Talk:Causal closure

Stub

This is just a stub based on my limited knowledge of the topic, please add to it. Lemonysam 18:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter what historical origins and influences- Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Roman- We may be able to trace for the cyclical time concept, its emergence was logically almost inevitable once the philosophers had discovered an everlasting Being, birthless and deathless, within whose framework they then had to explain movement, change, the constant coming and going of living beings.

Some things cannot be destroy and we just to put together. Morty __Summer Thomas-pegot (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge?

I wonder if it would be better merged into another article. Not sure what potential there is for expansion and how much it overlaps with existing ones. Richard001 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly against merger. It is an important topic in its own right, and one that is frequently overlooked: It is not uncommon for philosophers to present theories of consciousness that are really only theories of conscious experience, without acknowledging that the problem of mental causation has been left untouched. (Peter Ells (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

Weak and strong form

I'm not clear on what the difference between these two forms are. They sound synonymous to me. Richard001 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be useful to have an example of a situation in which weak causal closure allowed a particular form of mental causation, but strong causal closure did not. (Peter Ells (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

reason vs cause

Under the criticism section "ignoring the phenomena" shouldn't the first type of explanation of purposeful behavior be explained with reasons and not causes? Wasn't this a very important distinction to the ordinary language philosophers like Ryle, Anscombe, Wittgenstein? I don't have enough experience to rewrite that section but I think most philosophers would not say that both of those type of explanation are causal, only the second one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.49.154 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Causal closure is a fallacy in physics because we didn't renormalize the wave function of the universe (nowadays we don't have the theories and the data to do so) and due to the homekill paradox see: many-worlds interpretation

ASK Sean M. Carroll. He deeply knows the issue. Be respectful. Give him time to present his answer. We don't want to oppress a professor. Give time to others because the whole point is to take a proper answer, not an anxious answer.

also the claim that causal procedurality holds true without any gap between cause and effect doesn't mean that the causal series of events (before and after the event INCLUDING the Hubble volume Everettian entropy [causal events that enter and exit the sphere of causality = the Hubble volume)

(... doesn't mean that the causal series of events) isn't a multilayered infinite series.

(The homekill paradox [if you recede many Hubble volumes afar from home and then you return, the possibility of finding it approaches zero the farther you receded; and it takes way more than one Hubble volume due to causality been transferred by intermediaries with the introduction of quantum decoherence = unrelated many-wold/Everettian alternative.)

The causal closure is an old physicalist staple; Everettism and ontological (not merely calculatory) renormalization don't close the causal connectome, but attribute weights to it according to each different observer

Causal closure isn't the mainstream view in

• ontological renormalization (very wide envelopes surrounding an observed wave function, include parts that most probably won't interact with the central object, and if we accept that everything in the universe belongs in the same connectome; afar objects which are not strongly entangled interact very mildly. Afar regions (from an arbitrary observational center) include many wave functions which contribute mildly to the central observed wave function; or better put have a low probability to strongly interact with the center of the Hubble volume (theoretically afar from a Hubble volume, only entanglement allows interaction [due to intermediary Hubble volumes], but entanglement is NOT useful for communicational interaction but for ontological only (entanglement can be used for quantum encryption because its fundamental but not for faster than light data transfer). Still entanglement IS important, because it holds the universe as one BUT WITH ALL ITS MANY-WORLDS (quantum entanglement is ontologically important; also partial entanglement is important; probabilistic entanglement is the claim that entanglements and partial entanglements are also probabilistically tuned, but for an observer its hard to discover them (this is a mathematical question; if we measure many particles, some are entangled and some not.... to be more accurate all particles are entangle [because overall are/comprise the universe] at a different degree. The mathematical question is what would be different in arbitrary comparisons of particles, if probabilistic entanglement were wrong.
• Everettism: Everettism provides a connectome of close by actualities which allow more afar alternatives when we recede from the arbitrary central observer (same as above; with different mathematics). Actually we don't have to compare something outside our Hubble volume to find out (calculationally; as a thought experiment) that Everettism (manyworldness) is correct. For example, thermally collapsed atoms in our cells are NOT maximally collapsed (collapse has degrees), thus alternative realities DO exist (see: photosynthesis).
• cyclic universe (not Roger Penrose's version, because we didn't describe correctly the adiabatic phase transition of maximal to low spatiotemporal entropy): infinite big bangs exist (according to that view), and spacetime is more fundamental than a particular universe cycle. Infinite spacetimes exist (Max Tegmark), and they're self-caused because their constructor (David Deutsch) is correct. Any correct spatiotemporal constructor necessarily exists do to its correctness. Nilogony/nihilogony/cosmogony from nothing is impossible, because the Nothing cannot exist; it isn't a potential state of the infinite somethings. Constructor self-causality cannot be avoided EVEN if God existed (then the system "spacetime" becomes "God & spacetime", but self-causality and constructor theory are unavoidable). God is a person (if God is an atheistic process, we merely distort language and falsely merge different semantics). Personhood is the result of a personhood-yielding calculator = brain. The criteria of personhood have to be met via the procedures of the personhood-yielding computer Brodmann-like areas. An idealized brain can be described as a connectome with nodes [or a could with densities and allowed data directions; like a weird fluid; many idealized brain models exist]. We can topologically describe the idealized brain. Still some volume is required (topology doesn't specify the distances; but we need topology ALSO for the foundations of quantum mechanics; thus the vagueness of distance gets meaning via limitations and rule of each particular connectome; brain or spacetime). No brain can function without a volume; and thinking requires time (otherwise it is NOT procedural thinking, but a static structure; but no static structures can exist and be procedurally perceived; static structures are NOT universe-like). Thus spacetime is more fundamental than personhood and the brain which produces it. Personhood isn't a prerequisite for spacetime, but spacetime -being fundamental - IS a prerequisite for personhood. God being nonfundamental necessarily cannot exist, because he cannot meet his definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B1C:AC00:E8EA:7BD1:DE4:1C0F (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Modern view:

"physical effects have only physical causes", but they belong (immediately, or their previous states) in an Everettian connectome (the wavefuntion; many-worlds theory)

Everettism/many-worlds theory seems unimportant, but without it you reach a dead end if you seek the first causes. Also the ontological renormalization and the Deutschian self-caused constructor of our universe are also necessary; especially if you really care about closure and ask ALL the next questions which emerge; but the result is NOT causal closure, but an Everettian connectome which fades out in ontological strength in relationship to an arbitrary center. Study the Hubble volume, but remember that infinite overlapping Hubble volumes exist; and hold the universe as one (mathematically we can speak about the Hubble volume field, due to the overlapping nature of the Hubble volumes which make up our VERSION of the universe [because different arbitrary central observers have a different Hubble volume field]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B1C:AC00:E8EA:7BD1:DE4:1C0F (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)