How inviolable is the principle of causality?
Causality is a fundamental principle of physics.Causes have effects, and effects are the causes of subsequent effects. You can imagine chains of causal relationships that intersect, merge, but more often multiply. Conditionally, we can move along these chains back in time, and in this way we can come to the event that is the cause of all the events that are currently taking place (the "big bang") But what events caused it? And what events caused these reasons? This can be continued indefinitely, but it will not give any answers to questions about the appearance of everything, and physics, so to speak, "does not like" infinities. Why would you want to ask this question: is there any reason to believe that the principle of causality is part of some larger physical concept, and does not necessarily have to be fulfilled in our universe? (I will be very grateful for the answer, and even more so if there is an opportunity to advise some literature on the topic of this question)
The principle that events do not occur by themselves is followed not because it is proven, but because it is impossible to adhere to the opposite principle. If we assume that an event can “just happen”, spontaneously, then this undermines any possibility of consistent thinking.
We assume that the sun will rise tomorrow in the same way as it did today, but if we stop relying on the fact that events do not occur spontaneously, then there is no reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. It might not come up. Just like that, for no reason.
The laws of conservation are, in fact, only a special case of this principle – we assume that matter, energy, momentum, and so on do not disappear into nowhere and do not appear out of nowhere, because to assume the opposite means to assume spontaneous events.
Is it possible that we are wrong? Yes, it is possible. But if we are wrong, then it is impossible to think consistently, in principle, which means fvfi af dopolyf shgozotdtl.
In this case, we can think differently about how events follow one another – not only in terms of cause and effect, but also in terms of, for example, correlations.
The principle of causality naturally stems from the concept of time as a change of discrete states. According to some rules, the new state is “calculated” from the previous one.
If this is how nature works, then the principle of causality is inviolable, except that the designers of the world could leave loopholes for themselves to “correct” the undesirable course of events. But you can only guess at that.
It depends on how this principle is defined and interpreted. In general, according to the principle of causality, a cause cannot get ahead of its effect. If this principle were violated in any particular case, the “snowball of chaos of cause and effect” would have engulfed us long ago. It is impossible to “kill your grandfather” in the past and not be born yourself as a result.
I don't know, but I think it's unbreakable. There are also some ideas on this subject, but they look too parodox, for example, the presence of an imaginary subspace connected to our own by just one ort. And therefore, the effects that have no visible signs of a cause are the result of interaction along this ort with an object of imaginary space.
V. A. Kuligin
“Two models of causality”
http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001h/00164508.htm
Annotation. It is shown that the current understanding of causality as a sequence of events over time is not a complete reflection of causal relationships. Causality in science is based on two models. The first (evolutionary) model describes a sequence of related events over time. The second (dialectical) model considers the “internal springs” that form dialectical contradictions, the resolution of which is a historical development. The mutual conditionality of these models is shown. The connection between historical and logical methods of cognition, on the one hand, and two models of causality, on the other, is established. It is proved that instantaneous action at a distance does not contradict the principle of causality, contrary to the existing fashion. Thus, classical theories are rehabilitated and once again become the foundation of modern physics.
V. A. Kuligin
Two causality models
http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001h/00164508.htm
Annotation. It is shown that the current understanding of causality as a sequence of events over time is not a complete reflection of causal relationships. Causality in science is based on two models. The first (evolutionary) model describes a sequence of related events over time. The second (dialectical) model considers the “internal springs” that form dialectical contradictions, the resolution of which is a historical development. The mutual conditionality of these models is shown. The connection between historical and logical methods of cognition, on the one hand, and two models of causality, on the other, is established. It is proved that instantaneous action at a distance does not contradict the principle of causality, contrary to the existing fashion. Thus, classical theories are rehabilitated and once again become the foundation of modern physics.
What if?
From about 2017-18, links to physical studies began to appear on the Internet, showing that causality does not work at the quantum level. For example, “On violation of causality in quantum experiments”, Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, 2017. A year later, French and Australian physicists built an optical system in which it is fundamentally impossible to determine in what order operations were performed on photons. The results of the experiment are published in Physical Rewiev Letters.
It turns out that “not everything is so clear” – the hackneyed literary stamp began to play with new colors 😉
Moreover, it is assumed that the violation of causality at the quantum level will allow us to continue to stand for the “theory of everything” that physicists around the world have been looking for for so long, finally combining quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.
In general, the further you go, the more interesting it gets. We are waiting for news…
Mentally, this is by no means true, because this principle is easily violated if the speed of physical processes were not limited to a certain constant (ardent thanks for this to the scientific genius of Albert Einstein!!!). Figuratively, a modern historian could easily have visited the construction of the Pyramid of Cheops, traveling through time, if he had, like Gogia of La le bie, a hyperluminal spaceship!!! Another question is why the nature of the universe turned out to be arranged in this way?!! Here, with great pleasure, I turn to my much-loved “Big Bang Theory”!!! When the cosmological singularity began to expand, all the world phenomena were born along with it, including entropy and time, but with the only difference that if entropy could still be “wrapped” back, there would be an energy slightly higher than the initial Big Bang, then over time this focus does not pass, because the speed of physical processes is limited by the corresponding provision of special relativity (SRT, A. Einstein, 1905). So, the principle of causality, deduced in philosophy intuitively (logically), in the physics of the twentieth century has acquired a phenomenal meaning!!! Based on the above, it seems self-evident that the CHICKEN APPEARED, after all, BEFORE THE EGG!!! And one last thing: MAN IS NEVER DESTINED TO BE THE LORD OF TIME!!!
The principle of causality, it-will be destroyed for a person if (we are talking about it); – when from the European part of the Earth, it gets to-45-50 gr. on C, with a strong WIND, to Eastern Siberia, or for example the Putorana plateau. In the heat, it's good to talk about PSS (Prich. sled.link). And wouldn't it be better to think about the fact that forests are disappearing, and how many bushes and trees you have personally planted? The human-ecologist relationship and the principle of causality? here you have planted a tree, it lives and develops. And you're dead, and the tree isn't. But the memory will remain. A shrewd uncle wanted to sell deforestation to the Chinese. I got the money. Result; no forests, no Chinese. And no money-just a black hole. This is the principle of causality, and how did your mother and father raise you?. There is still a strong PSS; Yesterday, see the movie, and read an article about”… for how much https://spetsialny.livejournal.com/1268127.html Mikhail Gorbachev and Shevornadze sold the USSR .
Physics does not tolerate causality just because it is artificial. It is as artificial as a digital image of a living object. There is no point in using the artificial to understand the natural.
With the help of physics, you will never find the original cause. Because it doesn't exist. For Being is infinite and has no beginning, and no end.
I advise you to read this chapter of the ancient book of Bhagavad Gita. All these perplexing questions of the limitations of physics and causality have long been described. Once you've read it, please leave a comment.
https://vedabase.io/ru/library/bg/2/
Let me look at the question from a somewhat philosophical point of view.
If we assume that the principle of causality is fulfilled, has been fulfilled and will always be fulfilled for the entire universe and for each of its parts, then
It turns out that everything that exists was predetermined in advance and in the present there is complete information to describe the future
That is, the world is developing according to certain, albeit complex, but unambiguous instructions
Fate is reality, our decisions are an illusion. Everything is predetermined. It's the gods ' will.
As for me, this does not really fit the objective view of reality. Well, I don't believe in fate philosophically.
Your question is philosophical, but my question is: do you believe that everything is a foregone conclusion?