What is a ‘Cause,’ and Why Does it Happen Before the Effect? Carlo Rovelli by Carlo Rovelli

Robert McEachern

what is the origin of deterministic behaviors, in the world, according to robert mceachern?

AI Mode

According to Robert McEachern, the origin of deterministic behaviors and the emergence of "cause and effect" in the world can be traced to the insights of Claude Shannon, particularly regarding the behavior of "noise".

McEachern argues that even in a chaotic system, where everything initially behaves chaotically, deterministic cause and effect can arise through a process akin to matched filtering or "fingerprinting". He explains that "noise" can utilize itself to detect the mere existence of something else similar to it.

This process allows for the emergence of order and deterministic actions from what was initially pure chaos. McEachern emphasizes the surprising and counterintuitive nature of this phenomenon, considering it not magic, but rather the foundational story of how reality emerges from chaotic beginnings. He contends that physicists have yet to fully grasp this concept.

Lorraine Ford

Robert McEachern
Rob,

Re your long-held theories of how the world works:

YOU personally envision, your mind knows everything about the purportedly-existing real-world system you describe.

But how come the system itself knows anything about the system you describe?

YOU personally move the purportedly-existing real-world system you describe, either in your mind, or you move symbols representing the system on paper or screen.

But how come the system itself moves itself?

Robert McEachern

AI Overview
According to Robert McEachern, deterministic behavior, including the concept of cause and effect, arises from the way "noise" interacts and can be utilized to create order and predictable outcomes .
He connects this idea to Claude Shannon's work on information theory, particularly the role of "noise" in communication and detection. McEachern suggests that even in chaotic systems, deterministic actions can emerge through a process similar to matched filtering or "fingerprinting" where noise interacts with itself to detect the existence of similar patterns.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Shannon's Information Theory:
McEachern draws heavily on Shannon's work, which demonstrated how noise can be used to reliably transmit information.

"Noise" as a Foundation:
McEachern argues that "noise," often seen as random and undesirable, can be the very basis for deterministic behavior.

Emergence of Order:
By exploiting noise's properties, systems can detect and respond to patterns, leading to predictable actions and outcomes.

"Matched Filtering":
He uses the analogy of "matched filtering" to explain how noise can interact with itself to detect the presence of similar noise patterns. This allows for the emergence of order from chaos.

Deterministic Scripts from Noise:
McEachern suggests that even complex, deterministic scripts can be created using noise as the fundamental building block.

Counterintuitive Nature:
He emphasizes that this process is not magical but a fundamental way in which order and determinism can arise from seemingly random beginnings.

Lorraine Ford

Facts do not imply knowledge/ awareness of the facts:
The fact that low-level categories (like mass and position), relationships and numbers exist in the world does NOT imply that the world would know about its own low-level categories, relationships and numbers. I.e., low-level knowledge/ awareness is a separate, but necessary, aspect of a viable real-world system.

But physicists tacitly assume that a knowledge/ awareness aspect must exist in the low-level world, seemingly without noticing that this knowledge/ awareness aspect would necessarily be a separate and distinct aspect of the low-level world.

Similarly, relationships do not imply number movement:
The fact that low-level relationships exist between the categories, which would have an effect on the numbers that apply to the categories, does NOT imply that the numbers that apply to the categories would ever move, change or jump. I.e., causing the numbers to move is a separate, but necessary, aspect of a viable real-world system.

But physicists tacitly assume that a causal aspect must exist in the low-level world, seemingly without noticing that this causal aspect would necessarily be a separate and distinct aspect of the low-level world.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Is anyone willing to hazard a guess how the world could know about its own low-level categories (like mass and position), relationships and numbers if no low-level knowledge/ awareness aspect of the world exists?

The question must be asked because people seem to assume that a mathematical system would automatically know about its own categories, relationships and numbers. People seem to assume that self-knowledge is a natural part of a mathematical system.

Is anyone willing to hazard a guess how the world could jump-start its own low-level number movement, and continue to jump its own low-level numbers, if no low-level causal aspect of the world exists?

The question must be asked because people seem to assume that a mathematical system would automatically move its own numbers (that apply to the categories). People seem to assume that self-movement is a natural part of a mathematical system. But in fact the equations that represent "laws of nature" merely say that the numbers move only if other numbers move (where these numbers apply to the categories).

While people seem to believe that their special set of equations will explain the world, in fact equations can't hope to explain the world, as several prominent physicists have already noted, years ago.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
So, I’m saying that the 2 key issues are: the low-level world’s knowledge/ awareness of itself, and the low-level world’s ability to cause itself to move.

Equations (i.e. relationships between categories) are a dime a dozen. Equations have been done to death. Equations, by themselves, can’t explain the low-level world: quantum mechanics can’t be explained by yet another set of equations.

So, I’m claiming that small parts of the world’s knowledge/ awareness of themselves, and small parts of the world’s ability to cause themselves to move, are the 2 key factors underlying quantum mechanics.

I.e., I’m claiming that small parts of the world’s knowledge/ awareness of themselves, and small parts of the world’s ability to cause themselves to move, are the 2 key factors underlying “quantum biology”.

Lorraine Ford

Robert McEachern
Rob,

You never needed to do an “AI Overview”, because what you are saying about the world can be summarised in two words: “things happen”.

However, these things, that that you say happen, have no relationship or connection to the underlying real world that actually exists: a real world that needs to be represented in terms of categories (like mass and position), relationships and numbers.

As I said:
YOU personally envision, your mind knows everything about the purportedly-existing real-world system you describe.

But how come the system itself knows anything about the system you describe?

YOU personally move the purportedly-existing real-world system you describe, either in your mind, or you move symbols representing the system on paper or screen.

But how come the system itself moves itself?

Lorraine Ford

Mathematics doesn’t automatically move itself: you need something to move it. Mathematics doesn’t automatically know itself: you need something to know it.

If you are saying anything at all about the low-level world, you need to have an explicit “there exists” statement, or otherwise there will inevitably be non-explicit, tacit “there exists” assumptions.

Physics seems to assume that at the foundations of the world there exists mathematical relationships, and that some mysterious thing assigns numbers to the categories in these relationships, which in turn seems to start up a type of perpetual-motion mathematics-machine.

Rob seems to assume that things exist which move, and that things emerge from this situation.

I explicitly say that, at the foundations of the world, there exists: 1a) something that creates the mathematical categories and relationships, and that also 1b) continually creates and assigns numbers to the categories, which together with the mathematical relationships, is what causes movement; 2) something that knows the mathematical categories, relationships and numbers.

Lorraine Ford

Mathematicians and physicists tacitly ASSUME that the underlying real-world mathematics would know its own relationships, categories and numbers without the underlying real-world mathematics needing to have a separate knowledge aspect.

Mathematicians and physicists tacitly ASSUME that the underlying real-world mathematics would move its own numbers (that apply to the categories) without the underlying real-world mathematics needing to have a separate causal aspect.

Whether these tacit assumptions are valid or not is a separate issue.

But the fact remains that tacit assumptions have been made about the nature of the underlying real-world mathematics.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
One can't use highfalutin hand-wavy high-level human words and concepts to describe the underlying low-level world: one needs to use symbols.

While I don't agree with physicist Stephen Wolfram's concept of a Ruliad, at least he is using symbols in an attempt to more completely describe the underlying low-level world, cutting out the highfalutin hand-wavy high-level human words and concepts.

Because the symbols (equations, that represent relationships between categories, and numbers) that are currently used, are not sufficient to completely describe the underlying low-level world.

One needs to use algorithmic/ logical connective symbols to more fully describe the underlying low-level world.

It needs to be noted that these algorithmic/ logical connective symbols represent aspects of the world that CAN'T be represented by equations.

These algorithmic/ logical connective symbols are used to represent a system's knowledge/ awareness of itself, and also to represent cause, i.e. to represent the system moving itself (usually in response to the system's knowledge of itself).

Equations can never represent cause, they can only represent the response to a cause.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
It has been experimentally shown that low-level relationships exist in the universe, and these low-level relationships are represented by the equations of physics.

However, equations and numbers alone can’t represent a viable moving system. To represent a viable moving system, one also needs to use algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, the type of symbols used in computer programs.

These algorithmic/ logical connective symbols represent the underlying logical structure that is required in order to have a viable moving system.

But I am not suggesting that anything like a computer program “pre”-scription exists for the universe, a prescription for the universe that could be represented using these algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, as well as the equations of physics.

What I am suggesting is that these algorithmic/ logical connective symbols can only be thought of as representing:

A “post”-scription, a symbolic representation of the underlying logical structure that would have been necessary in order to lead to outcomes that have already occurred, OR
A more general symbolic representation of the type of underlying logical structure that would be necessary in order to lead to outcomes that could potentially occur.

But ACTUAL, on-the-spot, right-now, low-level outcomes are an entirely different matter: they can't be "pre"-dicted because the universe is not "pre"-scribed.

However, there seems to exist a belief that the universe must necessarily have been "pre"-scribed.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
What is the essential difference between the idea of a “computational universe” and the idea that the world can be symbolically represented by law-of-nature equations, and associated numbers, alone?

When the idea of a “computational universe” is reduced down to the simple case of cellular automata, the essential difference is made clear: the program controlling the cellular automata represents something that CAN’T be represented using equations and numbers.

In the simple case of cellular automata, the two specific things that “computation” represents, that CAN’T be represented by equations and numbers, are:

Consciousness, i.e. a cell (or the system) having knowledge of, being aware of, a cell’s immediate surroundings; and
Cause, i.e. a cell (or the system) acting in a logical way that is entirely divorced from any law-of-nature mathematical relationships/ equations that might also apply to the cell (or the system).

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

But while the idea of a “computational universe” would usually include the idea that an EXTERNALLY devised (by whom?) computer program rules the universe, providing the equivalent of consciousness and cause, I contend that consciousness and cause exists within the very matter/ material/ substance of the universe.

I contend that:

Consciousness, i.e. having knowledge of, being aware of, one’s immediate surroundings, and
Cause, i.e. acting in a logical way that is entirely divorced from any law-of-nature mathematical relationships/ equations that might also apply,

exists INTERNALLY, i.e. within the very matter/ material/ substance of the universe.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

So, I’m contending that:

Consciousness, i.e. having knowledge of, being aware of, one’s immediate surroundings, and
Cause, i.e. acting in a logical way that is entirely divorced from any law-of-nature mathematical relationships/ equations that might also apply,

are necessary parts of the functioning of a viable real-world system. These consciousness and causal aspects are necessarily possessed by the low-level matter/ material/ substance of the world, and they are therefore the foundations upon which higher-level consciousness and free will can be built.

But how can people symbolically represent these aspects of the world?

People can only symbolically represent the necessary consciousness and causal aspects of real-world matter via the use of man-made, computational/ algorithmic/ logical connective symbols; man-made equation-symbols can’t do the job because they can only represent mathematical relationships.

But this is a one-way thing: people’s consciousness and causal ability produced the symbols: the symbols can’t create consciousness and causal ability.

But clearly, a lot of people have muddled up the real world with man-made symbols (written, spoken, electronic) that merely represent the real world.

And so, they end up spouting the complete and utter nonsense to be found over on Scott Aaronson’s blog (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9030 ), where you will find masses of true religious believers in the idea that that computers/ AIs are (or could be) independent entities that could possess consciousness, and could possess causal ability.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
When representing the idea of a “computational universe”, the algorithmic/ logical connective symbols represent 2 aspects of a viable, moving world that CAN’T be represented by equations:

Cause.
In a “computational universe”, it can be clearly seen what cause is: cause is represented by the algorithmic/ logical connective symbols; the equations merely represent a response to cause. Equations, even law-of-nature equations, can never represent cause.
Knowledge/ awareness.
As computer programs controlling cellular automata show, the algorithmic/ logical connective symbols are also used to represent knowledge/ awareness of a cell’s surroundings, something that also can’t be done with equations.

The world versus symbols of the world:
However, it is important to notice the difference between the actual world, and man-made symbols that people use to represent the world. The abovementioned 3 things: mathematical relationships (represented by the equations), cause, and knowledge/ awareness can all be physically represented using man-made symbols. These physical representations include: arrangements of ink on paper or pixels on screens; arrangements of sound waves; and arrangements of circuits, transistors and voltages in computers.

What is being represented in a computer program is cause and knowledge/awareness, as well as relationships. But no matter how clever the physical representation is in a computer program, a physical representation can never be the thing that is being represented. Unfortunately, the people spouting complete and utter nonsense over on Scott Aaronson’s blog (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9030 ), have fallen for superficial appearances, as opposed to in-depth analysis. It’s a sign of the times.

QuantumStructurator

Hi all,

Thanks for the great discussion. The idea that time might operate in two modes one reversible within isolated systems (like quantum gates), and another irreversible upon interaction or measurement resonates strongly with a line of thought I've been working on. I’d like to share it here, because it might offer a simple way to test whether time behaves differently depending on context.

The core idea is this: what if the global consistency conditions often invoked in block universe models could leave informational traces not in physical dynamics, but in the structure of data itself?

I’ve been developing a minimal protocol that runs entirely on a personal computer. It tests whether a structure defined after a random dataset can reveal unexpected compressive order within that dataset beyond what you'd expect by chance. It doesn’t aim to prove the block universe in any ontological sense, but rather to test whether future-generated structure can retroactively expose patterns in prior data, in a way that strictly forward-causal models would rule out.

Basic protocol:

Generate a random bitstring x₀
Generate a binary vector g of the same length (using either a PRNG or QRNG)
Partition x₀ into two subsequences: A (where g=0), and B (where g=1)
Compress A and B separately using a lossless algorithm (e.g., LZMA, PPMd)
Compute the Information Structure Compression Residual:
ISCR₍g₎ = len(x₀) - [len(A_compressed) + len(B_compressed)]

To evaluate whether g is revealing real structure in x₀, just permute g (e.g., 1000 times), recalculate ISCR for each permutation, and compute a p-value: the fraction of permutations that produce a score equal to or higher than the original. If the original g yields a significantly higher ISCR than 99% of permutations (p < 0.01), it suggests a structural dependency between g and x₀ despite g having been generated after x₀.

Such a result would not indicate a violation of dynamical causality or signaling but rather a possible signature of retroactive structure. That is, consistency not enforced via dynamics or signals, but via information-theoretic coherence between elements defined across time. This connects to models by Stoica, Wharton, and Costa de Beauregard, where global consistency constrains allowable local histories.

Interestingly, this also aligns with Robert McEachern’s interpretation of Claude Shannon’s work. McEachern argues that deterministic "cause and effect" can emerge from chaos via mechanisms akin to matched filtering—where “noise” can detect or resonate with itself to reveal structure. In this view, what appears as retrocausality may actually be a form of self-consistency filtering, where information structures are constrained to match across time, without invoking any dynamical influence from future to past.

This protocol:

requires no physical system or measurement interaction (fully passive)
is statistically falsifiable (permutation test)
is simple to reproduce (using open-source tools)
and may be the first PC-level test of post-determined or time-symmetric structure

Curious to hear your thoughts especially from those working on time symmetry, retrocausality, and global consistency principles.

Best regards,
(And apologies in advance for any awkward English I'm French)

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
I think that computation is probably a bit of a blind spot for mathematicians and physicists: they see the equations, they manipulate the equations, but they don’t see themselves as performing the essential computational steps that makes mathematics possible.

Seemingly mathematicians and physicists believe that the symbolic equations alone represent a mathematical system, when in fact it is human causal abilities, and human consciousness, plus the symbolic equations, that can represent a mathematical system.

When it comes to the low-level real world, the low-level real-world relationships, that are represented by the equations of physics, also can’t constitute a viable, moving system without the existence and participation of 1) low-level real-world causal aspects, and 2) low-level real-world knowledge/ awareness aspects.

These 3 interconnected aspects: the causal aspects, the knowledge/ awareness aspects, and the aspects that are represented by the equations of physics, are necessary for a viable real-world system to exist.

But while people obsess about how knowledge/ awareness/ consciousness feels, they should instead be obsessing about the necessary function that consciousness performs in a viable moving real-world system.

And while people obsess about whether cause/ agency/ creativity/ free will even exists, they should instead be obsessing about the necessary function that cause performs in a viable moving real-world system.