Re: "It's a causal world."

[John M <***>]

Dear Howard,
thank you. You said it better than I ever could.
Not that you 'need' my seconding, but it is a rarity (to myself) when I
approve a post without caveats. Especially from a physicist <G>.

Maybe "metaphor" is a better fitting term than "reductionistic and limited
model" whatever we use in science (even general thinking); it could be as
the only way our 'mind' can work, could be as a consequence of  memes
imprinted over millennia into our cultural ways.

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Pattee" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: "It's a causal world."


> Judith writes:
> I don't see "causality" as being metaphorical in the slightest. I think
ordinary logic and common sense dictate that my father's parental statement
to us growing up ("It's a causal world, kid.") was right on the money. The
whole notion of "consequences" is built on the simple fact that one thing
leads to another, either directly or indirectly, in this universe.
>
> HP: The idea that "one thing leads to another" is the linear deterministic
Newtonian paradigm that I agree is still soundly established in our culture.
Modern physics recognizes that there is no "one thing" that causes anything.
There are only infinite configurations from which we can choose to observe
finite aspects that we can compress in our mathematical models we call laws.
All we know objectively is that the behavior of the model in some way
parallels our observations. Beyond this objective behavior the Aristotelian
causes are anthropomorphic metaphors that are transferred from how we think
about human or divine intentionality.
>
> Every child at some stage of development learns that asking, "Why?" is an
infinite regress and a good way to get attention. Every parent learns there
is no answer and to finally says, "Because that's the way nature, or God,
works. A smart kid will still ask, "Why does nature work that way?"
>
> Judith: Human senses and intelligence are built around this fact and have
incorporated it into nearly every aspect of how our minds process sensory
input. The fact that we are now rather overpopulated tends to prove that
there is a survival benefit to the way our minds work-- in other words,
we're successfully using those tools to manipulate our survival chances.
>
> HP: It is true that the human senses are built around, not this fact, but
this metaphor. We cannot think or talk without metaphors. I would say that
the fact we are overpopulated is not a good example of objective success of
a causal model. I think it will be civilization's downfall.
>
> Judith: In one of the presentations I attended of my father's-- I can't
remember if it was in Linz, Austria or Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA)... but he
was talking about the limits and the goals of science... and he said, "We
all have to agree on two things: First, that there are consistent causal
pathways in all phenomena in the natural world and Second, that our minds
and senses are capable of perceiving and interpreting meaningful information
about these causal pathways. If either of these two things are not true,
then we can all go home."
>
> HP: Of course I agree there are useful models of the natural world, but I
would say that only the simplest, usually artificial, models are viewed as
linear causal pathways. The real world is more like a network of forces all
interacting at once in which no isolated causal path makes sense. As an
exercise, try thinking of an event that can be fully explained by only one
proximate cause or even a chain of causes.
>
> Howard