This reminds me of the beginning of empiricism and David Hume. He wondered what is the relationship between effect and cause, whether the causal relationship is a necessary one, and how it relates to our belief in the facts. He was concerned about how a person knows the cause and effects. He posed the question, on what basis can we determine the necessity of a relationship? We can know in two ways: a'priori and a'posteriori, that is, empirically. The first type of research is an analysis before experience, from the notion of the sun alone it is impossible to deduce that it will rise. We judge reality on the basis of experience, i.e. each time after it has taken place and not before. The necessity of a causal relationship cannot be known a'priori. We cannot know the necessity empirically, because all that experience informs us about is a constant consequence of facts after each other, not the result of one fact from another. So on what basis do we recognize the existence of causal relationships? The answer is: through associations. We claim that there are causal relationships in the world. According to the philosopher, knowledge of this kind is knowledge by habit. If something has constantly set in the past, e.g. a sunrise, then we tend to treat it as always setting. In Hume's opinion, it is faith, not knowledge.

Given his experience, Hume took an immanent position, i.e. we cannot know the causal link a'priori or through experience. The philosopher applied inductive reasoning, followed by A followed by B only if it was found many times. This way, it brings nothing new but a certain cycle is repeated. We say that A is cause B, cause equals habit plus expectation. We do not find a connection between the facts e.g. the day is followed by night. Hume wanted to tell us that the impulses coming into our mind, impressions give rise to some speculation not always right.

In conclusion, he believed that everything except formal knowledge and knowledge of facts is metaphysics and should be rejected. Empirical knowledge can only be factual and never necessary. More consistently than his empirical predecessors, Hume retreated to an immanent position and renounced all claims about what is not directly available to the mind. He did not ask whether things exist, but whether we are right to assume that they exist. He did not deny the existence of relationships necessary in the real world but denied the possibility of knowing them.

Nick from web development Geelong

  • [deleted]

I'm curious how much this kind of project can benefit from considering the relationship between classical and quantum statistical formalisms as I present it in "An algebraic approach to Koopman classical mechanics", in Annals of Physics 2020 (preprint URL, Annals of Physics URL). Specifically, we can take there to be no distinction between classical systems and quantum systems, only distinctions between commutative and noncommutative algebras of measurements and admissible transformations of measurements.

Furthermore, in any given experimental context we can take joint measurements always to be mutually commutative (and in that sense "classical"), whereas measurements in different experimental contexts that are not joint measurements may well require that we use, in a classically natural way, a noncommutative algebra of measurements. There are at least three ways of doing this, using Wigner functions, generalized probability theory, or Koopman-type Hilbert space formalisms for classical physics, as well as others: an algebraic Koopman approach, however, makes the classical naturalness of such extensions more apparent (obviously, that's IMO).

To my shame, I do not understand Judea Pearl's work well enough to know how he copes with statistics when there are different experimental contexts, but it's such a classically natural concept, and often discussed as such in the literature on statistics, that I can only imagine that he does.

"In 2019, Cavalcanti and student J. C. Pearl proved that such peculiar quantum effects defy explanation via classical causality"

All such "proofs" are based on idealist, false assumptions, that have no relevance, to the real world. There is [link:www.quantamagazine.org/black-hole-paradoxes-reveal-a-fundamental-link-between-energy-and-order-20200528/#comment-4939309555]simple, causal, classical explanation: unrecognized inevitable Bit-Errors in the measurements.[/link]

Rob McEachern

    20 days later

    The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test conditions. In the real world, on the other hand, it is very easy to trick it.

    The core weakness of the AI itself are a few problems. The use of machine learning systems in sensitive areas such as medicine is still a risky undertaking in many cases. Example? The AI used in an experiment conducted by a network of New York hospitals, where the system learned to 'detect' cases of pneumonia not from medical data, but by identifying the institution from which the results came. The machine simply knew that during training, most cases of the disease were in a given institution, and based its "diagnosis" on this.

    Another example of disappointing expectations of the AI today are autonomous vehicles. "The Economist" cites the case of the American company Starsky Robotics, which was working on autonomous trucks and was closed down in March this year. Among the reasons for the company's collapse, its founder mentions both the focus on the safety of the designed solutions (which annoyed impatient investors) and the shortcomings of the technology itself.

    ---------------------

    Pulno

    15 days later

    I'm sure there is an easy to understand explanation to causality, quantum gravity, something so easy, even a first year undergraduate physics student could understand.

      Objects fall spontaneously in a gravitational field. We are not touching anything here... There is here a most fundamental cause, in front of us.

      Objects fall from where time runs faster toward where it runs slower. Why?

      Things have a higher probability of existence (to be) where time runs slower ...

      because they get to be there.. longer.... One may extend this to motion, momentum,

      planetary orbits etc.

      This whole universe is about where to be, where to go. Closer, farther or just stay put.

      MM

        For the last 40 years, I have encountered often the same people over and over in different fora, .. Each has a thesis or group of ideas they want to promote, discuss and polish. I wish I had taken note of each thesis, made some sort of personal file, so that I would know what you are up to JASON.

        Marcel,

          Yeah! We are kind of family... My latest spasm gives some problem to the standard Model and throws in the magnetic monopole...

          [link:www.angelfire.com/ak/mlebel/] [/ go to item 16.1]

          Hope I got this URL right..

          Marcel,

          Hi Marcel, maybe it is time to forget all our theisis and works and lifes and habits and this vanity and work in team to solve our major global problems, this is important, but like I said the vanity will be the biggest problem, the humans have difficulties to follow , they follow a system stupid but they cannot follow other things , they survive in a system not equal and they try to be strong and adapted, it is sad knowing our potential, the global familly is a reality and the responsability seems essential where we are universally conscious

          • [deleted]

          FQXi community, and authors,

          This discussion seems to need to seriously consider the work of Seiberg, Susskind & Toumbas in "Space/Time Non-Commutativity and Causality" JHEP 0006:044,2000 hep-th/0005015v3 , where they observe-

          "In particular if the time coordinate is involved in the non-commutativity the theory seems to be seriously acausal and inconsistent with conventional Hamiltonian evolution."

          This criterion is only passed by the NBWF, or the well-known non-commutative matrix algebra used to describe Band Theory, which is very similar.

          WRL

            Hello Professor Lundberg, All this seems very interesting, do you know the works of the specialist of this non Commutativity , Alain Connes, I love his works and methods, he is relevant, this non commutativity is an important piece to encircle our unknowns, regards

            Steve Dufourny,

            While I am not familiar with the work of Alain Connes (feel free to cite an example), there are certainly many mathematical possibilities,re "non-commutativity. My fav is a cross product of two wreath products.. which I first read about in the 80s

            R-

            Professor Lundberg, you could like his works , he is specialised in several topics about the non commutativity geometry, like the spectral standpoint or the links with scaling hamiltonian, the fixed map points , the spectral truncations, ....I like hos works and methods, I learn them for my theory, you could like his reasonings I beleive, regards

            what I find relevant is that he try to unify the electromagnetism and this gravitation with several spectral tools and links with the hilbert formalism and the works of riemann, I consider like foundamental objects the 3D coded spheres and I consider an intrinsic ricci flow for the geometries more other tools like the lie groups, alg, and derivatives , I try to converge with the topological and euclidian spaces also , I have considered also on the 2D surfaces of these series of spheres the hopf fibrations to rank the quasiparticles, I have reached this quantum gravitation also in considering the cold Dark matter encoded in nuclei for the balance , I have changed just the distances to respect this newtonian mechanics ,

            ps the clifford algebras also are important in my theory, the aim being to harmonise the couplings and respect the lagrangian and hamiltonian, that permits to renormalise and quantify this quantum gravitation and explain the emergent topologies and geometries in a dance of electromagntism and gravitation

            I have utilised this general method for the quantum gravitation and oddly I have a number near the dirac large number for the number of cosmological spheres , and I consider this number for the finite quantum series of the space and the two fuels, the cold dark matter and the photons, it seems that we have a kind of link between the cosmological scale and the quantum scale and the numbers , a real partition exists and the most impressing is that it is necessary to link the electromagnetism and the gravitation at all scales......

            there is something of very relevant for the actions coupled in matters and the spectral analysis in considering this cold Dark matter encoded like a balance , negentropy entropy, heat cold, +, electromgantism gravitation..... the aim being to make like an einstein hilbert action and yang mills action but in chaging the senses of rotations of my 3D psheres and in considering the densities, volumes, rotations, oscillations.... and the topologies , geometries also are considered with this main coded space, the primoridal finite series of spheres and the two fuels, finite series also, the operators become relevant like this ricci flow and the deformations of spheres respecting a kind of poincare conjecture. All this to tell that in fact the newtonian mechanics is respected and that quantify this quantum gravity because the main codes are farer and that we must change so the distances , this electrongantism is like encircled by this gravitation.

            Steve,

            I like any work that helps connect standard theories - but have found that the fundamental geometry is systemically overlooked (I'll get into why later).

            Here you mention "I consider fundamental objects {to be} the {ref?, need image} 3D coded spheres"

            My early concern was with understanding quantum state algebra (s). I found a very straightforward way to map to the state algebra representation of the 8-fold way. But it has one "problem" - it has no mass or temporal (time coordinate) term. That precluded publication -for decades, really. Then comes Seiberg's causality criterion (2000, but I found it later) saying, in feeble terms, that isn't a "problem" that is a REQUIREMENT

            It is complex to really be sure about all this, I have remarked that many consider the geometries and topologies from fields like with this E8 and the geonetrical algebras, so they consider that the geonetries and topologies come from these cosmic fields and quantum fields, my model is not like this, I consider this 3D spheres like coded and I deform them with several tool, in fact it becomes very philosophical this main foundamental objects, have we points, strings or 3d Spheres, we cannot affirm, but I have remarked in ranking a little bit of all that the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere, you live on a sphere, your turn around an other, you see them with spheroids, your eyes, the fruits, the glands, the brains also are in this logic of spherisation seeing the evolution of hominids, and the favorite sports of humans, this and that , in fact why this shape ? I don t know but it seems that they are simply the choice of this universe and that they permit to create all shpaes, they have no angle, they are the perfect equilibrium of forces, they permit the perfect motions also, in fact for me they seem foundamental at all scales and the universe is logic also is in this reasoning, probably that all at all scales follow this sphape and its deformations and complexifications of interactions and couplings. The thinkers can tell all what they want, we seem to live in a spherical universal logic, feynman told us that one day we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god how is it possible that we have nots een a thing so simple before, maybe the persons have too much focused on details and complexity instead to see this simple generality. You know I want to convice nobody, all are free to think like they want but it seems so evident these spheres and their codes and informations, the details become very complex when we consider the 3 main series that I cited, don t forget that I don t consider these fields to create the geometries or the spheres, I consider that all is made of particles and that these fields them are emergent with the 3 main series, the coded space and the two fuels. I don t consider this E8 , my theory is totally different, I like these geonetrical algebras but for me they are not the foundamental truths, now all they are focused on this E8 and fields, I don t understand why like the strings and yang mills , it seems odd , becxause the coded particles seem more logic, the causalities are not a problem with these 3D spheres and the 3 series of spheres , see all the combinations possible if they have the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres,regards