Cause and Effect

[josephpalazzo]

The cause-and-effect paradigm works particularly well when science is used for engineering, to arrange the world for our convenience. In this case, we can often set things up so that the illusion of cause-and-effect is almost a reality. The computer is a perfect example. The key to what makes a computer work is that the inputs affect the outputs, but not vice versa. The components used to construct the computer are constructed to create that same one-way relationship. These components, such as logic gates, are specifically designed to convert contingent inputs into predictable outputs. In other words, the logic gates of the computer are constructed to be atomic building blocks of cause-and-effect.
 
The notion of cause-and-effect breaks down when the parts that we would like to think of as outputs affect the parts that we would prefer to think of as inputs. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are a perfect example of this, where our mere observation of a particle can "cause" a distant particle to be in a different state. Of course there is no real paradox here, there is just a problem with trying to apply our storytelling framework to a situation where it does not match.
 
Unfortunately, the cause-and-effect paradigm does not just fail at the quantum scale. It also falls apart when we try to use causation to explain complex dynamical systems like the biochemical pathways of a living organism, the transactions of an economy, or the operation of the human mind. These systems all have patterns of information flow that defy our tools of storytelling. A gene does not "cause" the trait like height, or a disease like cancer. The stock market did not go up "because" the bond market went down. These are just our feeble attempts to force a storytelling framework onto systems that do not work like stories. For such complex systems, science will need more powerful explanatory tools, and we will learn to accept the limits of our old methods of storytelling. We will come to appreciate that causes and effects do not exist in nature, that they are just convenient creations of our own minds.


http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25435

[Deidre32]

The cause-and-effect paradigm works particularly well when science is used for engineering, to arrange the world for our convenience. In this case, we can often set things up so that the illusion of cause-and-effect is almost a reality. The computer is a perfect example. The key to what makes a computer work is that the inputs affect the outputs, but not vice versa. The components used to construct the computer are constructed to create that same one-way relationship. These components, such as logic gates, are specifically designed to convert contingent inputs into predictable outputs. In other words, the logic gates of the computer are constructed to be atomic building blocks of cause-and-effect.
 
The notion of cause-and-effect breaks down when the parts that we would like to think of as outputs affect the parts that we would prefer to think of as inputs. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are a perfect example of this, where our mere observation of a particle can "cause" a distant particle to be in a different state. Of course there is no real paradox here, there is just a problem with trying to apply our storytelling framework to a situation where it does not match.
 
Unfortunately, the cause-and-effect paradigm does not just fail at the quantum scale. It also falls apart when we try to use causation to explain complex dynamical systems like the biochemical pathways of a living organism, the transactions of an economy, or the operation of the human mind. These systems all have patterns of information flow that defy our tools of storytelling. A gene does not "cause" the trait like height, or a disease like cancer. The stock market did not go up "because" the bond market went down. These are just our feeble attempts to force a storytelling framework onto systems that do not work like stories. For such complex systems, science will need more powerful explanatory tools, and we will learn to accept the limits of our old methods of storytelling. We will come to appreciate that causes and effects do not exist in nature, that they are just convenient creations of our own minds.


http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25435

Cause and effect does exist in nature, though. Could you explain a bit further as to what you mean by that?

[Sal1981]

Interesting, that's a perspective I've never thought of before.

[The Fly]

The cause-and-effect paradigm works particularly well when science is used for engineering, to arrange the world for our convenience. In this case, we can often set things up so that the illusion of cause-and-effect is almost a reality. The computer is a perfect example. The key to what makes a computer work is that the inputs affect the outputs, but not vice versa. The components used to construct the computer are constructed to create that same one-way relationship. These components, such as logic gates, are specifically designed to convert contingent inputs into predictable outputs. In other words, the logic gates of the computer are constructed to be atomic building blocks of cause-and-effect.
 
The notion of cause-and-effect breaks down when the parts that we would like to think of as outputs affect the parts that we would prefer to think of as inputs. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are a perfect example of this, where our mere observation of a particle can "cause" a distant particle to be in a different state. Of course there is no real paradox here, there is just a problem with trying to apply our storytelling framework to a situation where it does not match.
 
Unfortunately, the cause-and-effect paradigm does not just fail at the quantum scale. It also falls apart when we try to use causation to explain complex dynamical systems like the biochemical pathways of a living organism, the transactions of an economy, or the operation of the human mind. These systems all have patterns of information flow that defy our tools of storytelling. A gene does not "cause" the trait like height, or a disease like cancer. The stock market did not go up "because" the bond market went down. These are just our feeble attempts to force a storytelling framework onto systems that do not work like stories. For such complex systems, science will need more powerful explanatory tools, and we will learn to accept the limits of our old methods of storytelling. We will come to appreciate that causes and effects do not exist in nature, that they are just convenient creations of our own minds.


http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25435

Cause and effect does exist in nature, though. Could you explain a bit further as to what you mean by that?

I think that what it is getting at is that cause and effect is a shortcut we've constructed for ourselves to explain certain phenomena. It doesn't actually exist in nature, kind of like numbers. Numbers are a convenient shortcut, not a reality.

Give me an example of what you think is a cause and effect existing in nature and I'll try to explain how it is fails as a performance model.

[SGOS]

Give me an example of what you think is a cause and effect existing in nature and I'll try to explain how it is fails as a performance model.

I have no idea what's going on here, so I'll just throw out an example and then maybe I'll understand:  Stepping on an ant causes it to get scrunched.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Ehem..everything is easily explained with one, well, three words, but for the sake of trolling you it's one. Godidit.  :)

[leo]

Ehem..everything is easily explained with one, well, three words, but for the sake of trolling you it's one. Godidit.  :)

Nope. The toothfairy did it.

[The Fly]

Give me an example of what you think is a cause and effect existing in nature and I'll try to explain how it is fails as a performance model.

I have no idea what's going on here, so I'll just throw out an example and then maybe I'll understand:  Stepping on an ant causes it to get scrunched.

So in that example, if I am understanding the premise of the article well enough, is that because we tend to think of the cause and effect as viable objective lens to view things under, our actual observation and inference ability fail us.

I think that this is a language issue present in all human beings. Language sort of shapes our reality so to speak. When we observe things our brain has to turn that into an experience in order to relate it and learn from it. This leads to us thinking of things from a "panoramic" view that doesn't break down the individual parts of the system all the way. The more and more we break it down into individual parts and try to understand it, the more and more our brain tries to create a narrative for us to understand. <<< Even that sentence was a narrative that had to happen in my brain in order for me to understand it.  

Stepping on an ant causes it to get scrunched is our brain's attempt to understand and explain what it just observed and after that your brain sort of broke that down into symbols that you could articulate using language. We call it reality because we fail to see beyond that observation and the experience that comes from it. But when you start to use that paradigm in explaining things like quantum mechanics and other things on a biological level or any complex dynamic system, it fails.

I realize that probably made no sense, because my entire explanation was indeed a narrative... or in fact a cause and effect paradigm... and thus... it does not explain that as a system.

My brain hurts. I am not smart enough for this stuff.

[Icarus]

The cause-and-effect paradigm works particularly well when science is used for engineering, to arrange the world for our convenience. In this case, we can often set things up so that the illusion of cause-and-effect is almost a reality. The computer is a perfect example. The key to what makes a computer work is that the inputs affect the outputs, but not vice versa. The components used to construct the computer are constructed to create that same one-way relationship. These components, such as logic gates, are specifically designed to convert contingent inputs into predictable outputs. In other words, the logic gates of the computer are constructed to be atomic building blocks of cause-and-effect.
 
The notion of cause-and-effect breaks down when the parts that we would like to think of as outputs affect the parts that we would prefer to think of as inputs. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are a perfect example of this, where our mere observation of a particle can "cause" a distant particle to be in a different state. Of course there is no real paradox here, there is just a problem with trying to apply our storytelling framework to a situation where it does not match.
 
Unfortunately, the cause-and-effect paradigm does not just fail at the quantum scale. It also falls apart when we try to use causation to explain complex dynamical systems like the biochemical pathways of a living organism, the transactions of an economy, or the operation of the human mind. These systems all have patterns of information flow that defy our tools of storytelling. A gene does not "cause" the trait like height, or a disease like cancer. The stock market did not go up "because" the bond market went down. These are just our feeble attempts to force a storytelling framework onto systems that do not work like stories. For such complex systems, science will need more powerful explanatory tools, and we will learn to accept the limits of our old methods of storytelling. We will come to appreciate that causes and effects do not exist in nature, that they are just convenient creations of our own minds.


http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25435

Interesting examples with the biochemical pathways and height, but I think that perspective is a little simplistic. Gene regulation and expression is very complex and can be attributed to many factors. In terms of cause and effect, the article is right in that the height of a person isn't encoded into the genome. The environment plays just as vital a role on the morphology of an organism as the genes themselves. Which is why it isn't that simple, you could say "A lifetime of proper diet and exercise in a low risk environment combined with genetics caused patient X to be tall". It's not a direct Y causes X, but it's still correct. Some genes do cause cancer, which leads me to believe the person writing this article didn't have a very strong background in the biological or biochemical sciences.

[Icarus]

Give me an example of what you think is a cause and effect existing in nature and I'll try to explain how it is fails as a performance model.

Glycolysis could be considered a big cause and effect or several smaller ones.

[The Fly]

Icarus,
I don't have the education to be able to break that one down, unfortunately. So I can't really contribute there. I'll just have to take your word for it, lol.

Mind if I ask what your qualifications are for that subject? I hope that doesn't come across as condescending. I just like to know people's qualification when I agree to take their authority on the issue, you know what I mean?

[Icarus]

Icarus,
I don't have the education to be able to break that one down, unfortunately. So I can't really contribute there. I'll just have to take your word for it, lol.

Mind if I ask what your qualifications are for that subject? I hope that doesn't come across as condescending. I just like to know people's qualification when I agree to take their authority on the issue, you know what I mean?

No problem, I have a M.Sc in Biochemistry. That's why most of my posts will focus on biochemistry, I know a lot about it and not much about everything else. Nature has a sort of cause and effect if you're willing to have a loose definition of what constitutes 'cause and effect' and aren't interested in outlining all the specific variables.

[The Fly]

Icarus,
I don't have the education to be able to break that one down, unfortunately. So I can't really contribute there. I'll just have to take your word for it, lol.

Mind if I ask what your qualifications are for that subject? I hope that doesn't come across as condescending. I just like to know people's qualification when I agree to take their authority on the issue, you know what I mean?

No problem, I have a M.Sc in Biochemistry. That's why most of my posts will focus on biochemistry, I know a lot about it and not much about everything else. Nature has a sort of cause and effect if you're willing to have a loose definition of what constitutes 'cause and effect' and aren't interested in outlining all the specific variables.

OHH Biochemistry!!! You and I should speak. I am a homebrewer (beer)! I need your expertise. :)

[Icarus]

OHH Biochemistry!!! You and I should speak. I am a homebrewer (beer)! I need your expertise. :)

Hahaha, I'd be happy to help if I thought I could. Brewing is a mix of art and science, you could make the most efficient process for producing beer from the least amount of components but if it tastes terrible, no one will want it.

[The Fly]

OHH Biochemistry!!! You and I should speak. I am a homebrewer (beer)! I need your expertise. :)

Hahaha, I'd be happy to help if I thought I could. Brewing is a mix of art and science, you could make the most efficient process for producing beer from the least amount of components but if it tastes terrible, no one will want it.

Yeah well right now I am to the point that I am trying to maximize my ability to control the various nuances of the art. Like head retention and stuff like that. I have quite a few books on the subject, but I don't always process the information as well as I would like. I learn better through interactions. I need help especially with how different water make ups effect the mashing process.

We can talk later on, of course. :)