kind of experience that's extremely difficult for physicalism / reductionism to account for. Regardless, I find myself reluctant to resort to dualism, because it raises more questions than it answers. Maybe some day you'll convert me!

[@greenfinmusic5142]

@@lasttheory Where do you draw the line on dualism? Do you reject the existence of 'spirits' composed of M-properties, but accept that phenomenal consciousness is composed of M-properties? Or do you reject that phenomenal consciousness is composed of M-properties (and instead take the stance that it's entirely composed of P-properties instead)? Or do you reject the existence of phenomenal consciousness entirely? Back when I was a physicalist, my biggest problem with dualism was that I couldn't see how it was possible, and so I thought its drawback (apparent impossibility) outweighed physicalism's drawback (the inability to account for both the existence of phenomenal consciousness and its apparent ability to causally interact with the physical world). But the more I studied and thought about physicalism's drawbacks, the worse they became, whereas I was able to come up with an ontological system showing how dualism could work (it's not exactly Interactive Dualism, but something near enough). So the calculus changed significantly and is now heavily weighted in the opposite direction: dualism is the workable option and physicalism is almost certainly impossible. I didn't want to become a dualist; I was forced to become one by the weight of the arguments. I will happily switch back if anyone can come up with a cogent version of physicalism that can account for phenomenal consciousness and its apparent ability to causally interact with the physical world. The prevailing stance over the past few hundred years has been, "Despite the fact that our best current theories of physicalism are inadequate, dualism is impossible (since, by definition, M-properties can't interact with P-properties), so some version of physicalism must be true." But that reasoning fails since it turns out that relevant forms of dualism aren't impossible. When looked at from an Occam's Razor perspective, dualism wins, since it's the simplest theory that adequately explains the data. Physicalism is simpler, but it fails to adequately explain the data.

[@monkerud2108]

You sed discreetness doesn'tmale causation follow, it just feels good, but its the same, correlation between inpit and output in various ways, the continuous versions is exactly the same just you know continuously. Read my full rant and you will see. Causation is what the world does, not a coherent concept beyond that, you can even use variables that do not have independent equations at all, but have the laws of evolution baked into their structure. And they are just another form of complete pattern, Although no independent laws by fiat mess upmthe reasoning. Ultimately the real pattern of the world as a whole, is what causation is. And that becomes evident if we escape out intuitions about cats pushing cups of tables, ultimately thats just as much just a pattern, like a solution to electrodynamics. However you can treat the laws ans the content in one strole with special types of variables read lore bellow if you want.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

If the 'theory' of causality is correct, then every moment of existence is both a 'cause' and and 'effect'. Simultaneously! So, even if this 'theory' is correct (it ain't), what is the point? You cannot identify any distinction between a 'cause' and an 'effect' because(?) there is none. So again, any essential distinction between the two is illusory, but it is pragmatic under certain circumstances/Perspectives. Like making the kiddies believe that a demon will gobble them up if they go down the old abandoned mine. The illusion makes their lives a bit more comfortable. A good scientific reason why 'causality' is not possible is; "The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be (ie; Karma). They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!! Reality is not linear, it is Holistic! All the Universe, all inclusive, ever, here and poof gone, bang!, in a single Planck Moment! Talk about a Big Bang!!!

[@nameless-yd6ko]

Do you know what causality is? ~~~ Essentially, it is a concept, like EVERYTHING else!

[@monkerud2108]

And btw i didnt invented these analog variables just to deal with causality or build some metaphysical system. I invented them to explain action at a distance without force laws by fiat, which I succeeded in, but this project is not finished. What i did was start with the old mechanical philosophy, back to thinkers before newton, but including newton as well ofc since he didn't believe force laws by fiat counted as a full hypothesis of mechanism, ans he ultimately believed in mechanism, just like Leibniz, even though he criticised figures like Leibniz for arbitrary mechanistic theories without unifying principles. The solution i found is rather simple, an infinite regress of emergent structure, each reduction reducing laws like newtons gravity or einstiens gravity to mechanical forces and motions, but not exclusively so, also with effective forces or fields, so fundamental entities like forces and matter is reduced to just motion of more detailed matter, but that matter has its own effective couplings/forces to go with, and this process of reduction is repeated a infinite number of times. The result is interesting in many ways, and lacks some of the problems of the original conception of the mechanical philosophy of a clockworks universe, namely only the limit eliminates laws by fiat, which means it is technically purely mechanical in the limit, but behaves like there are effective laws driven by mechanisms at all scales. And then there is the issue of statistical mechanics and this sort of thing needing battery to work, and it indeed acts as its own battery, it decays over time for parts of its structure, through the nature of the mechanisms involved. There is no proper thermal equilibrium there because of the way the mechanisms work and the infinite regress of emergence, and the result is that we have an eternal gradient in entropy, and that provides the properties you need for mucv riches statistical mechanical effective laws, ergodicity fails partially, long range correlation that look like force laws can emerge, and look to happen with no friction due to thermalization, because different parts of a scale local structure decay at the same rate, so using those patterns to define units, and the times and lengths associated change at a symmetric rate, leading to emergent conservation laws for energy, there can be an infinite different notilns of energy and enerfy conservation for different parts of the structure and the associated units based on physical content. So for example the size of atoms could shrink over time as they loose energy, but retain a congruent or almost completely congruent structure over time in its effective laws, and therefore we would see an expanding universe as a prediction of a model where such a shrinkage happens as a consequence of the mechanisms of the physical laws and quasi stability of scale local structure, driven by the gradient in entropy associated with the emergent mechanisms, we would be made of stuff that looses absolute energy all the time but remains congruent resulting in the intrinsic expansion. The point and moral of the story is, expansion is an intrinsic prediction of such models i have worked on for a while with respect ti the units natural to lenghts and time scales defined by the structure itself, and kt is a necessary consequence of mechanisms that do indeed produce gravitational effects and gauge forces. It is infact consistent as a basis for a successor theory to both qft and gr, and also introduces concepts like emergent conservation laws based on symmetries resulting from the mechanisms and how they exist and form in the vacuum and form quasi equilibria, all the emergent laws and entities like matter equilibriate like a false vacuum, and there simply are no true vacua around or even possible, leading to an infinite set of conservation laws and phases of the analogy variables that coexist. A simole sketch of the part of the mechanism that always form the gravitational part, i can outline just for fun i guess, in crude form The vacua form these emergent structures with modes that hold angular momentum and energy density associated with one of these emergent notions of conservation laws, these modes carry radiation from light to gluons and even the gauge bosons of the wesk force, the details there are too much for the comment but its all unified in the structure of these modes. Then there are other such structures at different scales which has modes that hold the same kind of momentum and energy, but those are emergent as a seperate notions of energy and moment conservation, and the exchange rate between the two vacuum layers or whatever you want to call them, changes over time changing the effective laws over time and can cause phase transitions and mostly shift the characteristics scale between transitions with congruent laws approximately, with some second order effects as well. And the mechanism for gravitational fields consists of energy in the form of these spacetime modes that carry and transfer the momentum associated with scalars and vectir components og gauge and gravitational fields and the isotropic frame associated with prooagatiouof light and so on other radition fall tlwards the masses and as they hit a critical energy density they decay super fast into the smaller scale faster second vacuum structure modes and in doing so they produce a scalar gradient of the speed of light and sustains this flow or divergence of the flow of the top vacuum structure onto the matter, and the gradient and flow together along with the properties of the matter as it moves through similar gradients from other matter effectively produces the effects of the gravitational field, more mass concentrated stringer gradient, and it depends upon how the positive divergence in the bottom more fundamental causal structure works it is like a white hole almost for dumping energy into the snaller svale structure where the energy has a higher entropy, exactly how this mechanism works is too complicated ti outline properly here, because it involves explaining the gauge force part tk explain the change in permittivity that produces the scalar part of the gravitational field, this changes the speed of light and also sustains the flow towards the mass of the emergent medium. How this explains the full intrinsic curvature or gr and alm that k can explain later in another comment, took slme tkme tk write this of the top of my head, habe spent 10 years developing these ideas, hard to explain it simply, but it can be out in precise mathematical form.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

As for computation it is a direct argument against darwin and great debate warning the library building museum fetishes of singularity followed by judge a book by its cover would in fact get reduced next iteration by computation by default of being a failed approach that set the ancient world back to begin with. Spacetime ocums razor scientific standard simulated away but it doesn't tell you anything about reality. Social behavior is dictating the same.ole rinse repeat story All those came before says don't do what you're doing and your not alone we handed those keys over and tried that 90 yrs ago in usa ,130 in uk .200 years Dutch but they fell of course. Result is in every feild or study stagnated in it's grand unification quest to put it all back together. We even lived life as a measure of that faith . Self censored all things pragmatic common sense Christian objectivism proper. Stripped it down pretended math was realism e=mc we flipped into stochastic approach everything physicalism everything starts in Greece revisionist history curriculum 1945s-1980s then just like the ole Prussian/ Austrian holy Roman empire we flipped into everything idealism 1980- now with yoo hoo woo entangled uncertainty. We followed the beattles and reformed India & eastern trads better culturally than the entire time east India company or crowns had top down rule ever did lol Good historical bottom up social behavior story without causing vendetta there. But obviously issac newton warned and predicted what is wrong with it. It has vslue for astronomical distances. Good ruler of approximation.

[@audiodead7302]

Your fentanyl dependency is obviously affecting your metaphysical reasonings. Can I suggest Buprenorphine or Dihydrocodeine as less damaging substitutes. Kind regards.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

That sounds like blacksheep of the family's bum knowledge shared at Thanksgiving. I'm glad you got clean, friend !

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@audiodead7302 don't you take that garbage to forget the universe and dmt to mess up the brain so it never can again? Germans certainly thought so as they sat up all night on psuedofed to think about the universe or coke life frued to anylize brains that were.

[@mrslave41]

you are wrong about everything. would you debate me?

[@noway8233]

I think yuo are wrong

[@lasttheory]

How so?

[@audiodead7302]

I'm not familiar with "yuo". Can you clarify please?

[@LinkenCV]

The apple-man and the Earth-Sun are two different cases. It's like answering the question: how a stone differs from a man. In the first case, a cascade of reactions is accidentally determined in the human brain due to quantum processes, as a result of which the energy of the system is spent on throwing an apple or doing nothing. As a result of throwing an apple, the energy of apple changes, the added kinetic energy is used to change the curvature of space-time, as a result of which the apple flies upward. Over time, this curvature decreases and if the speed is insufficient, everyone knows what will happen next. In the case of the Earth-Sun, the quantum effects of individual particles that make up the objects are canceled by averaging possible states. Therefore, there are no changes in the flights of the planet as if it were a living being. But why does the planet not fall into the Sun or fly away? Newton's laws: the balance of gravity and centrifugal force. The distribution of energy at the beginning of the universe led to the chaotic movement of particles(quantum randomness when the world was small), now they have gathered into the Sun and the Earth and continue to move.

[@lasttheory]

That's the question, isn't it? Does the introduction of a human into the system change things fundamentally? If you're a true reductionist, you'd say it does not: the human brain is governed by the same laws of physics as a planet. It's possible, though, that Wolfram Physics will treat an observer as collapsing different timelines - different paths through the multiway graph - into a single timeline. In which case the introduction of a human into the system might, indeed, change things fundamentally.

[@LinkenCV]

@@lasttheory Let me start with the obvious. Einstein's formula is not final. It breaks down at the quantum level (singularity of black holes, distribution of the mass of an object until it is observed (double-slit experiment), etc.). Now we impose chaos theory with the butterfly effect. I did not express myself accurately the first time. The movement of the Earth around the Sun on a scale of billions of years is also not determined with 100% accuracy according to the formula of general relativity. Conventional flows of magma inside the planet shift the center of mass. A little, but the effect is chaotic (second-order differential equations). This will lead to a large difference in the position of the planet in the distant future. Also, explosions of distant supernovae with a difference of even an hour lead to a different distribution of gases, dust collection in other stars/planets, gravitational distributions, and so on along the chain. And again, not immediately. So what is the difference between a person and a planet? Chaos is higher. We have billions of neurons formed randomly throughout life. Now imagine that the planet is a double pendulum, and a person is a pendulum with a billion parts. Imagine that each of these pendulums has a pair. We deflect two positions of the double pendulum by an almost imperceptible amount, and also a billion positions of the billionth pendulum, and launch it. And then we see how quickly the end of the pendulum between these pairs deflects by a noticeable amount.

[@AliBenBrahim-s9x]

In Islam ,destiny is a matter of faith, and when you advance spiritually, that mere faith becomes a certainty, people who are trying to understand destiny with their intelligence, are waisting their time.