Models versus Reality...

[Hobbes' Choice]

Isn't this a kind of example of how you can interpret causes and effects differently? That is, it seems a default assumption to see evolution as a function of nature 'causing' one's change in evolution. Yet Darwin argued a type of opposite. That while nature itself may cause some mutation, the nature of evolution is reversed where you have to interpret the success of one surviving in some environment (the end result after the fact) as the 'cause' to evolution, not the general environment forcing this change.

In simple terms evolution is an EFFECT, not a cause.
All adaptations precede selection.

[Scott Mayers]

Isn't this a kind of example of how you can interpret causes and effects differently? That is, it seems a default assumption to see evolution as a function of nature 'causing' one's change in evolution. Yet Darwin argued a type of opposite. That while nature itself may cause some mutation, the nature of evolution is reversed where you have to interpret the success of one surviving in some environment (the end result after the fact) as the 'cause' to evolution, not the general environment forcing this change.

In simple terms evolution is an EFFECT, not a cause.
All adaptations precede selection.

Yes. I was pointing this out because in a conversation with Leo we discussed whether you can find a real example of a causes and effects being shown as reversed in reality. As such, it dawned on me that evolution itself is just such an example. That is, since we determine evolutionary success only where it occurs (as an effect), it is the effect which justifies the 'cause' (as a justification) of evolution. So inversely, you can say that what "fits" (= matches) the environment is a 'cause' of what "succeeds" as an 'effect'. This demonstrates that cause and effect itself have equivalent virtue by perspective only.

This is how math defines negative integers or processes (like subtraction) as arbitrary assignments. So with respect to Leo, while time may appear to be biased to us as moving 'forward', our past is as equally valid as a real direction with respect to our present.

[Obvious Leo]

Evolution is not an example of an effect preceding its cause. It is an example of non-linear determinism where effects are preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion and this alone is sufficient to allow progressively more informationally complex substructures to evolve within the overall system. In other words evolution is SELF-CAUSAL, as indeed is the entire universe which is self-evidently evolving. The so-called "laws of physics" are nothing more than an observer effect.

[Scott Mayers]

Evolution is not an example of an effect preceding its cause.

It is in respect to time though, Leo. That is, we judge local reality going backwards as equally having variable options as we do forward. It is only an illusion in the same way that we are biased only to see variation going forward but a unique one going backwards in any present moment. That is, the 'causes' going backwards are as much variable until we realize our future as it is presented to us. This was what the idea of the third 'law' of Newton as "two forces are equal and opposite". Extend this idea to time.

It is an example of non-linear determinism where effects are preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion and this alone is sufficient to allow progressively more informationally complex substructures to evolve within the overall system. In other words evolution is SELF-CAUSAL, as indeed is the entire universe which is self-evidently evolving. The so-called "laws of physics" are nothing more than an observer effect.

I understand your "non-linear determinism" as equivalent to "indeterminism" logically and am not against it in this respect.

On "self-causal", this too is sensible if you also respect that this too can mean that even if totality originates in absolute nothingness, it too causes reality by itself with an apparently odd circularity in kind. Think of the symbol for zero being a circle as it is. The original use of it would have likely recognized that for a nothing to mean anything, it must be closed or self-causing whereas the symbol for the '1' is open and indeterminately caused. Even the sign of infinity is a derivative of two zeros reflecting the initial conceptualizing of it being both a symbol to feign a complete idea of infinity yet is hard to actually 'define' (de- of; -fine having an end).

[Obvious Leo]

I understand your "non-linear determinism" as equivalent to "indeterminism" logically and am not against it in this respect.

No. Indeterminism means not determined, non-linear determinism means self-determined and linear determinism means determined by laws. It is this latter linear determinism which physics assumes creates our physical reality and this assumption is a crock of shit. That's why our models of physics make no sense. They conflate the non-linear determinism which obtains at the sub-atomic scale with indeterminism because they know damn well that the linear determinism assumption doesn't work at that scale. In fact linear determinism doesn't work at any scale in nature and paradoxically this was proven by none other than Isaac Newton. He assumed that the universe was configured according to a suite of divine laws and then managed to prove his own assumption false. The motion of every single physical entity in the universe is determined by the motion of every other and thus the entire universe is SELF-DETERMINING.

I think I've said as much as I need to say about something from nothing and infinity.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Isn't this a kind of example of how you can interpret causes and effects differently? That is, it seems a default assumption to see evolution as a function of nature 'causing' one's change in evolution. Yet Darwin argued a type of opposite. That while nature itself may cause some mutation, the nature of evolution is reversed where you have to interpret the success of one surviving in some environment (the end result after the fact) as the 'cause' to evolution, not the general environment forcing this change.

In simple terms evolution is an EFFECT, not a cause.
All adaptations precede selection.

Yes. I was pointing this out because in a conversation with Leo we discussed whether you can find a real example of a causes and effects being shown as reversed in reality. As such, it dawned on me that evolution itself is just such an example. That is, since we determine evolutionary success only where it occurs (as an effect), it is the effect which justifies the 'cause' (as a justification) of evolution. So inversely, you can say that what "fits" (= matches) the environment is a 'cause' of what "succeeds" as an 'effect'. This demonstrates that cause and effect itself have equivalent virtue by perspective only.

This is how math defines negative integers or processes (like subtraction) as arbitrary assignments. So with respect to Leo, while time may appear to be biased to us as moving 'forward', our past is as equally valid as a real direction with respect to our present.

I see what you mean. But I feel that causality has to be temporally directional. I can't bang the nail in until I have made the hammer.
The apparent problem expressed here in evolutionary theory is more than a virtue of perspective. I feel it is a fundamental error that biology has inherited from a thousands' of years legacy of an assumption of a purposeful universe mostly guided by divine forces. In this most humans tend to see the world in terms of its utility and tend to think of objects in it having a purpose. This teleology reaches deep into interpretations of biological mechanics of change. Elsewhere on this Forum I have described this problem recently.

I still think there is some milage in your idea of causes being effects but only in descriptions that are synchronic. This can have some useful applications, but at the end of the day (excuse the pun), reality is diachronic.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Evolution is not an example of an effect preceding its cause. It is an example of non-linear determinism where effects are preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion and this alone is sufficient to allow progressively more informationally complex substructures to evolve within the overall system. In other words evolution is SELF-CAUSAL, as indeed is the entire universe which is self-evidently evolving. The so-called "laws of physics" are nothing more than an observer effect.

When you say "self causal" you are imputing a self which does not exist. Making your statement a contradiction. This underlines the problem that our language is not up to the task of the most simple descriptions of nature.
Even were we to say 'automatic', this might imply a 'self'. I think the philosophical meaning of necessary would be better here.
In the same way "law" is equally clumsy as that might imply a law-giver.
Such is the legacy of the evolution of a language that until the last couple of centuries at most, has been used to describe "God's creation"

[Scott Mayers]

I understand your "non-linear determinism" as equivalent to "indeterminism" logically and am not against it in this respect.

No. Indeterminism means not determined, non-linear determinism means self-determined and linear determinism means determined by laws. It is this latter linear determinism which physics assumes creates our physical reality and this assumption is a crock of shit. That's why our models of physics make no sense. They conflate the non-linear determinism which obtains at the sub-atomic scale with indeterminism because they know damn well that the linear determinism assumption doesn't work at that scale. In fact linear determinism doesn't work at any scale in nature and paradoxically this was proven by none other than Isaac Newton. He assumed that the universe was configured according to a suite of divine laws and then managed to prove his own assumption false. The motion of every single physical entity in the universe is determined by the motion of every other and thus the entire universe is SELF-DETERMINING.

I think I've said as much as I need to say about something from nothing and infinity.

I'll try to make some diagrams on how we see the various interpretations of determinism vs. indeterminism. I believe your own interpretation is still another form of both similar to my own but with exception that you see it only in the forward direction. To me, as I understand 'determinism' implies only ONE unique option as a 'function' does with respect to math. By contrast, in math, while a function is one to one, a 'relation' is the generic, "any to any" such that a 'function' is just one type. But indeterminism simply means that more than one path may result as in one to many. To me, this is your own view. You simply include the diverse options of the present going forward as 'determinate' meaning that all those options really exist. This though is a multi-world interpretation.

So I believe that your interpretation only differs in that you believe this works forwards but not backwards. That is, from any given input, you believe multiple lines of options are each distinctly true and determined. This just begs a different interpretation on 'indeterminism' which most already assume is the same as your view.

I'll do the diagrams and if you disagree, let me know where I'm erring and I'll try to improve it to suit your accepted view, in case I'm missing something.

[Scott Mayers]

I see what you mean. But I feel that causality has to be temporally directional. I can't bang the nail in until I have made the hammer.

I saw a good explanation of this by I believe Brian Greene in a documentary explaining a secondary use of the law of thermodynamics. He demonstrated a glass being dropped to the floor and broken into flying pieces everywhere to which he asked if the reverse is possible? He answered yes by showing the arrows of each fragment in the forward direction in time, then simply reversed each arrow (through CG effects). He explained that while it would be highly unusual, the reality is that if all the forces were reversed precisely, the glass would exactly form as a whole again. It is only about the odds of this that limit the likelihood only. So to him, he too agrees that time is invariably bidirectional.

The other Greene (from England?) takes the same view as you and Leo on this though. So differences of opinion is variable by many physicists alike too. The 'reversal' of a hammer hitting a nail is the idea that the energy of the dispersion of the nail could technically cause the nail to inversely cause a hammer that is on its head to fly backwards in the exact opposing way of the initial hammer.

Also, in experiments on consciousness, they also demonstrated that our interpretation of the sense is 'backwards' in that we only consciously recognize our thought after our predetermination to act. I argued this rationale independently in a different way but like the fact that there is support for this. My own explanation is that we are 'conscious' simultaneously upon all active neurons feeling it, even in different places in the brain, but only 'confirm' this where the energy of these meet in some common link. Thus we 'feel' instantly yet somewhat 'forget' any non-linked energy exchanges between neurons. This is a proof of the idea of another 'effect' that interprets the 'cause' akin to evolution.

The apparent problem expressed here in evolutionary theory is more than a virtue of perspective. I feel it is a fundamental error that biology has inherited from a thousands' of years legacy of an assumption of a purposeful universe mostly guided by divine forces. In this most humans tend to see the world in terms of its utility and tend to think of objects in it having a purpose. This teleology reaches deep into interpretations of biological mechanics of change. Elsewhere on this Forum I have described this problem recently.

I still think there is some milage in your idea of causes being effects but only in descriptions that are synchronic. This can have some useful applications, but at the end of the day (excuse the pun), reality is diachronic.

I am confused by your interpreted uses of these. I used "bidirectional" when you say that "reality is diachronic" in apparent contradiction to how I interpret the word I use as the same as yours. You seem to be saying (in my interpretation) that time is unidirectional (synchronic? or at least non-diachronic) but then affirm it being diachronic anyways. Just asking for more clarification or definitions only.

[cladking]

Evolution is not an example of an effect preceding its cause. It is an example of non-linear determinism where effects are preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion and this alone is sufficient to allow progressively more informationally complex substructures to evolve within the overall system. In other words evolution is SELF-CAUSAL, as indeed is the entire universe which is self-evidently evolving. The so-called "laws of physics" are nothing more than an observer effect.

When you say "self causal" you are imputing a self which does not exist. Making your statement a contradiction. This underlines the problem that our language is not up to the task of the most simple descriptions of nature.
Even were we to say 'automatic', this might imply a 'self'. I think the philosophical meaning of necessary would be better here.
In the same way "law" is equally clumsy as that might imply a law-giver.
Such is the legacy of the evolution of a language that until the last couple of centuries at most, has been used to describe "God's creation"

Such is the elephant in the room. It's impolite to speak of it or even notice it exists at all but when we do we will argue the words used to describe its parts. We are blind to the fact that we each use different words to describe the exact same thing. We must establish a common language and then compare notes to determine the nature of elephants and the specific one in the room or we are simply left with the arcane language of zoology and experiment to create models that have no real existence at all.

What does it matter at all the DNA of elephants if all elephants are simply members of a species and there are no individual elephants. You can't share a room with a species. There's no referent for a species and little need for the word.

It's ironic that the "theory" of evolution went astray because it considers only the nature of a species (which doesn't really exist except as a concept) and ignores the reality which is the individual.

Perspective has always been everything even when a blind man isn't describing an elephant. Or everyone isn't pretending there are none in the room.

Perhaps a solution is to "name" philosophical concepts similarly to how the animals were named in ancient language. That with a Trunk. An animal with Big Flat Ears. That which has Live Birth. That which Grows Huge.

[cladking]

I am confused by your interpreted uses of these. I used "bidirectional" when you say that "reality is diachronic" in apparent contradiction to how I interpret the word I use as the same as yours. You seem to be saying (in my interpretation) that time is unidirectional (synchronic? or at least non-diachronic) but then affirm it being diachronic anyways. Just asking for more clarification or definitions only.

Cause precedes effect and always does and always has. This was axiomatic in ancient science and modern science has yet to prove otherwise. Even if it turns out tachyons or some other particle won't cooperate with this self evident truism then we can cross the bridge when we get there. Perhaps an exception will become necessary but odds are excellent there will be some aspect of nature that impedes or prevents this from manifesting beyond the small scale or we would likely have observed the effects in the real world by now. Perhaps things or events can cast a shadow in the past but this remains to be seen. In the meantime things should be taken as they appear.

[Obvious Leo]

Without a universal doctrine of uni-directional causality our universe could have no structure, which contradicts the evidence. This was perfectly well understood by the pre-Socratics and none of the major philosophies since has ever sought to contradict it. I'm fucked if I'm about to allow such a metaphysically axiomatic first principle be overturned by a handful of geeks using mathematical models which don't make the slightest lick of sense. They wouldn't know their epistemological arses from their ontological elbows.

[Obvious Leo]

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein

[Scott Mayers]

I am confused by your interpreted uses of these. I used "bidirectional" when you say that "reality is diachronic" in apparent contradiction to how I interpret the word I use as the same as yours. You seem to be saying (in my interpretation) that time is unidirectional (synchronic? or at least non-diachronic) but then affirm it being diachronic anyways. Just asking for more clarification or definitions only.

Cause precedes effect and always does and always has. This was axiomatic in ancient science and modern science has yet to prove otherwise. Even if it turns out tachyons or some other particle won't cooperate with this self evident truism then we can cross the bridge when we get there. Perhaps an exception will become necessary but odds are excellent there will be some aspect of nature that impedes or prevents this from manifesting beyond the small scale or we would likely have observed the effects in the real world by now. Perhaps things or events can cast a shadow in the past but this remains to be seen. In the meantime things should be taken as they appear.

By definition of the terms, yes. My point relates to the same factors in math that define one concept equally in terms of some opposite, like a negation or conjugate. For example, 0 + 1 = 1 = 2 - 1. These are just as about perspectives that you appear to be supporting too. We are biased in comparison to 'rays' in geometry with respect to time. What we 'experience' is thus defined as 'forward' and describe this in terms of how the past has a relatively 'fixed' record (our memory) while the future is not. This begs us to interpret our particular reality uniquely. But this is not the whole truth of reality distinct from our perspective.

We DO have evidence of real natures that conflict with our general observations external to ourselves. This is consciousness itself. And there is does prove what is contradictory normally of external reality IS true. For instance, I used a clock example from a link that I believe PhilX or someone else noticed about how clocks on a wall using equal pendulums always end up in sync with one another. This demonstrates how consciousness operates that contradict the idea that no two (or more) things can be true simultaneously. That is, things in common sync and structure are consciously aware collectively as a whole of their phenomena regardless of how far apart they are in space akin to quantum super position. What defines our 'feel' of consciousness is thus necessarily a product of this simultaneity but only gets confirmed backwards in time if and only if they have a medium at least later that connects them. This is an example of what I'm meaning here. To rephrase it with more clarity, the future connectivity of our neural connections define how we feel it in the past. That is the successful connections between neurons where they exchange energy upon one another define whether you 'felt' the feeling in this past. The future of the connection CAUSES the past 'feeling' as an EFFECT which is proof that time is a product of both forward and backward reality.

[Scott Mayers]

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein

"Then absolutely nothing has any point in truth.".....me

All science is dependent upon the theories that necessitate argument. But it depends on the underlying logic. And logic too is also empirically interpreted with more proximal truth that any and every human has the capacity to measure. But not all observations are equally privileged by all participants. So logic is more 'true' than any amount of science, even presuming science is insufficient to determining 'truth'.