Encyclopedia > Talk:Causality

  Article Content

Talk:Causality

The topics "causality" and "causation" should be a "pointer page," if in fact there is a significant body of physics research about causality, that should properly be so titled. There is, of course, a very old tradition of analyzing the notion of causality in philosophy, which continues robustly to this day; philosophers, to my knowledge, don't pay much attention to what physicists have to say on the topic, but then, this isn't my area. Anyway, if indeed there is a body of physics research into causality per se, then we might have a causality (physics) page as well as causality (philosophy)[?] or causation (philosophy)[?] page. In any case, it's certainly the case that what physicists have said on the topic should not be billed as the only thing Wikipedia has to say on the topic.

Speaking as a philosopher, not as a physicist, the following looks like a lot of pseudoscientific, pseudophilosophical rubbish to me. I'm familiar with Osher Doctorow from Nupedia, and I have serious doubts that anything from him deserves such prominent mention in any Wikipedia article. As for the physics, there might be something salvagable in it--for all I know, it's a good start, but I know nothing about physicists' approach to this otherwise purely philosophical topic, so I couldn't say. In the meantime, I'd like to request that a physicist (other than Osher Doctorow) have a look at this and give his or her opinion. --Larry_Sanger

I agree that the text below is mostly rubbish. AxelBoldt


Causality or causation in mathematics/physics may be considered to have begun its modern treatment by Professor Garrett Birkhoff of Harvard in the 1950s, who considered that causation is embodied in time-related differential equations (ordinary or partial) because they involve time and because they involve change through time whereby intuitively an independent variable x or t influences a dependent variable y, although derivatives/rates of change of y with respect to time (velocity, speed, acceleration, etc.) may also do the influencing.

Although David Hume in the 1700s had given up on the possibility of locating the exact connection involved in causality/causation, Birkhoff felt that differential equations involving time embody what (in historical/philosophical language) Hume had been trying to analyze. In reply to the question of how the influencing variable x at time t influences variable y at an immediately later time, which of course is in a sense incapable of formulation since there is no immediately later event, Birkhoff's PDEs (partial differential equations) and ODEs (ordinary differential equations) rely on limits, noting that lim [f(t + h) - f(t)]/h as h--> 0, when it exists, is the derivative f'(t), which is the instantaneous rate of change of f at time t, but can also be regarded as the influence of time t on an infinitesimally small increment f(t + h) when h is positive but approaches 0 (from the right). Although the approach to 0 from the left seems to complicate things, it does not change the above facts.

The next major step forward in causation/causality was its application to probability-statistics by Marleen and Osher Doctorow, in their paper "On the nature of causation", (Philosophy of Education Proceedings 1983), based on seminars and talks in the previous years in part, in which they formulated a probability-statistics criterion for causation/causality. See abstracts of 72 of their papers (publications, papers presented, technical reports, and some better internet contributions) at http://www.logic.univie.ac.at, Institute for Logic of the University of Vienna. After accessing the site, select in this exact order:
  • ABSTRACT SERVER
  • BY AUTHOR
  • Doctorow, Osher and/or Doctorow, Marleen

  • I removed the paragraph:

    In reality ceteris paribus[?] analyses are always false. Causality is always multipolar. Only abstractions can create a circle with a single pen, in reality a circle is always caused by multiple forces that flux in a point. Such kind of Platonic causality, far more realistic than simple unicausal Aristotelian thought proper to western science, however has only been developed in Eastern philosophy.

    • ceteris paribus ("all other things being equal") analyses are not "always false"; one can question their utility in a world where one cannot control "all other things", but this seems a bit over the top to me.
    • Only abstractions can create a circle... is too poetic to make any sense; at any rate this assertion is not backed up by any argument.
    • ... has only been developed in Eastern Philosophy. is contradicted by the paragraph following in the article, as well as by the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics (amongst others).

    Not that my additions are flawless, but this just seemed rather non-NPOV to me.

    Cheers. Chas zzz brown 23:38 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)


    I have moved a lot of what was in the "Physics" section of this page to causality (physics) and have added a link to that page. There was some text in the physics section that didn't seem to me to have much to do with physics, so it was placed under the new heading of "philosophy".

    --Anakolouthon 22:41 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)




    All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

     
      Search Encyclopedia

    Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!
     
     
      
      Featured Article
    Quadratic formula

    ... The two solutions are complex conjugates of each other. (In this case, the parabola does not intersect the x-axis at all.) Note that when computing roots numerically, ...

     
     
     
    This page was created in 40 ms