Science > Physics > Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 12: Constant Causation vs Constant Light
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2006 11:20:36 AM |
| Object: |
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 12: Constant Causation vs Constant Light |
From Osher Doctorow
There is no evidence that (Probable) Causes A ever "interchange" with
(Probable) Effects B in Probable Influence/Causation PI, that is to
say:
1) P(A-->B) = 1 + P(AB) - P(A) = P(B-->A) = 1 + P(AB) - P(B)
unless P(A) = P(B), that is to say the probabilities of A and B are
identical which includes the case where A and B are identical except on
a set of probability zero.
On the other hand, the speed of light does change in different media,
as for example in the vacuum and in water (it is lower in the latter).
The fact that c is "defined" as the vacuum speed doesn't change the
fact that the speed of light changes from vacuum to water, since the
definition just selects one of the media among many. Even though
nobody has ever seen light going faster than it "seems" to go in the
vacuum, the above indicates that it is more plausible than Probable
Cause/Probable Effects interchanging.
When we add the fact that a number of very plausible theories including
Inflation involve "geometric" velocities higher than light, and
superluminal phase velocities greater than light experimentally (which
all experimenters who participated in them agree, although one or two
theorists disagree), the argument for constant c in Special Relativity
becomes somewhat questionable.
Why then does Pecina-Cruz, using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
(HUP) as discussed in a previous part of this thread, claim that "cause
and effect collapses" when a particle in a neighborhood of the light
cone tunnels from a timelike to a spacelike region? One major
difficulty is that physicists using light cone theory use a rather
obscure definition of "cause and effect" compared with the clarity of
the set (A-->B) = (AB' )' = A' U B and the probability P(A-->B) = 1 +
P(AB) - P(A). The physicists regard "cause and effect" as essentially
nothing but prior vs later time events/processes, define the timelike
vs spacelike regions not independently of the light cone but as the
interior vs exterior of the light cone, and so a tunneling becomes by
"definition" a reversal of "cause and effect" even though nothing
changes in P(A-->B) versus P(B-->A).
Let's translate the last paragraph roughly into actual events in the
context of a "thought experiment". If hitting a nail with a hammer
(event A) causes the nail to sink into wood (event B), whether
deterministically or probabilistically, would this be reversed in the
scenario of the previous paragraph? Heck no! Anybody who believes
that the sinking of the nail into wood causes hitting the nail with the
hammer would arguably be declared ceritifiably insane in real life.
Yet by failing to use sets and measures/probabilities and failing to
regard cause and effect as anything involving sets and
measures/probabilities, light cone physicists have managed to create an
"insoluble" paradox!
We could arguably just as readily and even more readily claim that
Probable Influence/Causation is "constant" with regard to A and B as to
claim that the speed of light is "constant".
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "Doctor Physics" |
|
| Title: Re: Causation/Causality-OsherD, DECODED!! |
22 Feb 2006 11:34:24 AM |
|
|
OsherD posting DECODED!!
I used the following word frequency use counter to determine infomation
value in OsherD's posting
note that over 200 words have little or no meaning at all, and he says
"HAMMER" twice. (?)
provided by
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/webtools/web_freqs.html
Text name: kOsherD
Date/time: 2/22/106 11:26
Word count: 505
Unique words: 230
Sort order: descending
36 THE
19 A
17 OF
16 AND
14 IN
12 THAT
11 LIGHT
11 TO
9 IS
8 AS
7 =
6 B
5 CAUSE
5 CONE
5 EFFECT
5 PROBABLE
5 WITH
4 1
4 NAIL
4 SPEED
4 THAN
4 VACUUM
3 +
3 CAUSES
3 CLAIM
3 CONSTANT
3 DEFINITION
3 EVEN
3 FACT
3 INTO
3 IT
3 ONE
3 P(A
3 P(A-->B
3 P(AB
3 PHYSICISTS
3 REGARD
3 VS
2 ARE
2 ARGUABLY
2 BE
2 BECOMES
2 BUT
2 BY
2 C
2 CHANGE
2 CHANGES
2 DOCTOROW
2 DOES
2 EFFECTS
2 EVENT
2 EVER
2 FAILING
2 FOR
2 FROM
2 HAMMER
2 HITTING
2 IDENTICAL
2 INFLUENCE/CAUSATION
2 JUST
2 MEASURES/PROBABILITIES
2 MEDIA
2 MORE
2 NO
2 NOTHING
2 ON
2 OR
2 OSHER
2 P(B
2 P(B-->A
2 PARAGRAPH
2 PLAUSIBLE
2 PREVIOUS
2 PROBABILITY
2 READILY
2 SAY
2 SET
2 SETS
2 SPACELIKE
2 THIS
2 THOUGH
2 TIMELIKE
2 USE
2 USING
2 VELOCITIES
2 WATER
2 WE
2 WHEN
2 WHICH
2 WHO
2 WOOD
2 WOULD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Causation/Causality-OsherD, DECODED!! |
22 Feb 2006 11:59:00 AM |
|
|
To both posts: so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Physics" |
|
| Title: Re: Causation/Causality-OsherD, DECODED!! |
22 Feb 2006 12:26:20 PM |
|
|
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140631140.312093.80590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
To both posts: so?
so, OsherD is "copycat" troll of JSH Troll over in sci.physics
That is an important breakthrough in the mistery of OsherD-ism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 9: Tensors Only Approximate Causation
Quantum Gravity 166.1: Why (Probable) Causation Relates To Memory
Quantum Gravity 166.2: Time Simultaneity in Why (Probable) Causation Relates To Memory
Candles have "memory?"
Magnetoelectronics enhance memory
Group Memory Test
Engineers Visualize Electric Memory As It Fades
FLASH MEMORY BOOSTS, SIZE SHRINKS
| impossible memory algorithm?
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 2.1: I[f(x)delta(x-y)]dx = f(y)
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 4: Memory vs Complexity
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 5: Anti-Multiplication and Schwinger
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 6: New Interpretation of Riccati Equation
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 7: Sums of Variables and Anti-Multiplication
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 10: Dependence Kernel Measures
|
|
|
