Causality and Determinism

The concepts of causality and determinism are distinct.
They cannot be used interchangeably.

The notion of determinism (as per the inherent nature of the concept) is to assert that there can be a complete and absolute specification of all values of the three content metrics (pattern/mass, force, and probability) for all values of the three context metrics (time, space, and possibility).

The notion of Causality refers to persistent perceived relation of association between three events: the observing self, the observed cause, and the observation of the effect.

The concept of objective causality applies to the degree that both the antecedent and the consequent are themselves objective. The concept of subjective causality applies to the degree that either the antecedent and/or the consequent is subjective.

To assert determinism is to assert that there is a fixed, exact, and well-defined microscopic structure/pattern to all eventities in a domain. Unlike the concept of causality, the concept of determinism does not require any reference to basis concepts of observability, observer, or temporality.

To assert causality is to assert a consistent pattern of observations of relations between mesoscopic eventities using the basis concepts of observer and temporality. Unlike determinism, the assertion of causality is to make no claim as to the nature, being, pattern, or degree of structure/form of the microscopic aspects of eventities in a domain.

The concept of causality requires the aspect of an observer self to be present, whereas the concept of determinism does not. The concept of causality is time asymmetric (with respect to the observer self), whereas determinism requires no unique (non-spatial) concept of time, The concept of causality does not require a detailed microscopic specification of all events (including that of the observer self), whereas the concept of determinism does require such specification (to be possible, at least in principle).

A/any/the/all worlds are to some non-zero and positive degree causal. No world/domain is purely and completely deterministic and/or logical (1). Neither experience nor creativity is determined (they are not deterministic).

The (form of the) content of experience is at once proscribed by causality and described by choice. The (form of the) content of expression (creativity) is at once proscribed by choice and described by causality.


Science and Mathematics

Mathematics is organized thinking about the interactions and interdependencies of pure relations.
Mathematics is an inquiry and description of the nature of pure abstract relationship.

In this way mathematics is distinct from physics, which considers interactions (not relations) within a specific domain. Mathematics is considered in a manner which is purely omniscient modal, whereas physics is considered in a manner which also has elements of both the immanent and the transcendent modality. Science is immanent when involved in experiment (in the scientific method) and transcendent when asserting a relationship between theory and reality (a belief that a mathematical model corresponds to natural law).

Scientific knowledge is not mathematical knowledge. Scientific knowledge is based on the scientific method. The scientific method is based upon experiment (expression and perception), and measurement, whereas mathematics requires no experiment (is deterministic).

All scientific knowledge is of the causal type. There is, and there can be, no scientific knowledge of the deterministic type (due to the very nature of the scientific method itself). In that experiments are always finite (bandwidth limited), the infinite specification necessary to establish determinism can never be obtained. Insofar as experimentation involves a scientist (observer), science can only establish causal relations.


Physical and Non-Physical

The concept of 'the physical' refers to an existence which is both actual and deterministic. A deterministic existence is a concept that an actuality has a definite and specific form (objective content) pattern in all levels of detail (in scale) for all times and places, regardless and independent of the subjective context in which that pattern is observed.

The concept of the physical is an assertion that the total space-time structural pattern of a world is completely defined in all aspects (regardless of the frame of reference of one's perspective on it), and that this world is an actuality (for it can be perceived). In other words, the structure of the physical is completely defined at all scales and for all observers, regardless of their position in time or space or of motion through time and space; and that furthermore, this structure is objectively perceivable (i.e. is an actual observable).

The concept of 'the non-physical' refers to a creation which is both potential and non-deterministic. A non-deterministic creation is a concept of a potentiality that has a definite and specific subjective context in all levels of abstraction for all times and possibilities, but which has absolutely no specific or defined form (objective content).

The concept of the non-physical is an assertion that the total possible-time semantic meaning of a world is completely defined in all environments, regardless of the structure of one's expectations of it; and that this world is a potentiality (it cannot be perceived). The semantics of the non-physical is completely defined at all abstractions and for all expectations, regardless of the position or motion in and through time and/or possibility. The semantic of the non-physical is not objectively perceivable (i.e. it is a potentiality).


Cartesian Dualism

In distinguishing causality from determinism, there is established a strict difference between the nature of causality and the nature of the physical. Determinism and physicality are consistent with one another in that both (implicitly) involve infinite detail of (microscopic) specification. As such, the consideration of science (finite) can extend only into the nature of reality and causality. It cannot consider the nature of the physical (infinite) in any direct sense (nor can science consider creation (also infinite), nor even choice (non-visible, non-repeatable)).

In that there is a distinction between causality and the physical, there is also a distinction between choice and the non-physical. Choice is to some extent personal, and though it involves the random and dynamic, it is not absolutely chaotic. Choice is personal, whereas the pure non-physical (creation) is ultimately impersonal. In comparisons within any given domain, the energy (potentiality) involved in a choice is always finite, whereas the energy (potentiality) involved in creation is always infinite (the ratio of any number to zero (the "empty domain prior to creation") is always infinite).

To the degree that there is an assumption of interaction (finite), 1) reality is different from physicality and 2) self is different from pure non physicality/dynamicism, creation. In considering interaction, there is the idea that the self (soul), which to some extent resembles the non-physical and non-deterministic, can interact with a reality, which to some extent resembles a physical and deterministic system. The resemblance between the self (soul) and the non-physical, and the resemblance between reality and the physical, are inversely proportional to the degree of interaction assumed between self and reality.

The degree of interaction between self and reality, however, can never be zero or infinite. Therefore, interaction and consciousness are neither purely physical nor non-physical; neither deterministic nor non-deterministic, and are (to some extent) both causal and non-causal (i.e., a composition of choice).

Consciousness, in itself, belongs neither to reality nor to the self exclusively, but is shared between them in the form of interaction. Consciousness is not an illusion, nor is it in conflict with conventional science. It is both the absolute deterministic physical model and the absolute indeterministic non-physical models that are illusions.

As such, neither the realistic nor the idealistic arguments can ever be resolved by (any) logic, perception, experience, or experiment. This is due to the fact that no sensory interaction, fact of experience or objective measurement could ever encompass the infinitely small or the infinitely large equal to the presumed absolute nature of the reality itself.


Realism vs Idealism

To be a realist is to consider that subjective content is continuous with objective content.
To be an idealist is to consider that objective content is symmetric with subjective content.

The Errors of Extrema of World:.

Realism: To refer to when perception is ultimately/absolutely independent of expression.

Idealism: To refer to when perception is ultimately/absolutely dependent on expression.


The Errors of Extrema of Self:

Prejudice: To refer to when expression is ultimately/absolutely independent of perception.

Reaction: To refer to when expression is ultimately/absolutely dependent on perception (where reaction is mechanistic/deterministic).


Insofar as only interaction is, and is real, then there can be only interdependance, not absolute dependance nor absolute independance (2). There is neither absolute dependence nor absolute independence; there is only interdependence (interaction).

In that only/ultimately interaction is real, that neither of the extrema are valid. In that to be real (interdependent) is more basic and fundamental than both existence (independence) and objectivity (dependence). Any existing objective theory of reality must (cannot not) inherently reject the extrema (3).

Where reality is complex (many perceptions and expressions as interactions), the transformations of perception and expression (knowing and understanding, attitude and belief), must also inherently involve (cannot not involve) degrees of interdependence rather than (strict/absolute) dependence or independence. There can be no simple attitudes or beliefs; all of them are ultimately complex.

Self spans multiple domains (sets of perception and expression pairs) and they co-influence one another. Consciousness is a higher order (transcendental) coherency linking the transformations of perception and expression.

For example, the event of vision (as an interaction) can be understood as a dynamic of perception, which begets recognition, which begets knowing. (4).




Notes:
[1] Science is based upon observation. As such, it can only establish assertions of causality. It cannot establish or validate any claim about the determinism of any eventity. Determinism cannot be perceived or observed, and as such, any claims about absolute possibility are ultimately unscientific. Despite popular misconceptions, the natural law of science is always causal law, not ever deterministic law.

[2] The notion of absolute dependance always implies a collapising of "two" interactions into one, under principle of identity, where the notion of 'absolute independance; implies the notion of 'no interaction' rather than interaction, thus absenting itself from the notion of being 'real'.

[3] Exactly as stated. The explicit conjunction of 'Existing Objective' is to bind an omniscient concept and a transcendant concept together so as to make a comparable with the immanent modal 'real', as in 'reality'.

[4] This dynamic is consistent with Axiom II.

[20_17/01/21;16:27:16.00]