-


The Principle of Causality   -


equal causes have equal effects (1)

-

This proposition is to be understood in both directions: "equal effects have (are the results of) equal causes" applies as well.
The former expression denotes predictability: if we know the effect e1 of c1, and we know that another cause c2 is equal to c1, then we can predict that c2 will have an effect e2 equal to e1. The latter (converse) expression denotes reversibility: if we know two equal effects e2 and e1, and we know that e1 was caused by c1, then we can retrodict the cause c2 equal to c1 of e2, that is to say we can reverse the process (at least informationally). The whole expression can also be reformulated as :

distinct causes have distinct effects (and vice-versa). (2)


This expression can be summarized as distinction conservation: if two situations were initially distinct they will remain distinct in all further evolutions, and have been distinct during all previous evolutions.

An equivalent principle defining causality is that of covariation:

when a cause is varied (replaced by a cause different in some respect), its associated effect will vary (3)


The problem with these different definitions is that if they are considered at the most fundamental, microscopic level, they become trivial, unable to produce any practical predictions. In (1), if "equal" is taken to mean "identic" we get the tautologous result that if a cause is identic to itself (which it always is), then its effect must be identic to itself (which can be seen as a paraphrase of the principle of the identity of the indistinguishables). In (2) or (3) we get that if an initial state is replaced by a state that is not identically the same, then the resulting state will not be identically the same. If the state is a "state of the world", encompassing all that exists, then it is obvious that after a change of that state the resulting state will not be identically the same as the one resulting before the change. (Otherwise we would not be able to retrodictively distinguish the two initial states, since no difference whatsoever would be left).

We may call such a radical interpretation of (1) and (2) the "microscopic causality" principle. This principle does not allow us to make any predictions. In practice, "equal" is therefore interpreted as "similar": two causes or events may be different in some way, yet behave the same as far as the things we are interested in are concerned.

However, recent advances in non-linear dynamics have shown that in general dynamic systems are chaotic, in the sense that small differences in initial conditions can lead to enormous differences in later conditions, so that any "similarity" between two initial states is lost. In such cases the causality principle becomes practically meaningless.

For example, consider a coin vertically resting on its side in an unstable equilibrium. When it falls, we will not look for the cause of it falling down this side rather than that side, but rather consider it a chance event. The reason is that the coin in an unstable equilibrium is so sensitive that it will covary with the tiniest variation in its neighbourhood: a little bit of wind, a vibration of the table, an irregularity in the surface, or even a random distribution of air molecules so that a little bit more molecules bump against one side rather than against the other. The coin follows the microscopic causality principle: the slightest difference in initial conditions makes a difference in results.

In practice, the causality principles mentioned above only make sense when equality or distinction can be interpreted macroscopically, by means of boundaries between equivalence classes of causes and effects, so that microscopic differences between causes within one equivalence class can be ignored and only the macroscopic differences between the classes need to be taken into account. This is "macroscopic causality". However, macroscopic causality will only work in certain cases (e.g. when the dynamics is non-chaotic), and therefore cannot be seen as a universal principle.

The classical world view can be characterized by the assumption that macroscopic causality, or more generally distinction conservation, is always valid. The non-classical view, which appears in quantum mechanics and far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, is then characterized by distinction non-conservation. That means that initially distinct states may lead to the same result (distinction destruction), or that the same state might lead to distinct outcomes (distinction creation). This requires more general principles of evolution and self-organization, based on variation and selection. The fact that macroscopic causality itself works in certain cases may be explained by these principles.

courtesy ~ P. Cybernetica Web.

-

Thinking and Reasoning about Causality
No consensus about causality has emerged during the century from Peirce's remarks of 1898 to Kim's remarks of 1995. Yet people, animals, and even plants benefit from causal predictions about the universe, independent of any conscious thoughts they might have about causality. People plan their daily trips to work, school, or shopping; squirrels bury nuts for the winter; and plants turn their leaves upward and their roots downward. The success of these activities does not depend on a theory of physics that is accurate to seven decimal places, but it does imply that the universe is sufficiently regular that even a rough rule of thumb can be a useful guide for one's daily life. A general theory of causality must be able to accommodate the full range of approximations, ranging from sophisticated theories of physics to informal, often unconscious habits that enable an organism to survive and reproduce.

Three academic disciplines have addressed questions about causality: theoretical physics has the most detailed theories of causation with the most stringent criteria of accuracy and predictive power; philosophy has been proposing and analyzing notions of causality since the time of Aristotle; and artificial intelligence has been developing theories of causality intended to simulate intelligent behavior from the insect level to the human level and perhaps beyond. There is little hope of finding a single theory of causality that can satisfy the criteria of such widely divergent disciplines, each of which has contentious practitioners who seldom agree among themselves. The goal of this paper is more modest, but still ambitious: to propose a framework, which is compatible with modern physics, but which can be approximated at various levels of granularity for different purposes and applications.

In his lectures on cause and chance in physics, Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions that dominated physics until the twentieth century:


"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."

"Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."

"Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."
Relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience. After analyzing them in terms of modern physics, Born concluded "chance has become the primary notion, mechanics an expression of its quantitative laws, and the overwhelming evidence of causality with all its attributes in the realm of ordinary experience is satisfactorily explained by the statistical laws of large numbers."
In physics, the best available approximations to the ultimate principles of causation are expressed as laws. In a discussion of causality, Peirce gave the following definition of law:

What is a law, then? It is a formula to which real events truly conform. By "conform," I mean that, taking the formula as a general principle, if experience shows that the formula applies to a given event, then the result will be confirmed by experience. (1904, p. 314)
This definition is a realist view of the laws of nature, which is widely accepted by practicing scientists and engineers. Aronson, Harré, and Way (1994) presented a more recent, but essentially compatible view:
Laws are invariant relations between properties. We have argued that judgments of verisimilitude are based on similarity comparisons between the type of object referred to by a scientist and the actual type of the corresponding object in nature. The relative verisimilitude of laws can be thought of in the same way, namely as the degree to which the relationships between properties depicted in relevant theories resemble the actual relationships between properties in nature. (p. 142)
In continuing their discussion, they remarked that the empirical methodology of science is not a rejection of "commonsense" practice, but a refinement of it:
It is the method of manipulation. It is so commonplace that we are hardly aware of its ubiquitous role in our lives and practice. Every time we turn on the shower and stand beneath it we are, in effect, using the unobservable gravitaional field to manipulate the water. The way that Stern and Gerlach manipulated magnetic fields to manipulate atomic nuclei in their famous apparatus is metaphysically much the same as our everyday strategy of standing under the shower. (p. 200)
As Peirce would say, experience provides a pragmatic confirmation of the law of gravitation and its applicability to the event of taking a shower. But Peirce's view of law includes much more than the laws of logic and physics. In addition to the laws that make the shower work, he would include the habits and social conventions that cause people to take a shower. Various formulas "to which real events truly conform" can be observed, tested, and verified at every level from mechanical interactions to the conventions, habits, and instincts of living creatures.
The "impasse" that Kim observed in the divergent proposals about causation results from a fundamental divergence between practicing scientists and many, if not most twentieth-century philosophers. For scientists, the discovery of the laws of nature is the ultimate goal of their research; but for many philosophers, the concept of law is an embarrassing metaphysical notion. Yet Rudolf Carnap (1966), who had been one of the harshest critics of metaphysics, adopted the concept of law as the basis for analyzing the more elusive concept of causality:

From my point of view, it is more fruitful to replace the entire discussion of the meaning of causality by an investigation of the various kinds of laws that occur in science. When these laws are studied, it is a study of the kinds of causal connections that have been observed. The logical analysis of laws is certainly a clearer, more precise problem than the problem of what causality means.
To unify the divergent views, both in science and in philosophy, this paper takes the notion of a law-governed process as fundamental. But to accommodate chance, either the fundamental uncertainty of quantum mechanics or the epistemological uncertainty that results from experimental error and limited observations, it does not assume that a law-governed process must be completely deterministic. Instead, there is a continuous range of possibilities between a totally random process and a totally deterministic process:

Random. Total chaos is random. Nothing is predictable, and the state of the universe at one instant has no relationship to its state at any other instant, before or after.

Law governed. Some things are predictable, and some things aren't. The law of gravitation imposes sufficient constraints on the flow of water that a person who takes a shower can predict where to stand, but cannot predict the exact trajectory of every drop.

Deterministic. As the constraints are tightened, a law-governed process may approach pure determinism as a limit. Classical Newtonian mechanics is, in theory, purely deterministic, but with the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics has introduced nondeterminism at the most fundamental level.
All known processes are law governed to some extent, although the laws may not be known in complete detail. The two extremes of purely random and purely deterministic processes have never been observed. Newton once claimed that the celestial bodies followed a more deterministic course than any clock that human beings could contrive. Yet today, atomic clocks, which are still not perfect, are routinely used to detect and accommodate minor fluctuations in the earth's orbit. A truly deterministic process is as elusive as a perpetual motion machine.
Processes can be described by their starting and stopping points and by the kinds of changes that take place in between. Figure 1 shows the category Process subdivided by the distinction of continuous change versus discrete change. In a continuous process, which is the normal kind of physical process, incremental changes take place continuously. In a discrete process, which is typical of computer programs or idealized approximations to physical processes, changes occur in discrete steps called events, which are interleaved with periods of inactivity called states. A continuous process with an explicit starting point is called an initiation; one with an ending point is a cessation; and one whose endpoints are not being considered is a continuation.



Figure 1: Types of Processes

Beneath each of the five categories at the leaves of Figure 1 is an icon that illustrates the kind of change: a vertical bar indicates an endpoint, a wavy horizontal line indicates change, and a straight horizontal line indicates no change. A discrete process is a sequence of states and events that may be symbolized by a chain of straight and wavy lines separated by vertical bars. A continuous process may be symbolized by a continuous wavy line with occasional vertical bars. Those bars do not indicate a break in the physical process, but a discontinuity in the way the process is classified or described. The weather, for example, varies by continuous gradations, but different time periods may be classified as hot or cold, cloudy or sunny.

Section 2 of this paper relates continuous processes to the laws of physics. In Section 3, discrete processes are defined as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), which can approximate the continuous processes as a limit. Section 4 introduces procedures as specifications for classes of discrete processes, and shows how they can be expressed in the formalisms of Petri nets and linear logic. Section 5 shows how Petri nets or linear logic can be used to reason about discrete law-governed processes. To relate theories to one another and to the ultimate laws of nature, Section 6 introduces the lattice of all possible theories and the techniques for navigating it. In conclusion, Section 7 shows how various theories of causality can be interpreted in terms of the lattice.

The rest of this essay can be found, at:

[ John F. Sowa ] http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/causal.htm

Hi Amen .
Please feel free to delete this post .

surely causality would remain relative. I can take any shape that I wish. and create any other shape that I wish.

The variation will be in how large I must go before I achieve my goal and how far back I need to stand for the illusion to convince me.

 So too for cause and effect. throw a ball into water and the effect is on the whole. How large an effect the outer edges of the water feels is completely determined by SIZE< SHAPE < BOUNDARY of both the ball and the water.
 There are further effects . how much evaporation was increased by the ball projecting water into the air and displacement caused by the ball now bouncing on top of the water.
  In reality I have only just begun to talk about the effect the ball being thrown into the water has had.
  Where was the ball before? What about the air that replaced it's position , and was displaced by it's passing .What effect did water entering the ball have on it's materials and how will the pool of water cope with being forever contaminated with the balls materials.
  Reality Is forwards "happening" and althought causality can be a two way street , The effects are moved too far away from the event to ever put back the way they were.
  Only our limited "reality" makes it possible for us to cope in a world where things "HAPPEN TO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE" . If this were not so , we would become overful with information and cumbersome in descion making. We would need to consider the implications of each and every action at every level in order to throw the ball into the pool.
  surely, each action is compounding. Causality is a limiting science. By that I mean it limits the effects to those we can immediately percieve with the apparatus we "Choose" to measure.
  If this were not true , then we are created in a box that has no contact beyond the boundaries of the box. This is the only way for causality to ever stop for "each and every single action that ever was and ever will be".

Cheers
Iseason

Quote :

Iseason wrote : Hi Amen . Please feel free to delete this post . surely causality would remain relative. I can take any shape that I wish. and create any other shape that I wish. The variation will be in how large I must go before I achieve my goal and how far back I need to stand for the illusion to convince me.  So too for cause and effect. throw a ball into water and the effect is on the whole. How large an effect the outer edges of the water feels is completely determined by SIZE< SHAPE < BOUNDARY of both the ball and the water.  There are further effects . how much evaporation was increased by the ball projecting water into the air and displacement caused by the ball now bouncing on top of the water.   In reality I have only just begun to talk about the effect the ball being thrown into the water has had.   Where was the ball before? What about the air that replaced it's position , and was displaced by it's passing .What effect did water entering the ball have on it's materials and how will the pool of water cope with being forever contaminated with the balls materials.   Reality Is forwards "happening" and althought causality can be a two way street , The effects are moved too far away from the event to ever put back the way they were.   Only our limited "reality" makes it possible for us to cope in a world where things "HAPPEN TO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE" . If this were not so , we would become overful with information and cumbersome in descion making. We would need to consider the implications of each and every action at every level in order to throw the ball into the pool.   surely, each action is compounding. Causality is a limiting science. By that I mean it limits the effects to those we can immediately percieve with the apparatus we "Choose" to measure.   If this were not true , then we are created in a box that has no contact beyond the boundaries of the box. This is the only way for causality to ever stop for "each and every single action that ever was and ever will be". Cheers Iseason

Iseason I think a Physical approach to 'Causality & Cause and Effect' would agree with your Premise-fact that Causality is relative, however, don't you think that there is an Axiomatic approach as well  (to lay an arguement). I am  willing to be told I am wrong  

--Last edited by very very small tic on 2007-01-27 21:02:41 --

verry small tic

I can imagine not realm that cannot be held within a physical causality.The statement itself only allows one thing to affect the other.
 Even thought requires electrical impulses which must affect the other side of the universe in some future time or reality.
 a void must be filled , an overcrowding released of pressure. The basis that you use one theory , either fit's all or is wrong. The seperation of states is the biggest mistake in science today.
  the theory i use for gravity has it's roots in smaller than light and works no differently. the same theory extends to stella. The differences are time lines and aditions made in wave functions , both in preventing and diversifying the original wave.

cheers
Iseason
 

this line of thought would be answered with logical thinking ie ' If A '



very very small tic

To ask two questions "What is axiomaic" And please explain 'If A' ....Is that "If A = b?"

Pardon Iseason. I did n't mean to leave you there.
IN FACT Axiomatic refers to; // An axiom is any sentence, proposition, statement or rule that forms the basis of a formal system. Unlike theorems, axioms are neither derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs. Instead, an axiom is taken for granted as valid, and serves as a necessary starting point for deducing and inferencing logically consistent propositions. In many usages, "axiom," "postulate," and "assumption" are used interchangeably.//


SO; CONTINUING ...A / B may be; a Postulate, an e.g. Don't worry yourself Iseason, my Postulates are self-taught. Sometimes, it is easier to express a Postulate or Proposition quite simply in terms of A and B ..
You can FORGET, I mentioned it..I prefer your personable self-expression, anyway ....

very very small tic.  

--Last edited by very very small tic on 2007-03-01 19:22:07 --

Well.
That will not always give you a measurable result.Your precise calculations end at the measurability of a system.
My postulations end causality , Which can only ever be a single entity. It can never be a grouping of fundamental particles. If causality is taken back to it's roots , it must end in 1.-1 and +1.  there must be a variation within the +1 -1 content in order to have causality. 1 cannot interfere with itself in order to begin causality.
  So the +1 -1 causes a reaction in the one to begin causality.
in this case time becomes the factor of influence. which number, -1 or +1 came immediately after 1 but just ahead of the other to begin causality?

Cheers
Iseason

I'M NOT sure, Iseason. I SUPPOSE One would HAVE TO BE mean in a determinism-way, no ..


ferme

Hi Ferme

 I must admit that re-reading my last post i would have trouble understanding what I meant.

  Firstly I am referring to the very first action of the very first causality. In this , the original inhabitant must be singular. Otherwise there was a causality before that which gave us two inhabitants.So this equals the number 1 in my equasions.
  Now I need a behaviour pattern which can account for the first action which will become the first causality.I cannot go to +1, as this will presume to get something from a single "particle".
  So the only way to create a model which can create an actiomn is within the bounds of the -1. to do this I have determined that the original particle was "everywhere at once". In other words it filled the universe in a seamless fashion.
  This does several things .

  1. it sets the universe without needing a boundary.
  2. It gives a state that is the only one necessary one to have a state of reality.
  3. in giving me a full universe , I can take away , but not add. (this is important because if it was possible, it would add new parameters )

   So I have a particle which is not the size of the universe , but which is everywhere at once. It is the smallest , fastest(if speed were present), highest energy particle which will ever exsist.
   Most of these features do not factor in before the first causality. Therefore in the beginning these other features (speed , energy) are not even present.
   
   But they are important , because thier conception is only one step away. -1
   So for some reason , the particle gives up a space. This is equal to it's particle inhabiting every part of the universe except one equal to it's own size. the particle immediately returns to fill the gap , but can move no faster than +1.
   several things have occurred all at once.

    1.There is a space which is perpetually unoccupied within the universe.
    2.the particle can never again occupy the whole of space again.
    3. The varience that has occurred is TIME. The time lost in repairing the original causality.

    This gives a link between time and space.

   but now we have a new problem. The difference between something and nothing is infinity. So the particle has begun a new journey which requires it to recognise this as a law.When the particle (which now has the ability to cover the universe -1)is forced to inhabit the area that the "Nothing " is inhabiting, it needs to go around it. This is an insurmountable barrier to the particle.If it inhabits the same space , It will be cancelled out by the law.

   there is one way that the particle can win against the new law. By adding to the 1. If it creates a barrier around the intruder that is higher than +1 , the particle can build it up in a time driven way. Unfortunately it must give away a lot of ground in the process in order to be in the same place in a continual 'timeline'.

   So the particle chooses to build up a number of fortresses with pathways between . Giving us a picture of an atom. (but this is not the picture you would have of todays atom)
   This then becomes a continual process of revisiting each fortress to keep it in reality. It is still the singular particle. But it no longer has reign over the universe. It has begun to take back ground (through expansion). However most of it is locked behind a shield of itself repeated again and again.

 Cheers
Iseason  
   

Iseason Quote: I am referring to the very first action of the very first causality. In this , the original inhabitant must be singular. Otherwise there was a causality before that which gave us two inhabitants.So this equals the number 1...end-Quote.



Iseason hi,
               
One MUST counsel (One's "SELF")(re;) the definition of Causation, namely: ** ..Most generally, causation is a relationship that holds between events, properties, variables, or states of affairs.

to arrive here if I am not mistaken

very very small tic ..  

--Last edited by very very small tic on 2007-03-14 18:54:31 --

Agreed!
  But when looking for "the original first Action" which begat the fisrt causality. Because two must come from somewhere or one be present first, the one must have causality which creates the second.
  This is sound. There are few ways this can occur. Because the one must be everything in order for there not be anything which has yet happened, the event that occurs first must be the one affected by itself. There can only be one other state that can occur if the one is everything . And that becomes that the two is nothing. Therefore, for an action to occur, the reduction of something must be first in order for space to occur and action to begin.
  Having started this progression , the first behaviour you inflict upon the particle MUST affect it most severely, Even a single pixel space in the vastness of the universe adds up to the difference between something and nothing being infinity.
  Because the something leaves a space the same size as itself . So it's opponent is equal in every way.

   So 1(-1+1+) actually equals 1. But the 1 now equals 2.

   2 can interfere with itself. The fact that the particle has an action means that the opposite will and does have a reaction.
The returning to the uncovered spot and reducing volume to create mass is a progression of opposite states.

   Even in having an electron around an atom which apears from nowhere but is everywhere at once shows that the particle is still singular and time is still proportional to the interaction between something and nothing which are the only two "realities" that exsist.
Cheers
Iseason  

--Last edited by Iseason on 2007-03-14 22:33:22 --

I found a link which has credible arguements against a causality arguement.

http://www.science.box.sk/blog.php?user=fredrick

These rely on some assumptions which I have not made.
 1. I  do not see God as creating the universe, but as the universe creating God.
 2. That the necessity for motion is redundant if nothing moves in actual reality.
 That causality can be mistakes by an exchange of states from one whole to another whole.This is the infinate library scenario but without the other books.
 In other words the library contains both green and blue books. However the number of books is illusionary. There is just one book. but depending where you view the book , the scene changes.

  Thier is just one event. the book changes from green to blue. but this is a changing of many "zones" , all in an instant.So the first and only causality are the same.

   Time and motion do not exsist. Each pixel WILL change only once from green to blue , and does so at exactly the same time. our viewing of the universe depends on us having the ability to see the world IN real time !..Since we can see back in time through space, It is logical that we can see forwards into the future via Quantum mechanics.

   It seems they both still exsist along side our reality . Therefore , everything is happening at the same moment.

  So the 1 arguement is still one.the book was and then is with no action exept a complete change in state.

  We are nothing more than the wave pattern which denotes the changes.

  In this arguement we are arguing that the book is the whole universe , and the change is the first causality.The next change denotes another change in the whole book to red.
  And so on .Each change cannotake our add anything , but may increase "knowledge" till future changes in state head towards what we see today.
  As models reach to where man inhabits with a logical curcuitry, Future "books " are created with this in account.

But each progressive book is a hall of mirrors where the book still contains everything that the first books had.
    at the end ( a finite future) the book changes which occured in billions of the clones of the book , are contained within the original book as the first change of states

Which equals 1

Cheers
Iseason

I will check it out, and give feedback Iseas.

zee.

From your link-quote, that is: 1) Since space and time are components of the universe, the cause of the universe must be a-temporal and a-spatial...




this seems to me to be: a self-evident Fact!




----


From your link-quote, that is: 5) If the cause of the universe is a-temporal and a-spatial, then no scientific explanation based on physical laws can provide an account of the universe’s cause.
to me it seems: WHY should an explanation solely-rely on any known  "physical-law" to verify this Premise?  It is   self-evident the nature of the question is/and  complex .

I will TRY to digest some more the inate-thinking, at your link Iseas.


zee.

Since , as always My arguements are fluid , I will look at arguements against what I say and modify them in light of consideration of what I learn.
  In the link I posted , I found nothing quite the same as my proposal. But even So , There were thoughts that I'd never seen expressed which closely resembled my own. So I take heart.
  In the natural progression of the thought , I have abandoned the model in which time need function at all.The particle still occupies as if everywhere at once . And did so Before the first causality.

     The next event would take awsome powers of imagination to percieve. But the result is that you can be assured that the particle will be somewhere at any given "time". an even distribution says that you are just as likely to run in to a defined number of particle events no matter where you are. The interesting thing is that you can only run into the events in the forwards usage of time. If you go back you must have two particles.
     Cheers
Iseason

Quote :

Iseason wrote : I found a link which has credible arguements against a causality arguement. http://www.science.box.sk/blog.php?user=fredrick These rely on some assumptions which I have not made.  1. I  do not see God as creating the universe, but as the universe creating God.  2. That the necessity for motion is redundant if nothing moves in actual reality.  That causality can be mistakes by an exchange of states from one whole to another whole.This is the infinate library scenario but without the other books.  In other words the library contains both green and blue books. However the number of books is illusionary. There is just one book. but depending where you view the book , the scene changes.   Thier is just one event. the book changes from green to blue. but this is a changing of many "zones" , all in an instant.So the first and only causality are the same.    Time and motion do not exsist. Each pixel WILL change only once from green to blue , and does so at exactly the same time. our viewing of the universe depends on us having the ability to see the world IN real time !..Since we can see back in time through space, It is logical that we can see forwards into the future via Quantum mechanics.    It seems they both still exsist along side our reality . Therefore , everything is happening at the same moment.   So the 1 arguement is still one.the book was and then is with no action exept a complete change in state.   We are nothing more than the wave pattern which denotes the changes.   In this arguement we are arguing that the book is the whole universe , and the change is the first causality.The next change denotes another change in the whole book to red.   And so on .Each change cannotake our add anything , but may increase "knowledge" till future changes in state head towards what we see today.   As models reach to where man inhabits with a logical curcuitry, Future "books " are created with this in account. But each progressive book is a hall of mirrors where the book still contains everything that the first books had.     at the end ( a finite future) the book changes which occured in billions of the clones of the book , are contained within the original book as the first change of states Which equals 1 Cheers Iseason

(The subject of my response may: deviate this thread somewhat but, anyway) :


There  IS "CERTAINLY A LOT THERE," Iseas.!

one or two points i CAN ask (which having looked  at some of the Link text i could n't see as answered really, was : The an ANISOTROPIC-Universe / an ISOTROPIC-Universe, arguement...

zee.  

--Last edited by zee on 2007-03-28 09:01:47 --

Hi zee,
 I took a look at winkipedia to be sure of the terminologies.

  i have drawn back a little from my original forthrighteness in describing what "happened" and in what order.This seems too open to arguement that 'we really couldn't know'.
  What I have looked at instead is that the particle "occurance" dictates the ability for reality to exist at all. This is a limited resource which can only occur once.
  For instance , If I say that the particle was everywhere at once, I cannot then argue that it was there again without presenting an arguement which requires an infinite loop.
  So without trying too hard to show how we got from the start in a continious theory, I would prefer to show how it is a possible occurance.
  If each pixel can be used up by matter "existing by it's virtue" , then it follows that a mass must change position in space in order to keep reality. This is the same action as the usage of any finite resource.
 
   this makes the original state in which the particle existed and the current reality two opposing states, but means that  uneven can exist within an even distribution of the same energy.
If a mass passes through a point in space there must be usage of the pixels and a resudue of pixels left undisturbed. This will give both anisotropic and isotropic areas depending on the mass retaining it's reality.
   There is no difference between this and a body of water having differing temperatures. It's still water. But the phases in the waters state are differing.

   it explains the evenness of orbiting planets, and motion in general. The mass is replenished according to occurrence of the planet.also greater speed means that a mass will encounter more occurances of the pixels.

   This is obvious in centrifugal forces where the g forces are felt more at the edges where the same mass/ density passes through a differing number of pixels.

Cheers
Iseason