Is Causality Fundamental?

G'day Steve. When I was 10 or 12 years old, I pondered the origin of the universe and why anything exists at all. This troubled me to the point of mental anguish, so I consciously chose to drop it in favour of all the other wonderful things around me. I have been tempted many times to ponder these thing, but I have concluded that that these questions are unknowable. I find sufficient pleasure in exploring mysticism and paradox. I also believe that all knowledge is provisional, so the challenge is to try and defeat the provisional nature of knowledge or at least increase the quality. Never leave facts unchallenged in resolving paradox's. I think all paradox's should be resolved before moving on or advancing new law. Quantum gravity is a red herring, gravity is mysterious enough without adding ultra mysterious quantum mechanics to it. The coulomb and magnetic force's are just as mysterious as gravity. The strong and weak forces are even more mysterious. There are too many particles in my opinion.

Dark and black are code for total ignorance and probably don't exist. Dark matter may be: protons, electrons, H1, H2, carbon dust, and iron dust. These materials are virtually invisible when cold. These particles probably emit in the low infrared and RF region, and are indistinguishable from the cosmic microwave background (CMBR). It's unlikely that the observed microwave background originated from the big bang, but is down converted starlight as Grote Reber suggested.

Dark energy could be the result of incorrect assumptions in the measurement of light emitted from "standard candles". Dust is likely obscuring and attenuating the light and destroying the calibration. Even if you assume the big bang is valid the optical radiation at source, is unlikely to make the 13 billion year journey unscathed or unattenuated, after passing thru all that dust and particles. Maxwell says the attenuation is significant if the particle density approaches one particle per cubic metre. Particle size obviously is a factor but coulomb charge and ionisation level increase effective capture area.

Low frequency radio waves are totally reflected by sections of the very low density ionosphere. QM's would have great difficulty accounting for this phenomenon.

To be continued?

Regards

Hi Barry, I asked me the same questions in being young, and at the age of 17 I have searched deeper answers in the religions, I have read all the sacred books, the bible, the talmud, the coran, the hinduism and vedas, the buddhism, ...after I have continued in reading many philosophes, descartes and the discourse about the method, nietsche, freud, and greek philosophes also,ptolemee, and this and thatmany french writers also, hugo, balsac...and my favorites are kant and spinoza, but the answers were not really convicing even if I consider like spinoza and einstein a god of nature, a god of spinoza,so like I was in secondary in maths , sciences strong, 9hours of maths and 9hours of physics, chemistry, biology more 4h of labs by week and after at university in geology in belgium, I have stopped due to an epileptic coma in 3 , so I have made agronomy after 1 year in resting. So I have searched these answers in the sciences and I have found my theory in ranking in fact the animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, the evolution, the physics, the chemistry , I have seen the evolution of brains since the selacians , and we see a relative spherisation of hominids brains, it is just a page of a book of biology wich has given me this eureka if I can say, I told me oh my god all is in this relativie logic of spherisation and spheres, it is this evolution the most important in my model, not only the quantum and cosmological 3D spheres but the evolution optimisation of this universal sphere or future sphere.

I cannot stop to continue to improve it in fact this theory and I agree that we must live and contemplate the nature but it is stronger than me this theory, It is in me I believe. I want to go farer, I cannot stop to study the physics and maths in fact lol. The paradox indeed can be solved in a pure empirical deterministic way I believe. The mysticism like you tell is fascinating, this infinite eternal consciousness, the main energy in 0D in my model coding and transforming this E to create this physicality intrigues me, but we are linited in knowledges unfortunally but I know that this thing exists .

You know Barry , about the quantum gravitation, I have quantified it , I was surprised to reach it in thinking beyond the box, it is not an emergent electromagnetic force, I will publish correctly, in fact the GR and G c and h are not sufficient to reach it even with the non commutativity , the tensors, the geometrical algebras and subgroups, this weakest quantum force has a simple universal logic , the standard model also is emergent, it is the error of many thinkers to consider only the fields and the EFE and the GR , in fact the solution is an opposite reasoning. We know so few and the other ontological and philosophical error of thinkers if to consider the photons like the only one piece of puzzle, they forget the two other spacetimes, so yes this DM in the cold and this DE permit to solve our deep unknowns and answer also to this priniciple of evolution.We can even predict the future of our universe.

About the BB , even with the CMB you know it is an assumption, and we have a deeper logic than this , it is still the error philosophical to consider like if we had an infinite heat for god and after photons and after strings at this planck scale inside,and lol god plays at guitar with the oscillations but if the main energy of god is not an infinite heat, so we must think differently and it is what I have made. The electromagnetism and the heat are just emergent, they are not the main primoridal essence, the space vacuumm of this DE is probably the main codes and the cold dark matter permits to balance in being encoded and explains also the anti matter and this QG. All is a question of general ontological philosophical origin and foundamental objects . To be continued , Spherically yours Barry , they turn so they are, so we are :) friendly

The concept of causality led us out of the dark ages, to question it seems to be leading us back to mysticism and the belief in the supernatural. Quantum mechanics (QM) proudly embraces these pre-renaissance ideas. QM's boast about the beauty of paradox's such as Schrodinger's cat. Whenever a problem in the standard model occurs, new physics, new dimensions are proposed and general relativity is questioned. Remember the "Pioneer anomaly". Well, they are at it again with the "muon anomaly". QED and measurement are in disagreement at the umpteenth decimal place! Remember that QED boasts that it is the most accurate theory in the whole of physics. The truth is that QED never predicted anything, it was always catching up with ever more precise measurements. QED was hand tuned to match only two precise measurements: The Lamb shift and the anomalous g-factor of the electron. Ironically this could all be blamed on Einstein's absurd "photon" that reintroduced mysticism and magic back into physics. Einstein eventually became disenchanted with the revolution he initiated and was reported to say: "All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, "What are light quanta?" Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself".

Hello Everyone:

The more fundamental question is being part of any system, which we are, what are the limits of understanding of the system being observed, i.e. what is knowable, and at what depth?

Causality is framed in repeatable environments being explained by a series of accepted axioms for the phenomena being observed. Since the observer is part of the system the question becomes to what extent if at all, does the experimenter's presence affect the outcomes?

The set of axioms has expanded over time beginning with classical, then quantum mechanics. For each there are a series of axioms that govern the constrained environment of observations. For macroscopic objects that can be observed with the eye, causation is synonymous with correlation. Into both enter the frameworks of heuristics.

Heuristic Overview

A series of axioms based on heuristics forms the foundation for further explorations. The assumptions are the experimental environment is stable, and repeatable is required for the correlation of causation.

The set of applicable axioms for the experiment is finite. In review of anomalies George Pólya's work is of utility.

George Pólya

How to Solve It

Since the set of finite axioms with which one is applying in an artificially constructed closed system a case can be made for the work of Kurt Gödel.

Kurt Gödel

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems

From his Incompleteness Theorem:

1. Any consistent formal [axiomatic] system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e. there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.

2. For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself.

With a correlation of causation, and a set of finite axioms, a causation that is true may, or may not be provable. If it is false it has to be provable as false to be false.

As more phenomena has been explored fundamental axioms have been added to general cause and effect environments. The perimeter at which the environment is defined, and the extent of considered variable is relevant to expedient results. Our existence belies a complexity of which we are not normally aware. A baseball player is at bat in the series. When the player hits the pitch the observers, based on their past experiences, will instantly understand the ball is out of the park without any understanding of the underlying physiology, and biochemistry of the batter.

For each environment the granularity, boundaries of observation, and applicable axioms need to be defined.

Since we are part of the system, what is knowable, accessible, true, and provable about the area of experimental observations? From Gödel there are statements that are true, but not provable, and others which are true, and provable. If the statement is true, and provable is it provable in P time, or can it be shown to be an NP time problem? From Alan Turing, and the Halting Problem, can the experimenter devise a scenario to process the data such that the computer will halt in a reasonable amount of time?

Causation with axioms fits the Gödel requirements so that a causation may be true, but not provable, true and provable, or false.

When an inconsistent experimental result is obtained what other axioms are needed to rationalize the data? I do not have any answers to these questions. The preceding has application in other areas. When in a quandary I always fall back to writing the pertinent aspects with a real pencil, and real paper. At that juncture it is often more obvious what is missing, and what is unknown.

All the Best,

Volodymyr-----------------

Quanta: amplitude h of the range of variation of the rate of time evolution for all waves »(EMW as photon and particles) in this universe.

This makes them all logically operational on each other. Outside this range it does not interact logically with anything and is therefore non-exitent for us

CAUSE: a difference in the rate of time affecting the probability of existence in one direction (the only type of cause allowed in the universe as alogical system.)

EXISTENCE: local replacement of time (the vacuum) by logical substitution; in one place, simple time (vacuum-time process) cannot be both simple and complex (matter) as per Law of non-contradiction (LNC)

LNC Law that defines what exists; 1 not equal 0 is read as "Ì am not nothin" is the declaration of existence.

«MOTION: non logically satified state of affair in the process of resolution, e.g. gravity»: object falls because existence more probable toward lower rate of time ( the assymetric existence IS here the illogical state of affair)

Marcel,

*** Of course, this is NEW Metaphysics! ***

Goal No 1: complete the duty of Metaphysics: finding substance, cause, forms: ---------足= DONE!

Goal No 2: gently hand it over to Physics so they UNDERSTAND what they KNOW.

Goal No 3: Take This Metaphysics OUT-OUT of Philosophy as a bona fide Qualitative science based on logic, as the Universe is.

Marcel,

Hi everyone,

joining this discussion a bit late, I'd like to offer a perspective that, from the standpoint of contemporary physics, might be seen as non-standard. It involves introducing unverified theoretical entities and tackles conceptual issues in explaining a phenomenon that already has a description (though a counterintuitive one).

The question is whether the compact dimensions in string theory can be seen as “shortcuts” that tachyons might traverse to connect non-local events:

Although modern superstring theory does not predict tachyons, the idea that they might exploit compact dimensions to travel between distant points in space-time remains a fascinating hypothesis.

At present, the only confirmed form of non-locality is quantum entanglement. In The Undivided Universe Bohm, whose Pilot Wave interpretation I deeply appreciate, proposed a framework that preserves the principle of causality despite the non-local correlations observed in quantum systems.
As an engineer, I do not equate the idea of “everything being interconnected” with instantaneity. Instead, I naturally associate it with the dynamics of a rigid body: even within such a system, stress propagates at finite speeds, always below that of light. Thus, the concept of a unified universe, by itself, does not resolve the issue for me.

In my view, the core of causality lies in Einstein’s reflections on the interpretability of physical reality. Without causality, the very notion of “explanation” in physics would become meaningless. How could we comprehend the world if events did not follow logically from prior conditions? Causality provides the essential structure for interpreting observations and building coherent models of how the universe works.

But there may be another way to frame causality: if compact dimensions do exist, then perhaps only tachyons, or unknown entities such as Bohm’s Pilot Wave, can traverse them. In this view, causality would depend on the path connecting two events, and on the tachyon’s ability to carry the information necessary to link cause and effect.
From a philosophical perspective, the conclusion is not merely a logical implication between non-locality and causality (which, in itself, poses no contradiction). Rather, it suggests that causality may hold, if we could access the compact dimensions through which such connections occur.

A physical theory already contemplates compact dimensions, and quantum non-locality is an established phenomenon. So why not entertain the idea of a tachyon, or similar non-local mechanism, traversing compact dimensions to preserve the link between cause and effect? Such a relationship may be hypothesized, explored, and even applied, even if we cannot currently measure the chronology of events.

To me, this does not seem to weaken causality. We do not forbid non-local events, we simply affirm that they cannot be used to physically communicate. We know they occur, but we do not allow for any measurable form of interaction through them. In this sense, causality remains intact because no observable signal or influence is exchanged.

Whether this lack of measurability truly weakens causality, however, is a question that may be philosophical as much as physical.

Hi Claudio,

You make an interesting point about tachyons.
In my last FQXI essay “My Electrons are Spinning” I used “virtual gluons” instead to carry the force information but these force gluons could be considered to be a tachyon as they transmit force (field) information much faster than the speed of light and they do not invoke extra dimensions as everything happens in 3 dimensions.

Quote from FQXI essay:
“Dave: The key idea of mine is that the field lines attached to each preon matter particle are made up from aether particles that extend to infinity in all three dimensions, like strings. Each string carries the force information related to the preon particle it is attached to. This force information is simply the charge information, the electric charge + or – and the color charge, red, blue or green, giving six combinations.
Another vital feature is that the field carries this information near instantaneously across the universe, meaning there is no longer a distinction in time between local and non-local.
Hal: Whoa there, my electrons are spinning!
Dave: No Hal, it’s the particles that are spinning. Real spin. The larger composite particles, the protons and neutrons, wind up the strings until they break. This process occurs continually. The winding up of the strings before the break occurs produces a net central force towards the particle, the string being anchored at the other end by another spinning particle. We perceive this force as the gravitational force. Once broken, the string renews itself almost instantly, again anchoring itself to another string attached to another particle that might be anywhere in the universe. Statistically most of the anchoring particles will be local as the inverse square law applies.”

Causality is only broken if we allow ‘backwards in time’, and it appears that there is now a movement of physicists that believe that FTL does not necessarily mean backward in time.

The non-locality aspect of quantum field theory certainly challenges our notion of time with near instantaneous entanglement effects, but I consider an expanding universe to be the master clock, stopping the notion of backwards in time. Entanglement is possible with my ‘string’ theory, although I shy away from the term string and prefer to call it ginnungagap theory (See my FQXI essay from 2019)

I also question the nature of time and the meaning of NOW in both essays. I raised the issue of the Andromeda Paradox in “My Electrons are Spinning” and I notice that it has recently been the topic of a number of Youtube videos (Sabine Hossenfelder; Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Mahesh of Floathead Physics).

An AI overview states: "The Andromeda Paradox, advanced by Roger Penrose, highlights a potential consequence of special relativity where relative motion can drastically alter an observer's perception of time, particularly at astronomical distances. It suggests that two people walking past each other could have different understandings of events in the Andromeda Galaxy, potentially seeing the same event as already having occurred for one and not yet having happened for the other. "
This overview is also flawed in that we know very well that low velocity relative motion between observers does not alter either observers’ perception of time, which is local. As for different understandings of events, this is the same as saying the observers have different ‘present moments’, a term that is not clearly defined, but implies differing “NOW’s” in the sense of Penrose’s Andromeda Paradox.

Wiki states: "Roger Penrose advanced a form of this argument that has been called the Andromeda paradox in which he points out that two people walking past each other on the street could have very different present moments." Again, there is no evidence for this in any physics experiment, although, no doubt, someone will try to use quantum entanglement to argue otherwise.

I think the 'paradox' is poorly framed by Penrose, and is misunderstood and incorrectly interpreted by most commentators and physicists. It is true that different observers can have different presents, but at the moment they pass each other, sharing the same space and time, their present moments are essentially the same. This highlights a problem with the paradox, which is solved by the fact that the relativity of simultaneity is being mis-used in this paradox, as it really only pertains to the perception of visual light waves, not events on world lines outside of the light cone of the event.
So I can sum up by saying that I certainly think causality is fundamental.

Hi Dave,
I generally agree with your position, and I would add that—based on Tolman's explanation of the twin paradox—I personally avoid getting involved in trying to refute other relativistic paradoxes or in discussing time travel, even though I acknowledge their complexity and fascination. In my view, the key issue is not so much the arrow of time, but rather the question of simultaneity and, in the context of speculative theories, the tachyon.

Regarding the so-called Andromeda paradox, I also believe it is often misunderstood: it seems more like a problem in how we conceptualize the “present” than a true physical contradiction. The relativity of simultaneity, as you point out, doesn’t imply objective divergences in events, but only differences in how events are coordinated across reference frames—without measurable effects in the absence of interaction.

I'm currently working on a model related to galactic recession, and in exploring some of the conceptual aspects tied to cosmology, I looked into the idea of tachyons to see if they could be included as part of a broader conjecture within the speculative context I’m exploring — one that involves a fourth spatial dimension (though I didn’t find a viable way to do so).

Causality, in my view, has both physical and philosophical implications — physics and philosophy are inseparably linked (just think of Popper’s criterion of falsifiability). What I consider essential is that we both share a belief in the necessity of causality, and that, according to Einstein, causality is as fundamental as physics itself. Let's leave it to philosophers to further explore this point.

As for me, I’ve set aside the idea of tachyons for now in the context of my model. However, I don’t believe tachyons should be dismissed in speculative theories. Regardless of how one chooses to describe them, their essence seems to be implicitly present in the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

I personally lean toward compact dimensions as a way to interpret near-instantaneous interactions, but I regard both approaches as having the same physical dignity.

Hi, Allow me to share some perspectives on the interrelationships between time, entropy, and causal laws:
Beyond human perception, causality refers to the inherent ordering principles governing sequences of cosmic transformations. If we model the universe's changes as a partially ordered set , then the internal ordering rules of this poset constitute the law of causality.

According to thermodynamic time rules, each subsequent transformation exhibits higher entropy than its predecessor. Thus, the set of cosmic transformations can be mapped onto the poset of increasing entropy. From this perspective, one fundamental causal law underlying the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics—the principle of entropy increase.

Of course, other fundamental causal laws also govern cosmic transformations, including the conservation of energy and the principle of least action in path selection.

Here is the preprint version of my article for sharing, if permitted by the forum . [Time-Entropy Mirroring via Space Transformation] (https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202505.0270.v1)

Zou

Hi, I'm currently not in a position to contribute at your level — I'm developing a cosmological model based on Galactic Recession, and still deepening my understanding of quantum mechanics to ensure it's consistent with all branches of physics. I've been following the discussion in the hope that other experts might join and offer their perspectives.

Hi Claudio,
Thanks for your interesting reply. I had not heard of the Tolman paradox and so I have been reading about it, and working on a reply regarding the paradox which I place on this forum when I have completed the exercise. So far I cannot see how tachyons break causality.
I am curious about your 'compact dimensions'. Are they extrinsic spacial dimensions or are they mathematically intrinsic dimensions, like how infinitessimals are non-standard numbers which cannot be measured?
I personally do not like defining things that cannot be measured, although they can have their uses mathematically.
I cannot see why we need to invoke extra dimensions when our three spatial dimensions can carry the tachyonic information linking cause and effect, as you put it. (Again, you would need to read my last two FQXI essays).
I am suggesting that fields (EM, gravity) transmit their influence faster than c, not to be confused with disturbances in the fields, which are limited to c.
On another note, cosmological in nature, I believe what we call the hot big bang, was actually preceded by a cold big bang. Well the words are wrong here, not a big bang but a phase change in the primordial energy field (whatever that means) where initially everything was extremely cold with low entropy. This cold matter state soon changed to a hot dense matter state as particle annhilations produced lots of electromagnetic radiation which soon jostled the matter to extreme temperatures. Hence the hot "big bang'.

Hi Dave,

thank you for your message — I’d like to focus on one key point: the question of causality in relation to tachyons.

Personally, I don’t think that tachyons necessarily violate causality, although I realize this is not the most common position. As explained in the Wikipedia article on tachyons, many interpretations suggest that a tachyon, seen from a different inertial frame, could appear to travel backward in time — leading to a supposed causality paradox.

The compact dimensions I previously mentioned were just a way of expressing that — like you — I don’t think tachyons break causality. I see them more as geometrical tools to represent distant connections without requiring physical propagation through standard space-time. I originally proposed them as a more structured alternative to Bohm’s “everything is connected” view, which I personally find less satisfying because it seems to give up locality altogether.

That said, maybe we don’t even need such constructs, if the near-instantaneity required by certain physical processes doesn’t imply almost truly infinite speeds.

Thank you for sharing your approach — it's certainly full of original insights and challenges to the traditional view. I must admit that some of your claims require more time for me to reflect and study — especially regarding the role of time, the reinterpretation of fundamental interactions, and the concept of a discrete aether.

Personally, I still find many aspects of relativity and the current quantum formalism to be indispensable, although I remain open to consistent reinterpretations that preserve the predictive structure of modern physics.

All the best,
Claudio

Claudio Marchesan
“Causality” is a vague, imprecise, philosophical term.

Seemingly, you are talking about number change, where the numbers apply to categories like relative position, that in turn apply to matter like particles, atoms etc.

Physics assumes that number change occurs in the world, without being able to say exactly why number change would ever occur in the world.

Except that IF number change occurs, THEN other number change occurs, due to the relationships between the categories.

So, all the equations in the world can’t explain number change. But then again, all the equations in the world don’t constitute a system.

As computing has shown, number change is a systems aspect of the world, where the difference between a set of equations and a system is represented via the use of logical connective/ algorithmic symbols. These logical connective/ algorithmic symbols represent aspects of the real-world system that CAN’T be represented by equations.

Lorraine, I read the little anecdote about Wheeler — but honestly, I didn't quite grasp the point.
It's too easy to reply that our plane flies, because the key phrase seems to be: “We’re still missing the single, simple ingredient that makes it all fly.”
I’m not sure where Wheeler was going with that (maybe he meant that we're still missing that simple, profound ingredient that unifies all the forces of nature into a single coherent framework, something that would bind all the equations to a deeper, fundamental principle), but to me, that is the real subject worth discussing.

zzk
Hi Zou,
It is a very interesting article you have posted. It resonates with many of my own ideas on a first read. I think that I will do a deeper dive into it at a later date after I have concluded my tachyonic studies.
Best wishes
Dave

Lorraine Ford
Hi Lorraine,
Your post got me thinking a bit on what is fundamental. With my reductionist hat on, I have boiled Physics down to a couple of force laws, namely attraction and repulsion, together with a reduction of "The principle of least action" to F=ma. I haven't got a clue what charge is, and at the fundamental level I do not understand motion either. So in reality I do not understand either force or motion.
But I didn't let that stop me from developing a Theory of Everything, as there is so much to be gained by just accepting a few axioms. Whilst it may be true that Wheelers equations didn't fly on demand, there are neat algorithms that make my drones fly (with my help of course as well).
Now I best get back to my tachyon studies.
Dave

Claudio Marchesan
Hi Claudio,

Sure, devices like light-cone structures and conservation laws and consistency are seemingly needed e.g. to check the validity of mathematical models, and to predict or narrow down possible outcomes of a model. Light-cones don’t actually exist, except as a concept in the minds of physicists; but they are a useful device.

So, this “causality” that you seem to be describing seems to be mainly about physicists trying to model and predict outcomes of a complicated and slightly unruly real-world system that they are observing.

But that is not genuine causality at all, in the sense of physicists trying to understand and represent the actual causal inner workings of the real-world system. Maybe physicists have given up on that ambition!

I think that the valid point that Wheeler was making is that a set of equations, no matter how many equations, no matter how ingenious the equations, can’t ever represent a viable, moving system. It is just the nature of equations: they can’t do it.

I think Wheeler was in effect saying that if physicists ever had the ambition of representing the actual components needed to make a viable moving (“flying”) real-world system, then something entirely different to equations would be needed, as well as the equations.