Adonis Diaries

What sciences have to do with Einstein and Heisenberg?

Posted on: June 20, 2010

What is Causative Principle? What use of cause and effects?

Are there any foundations for cause and effects relationship to phenomena? Currently, we are living in five “scientific worlds”. 

The first world is called natural or the classical physical world and their corresponding scientists who are enamored with cause and effects relationship to phenomena.

The second world is called human/social sciences that is trying hard to emulate the cause and effects foundations.  But the living men are so complex with infinite numbers of variability and interactions that it is very difficult not to end up with biased experimental designs and procedures.  Most physical scientists would love to categorize mankind sciences as pseudo-sciences, though the experimental designs in natural sciences are almost trivial or archaic compared to the comprehensive, versatile, and complex social sciences design experiments.

The third world is at the macro level and called the Relativity World or Einstein theory.

The fourth world is at atomic and subatomic level and called Quantum World or Heisenberg World.

The fifth world or animal kingdom sciences is more complex than mankind sciences, but it is made much simpler by assuming (ignoring) many variables on account that we are unable to communicate effectively with animals, and especially, with insects.

Now, the classical world of scientists dump observations or “evidences” in the macro world that cannot be explained by cause and effects methods into the “black box” of Einstein.  Observations and “evidences” in the micro world are dumped into the Heisenberg “black box”.  As for the human and social “pseudo-sciences”, observations and evidences that cannot be satisfyingly explained are dumped into the Freudian “black box”.

Einstein wrote: “Two years before the publication of my theory on General Relativity, I thought that my equations could not be confirmed by experiments. I was convinced that an invariant law of gravitation relative to any transformations of coordinates was not compatible with the causality principle. Astronomic experiments proved me right in 1915.”  

Thus, Einstein didn’t believe that his theory was compatible to causality principle or cause and effects relationship.  What “validated” his theory was not within the rationality concept, but simply because it was the only other paradigm that was offered along side classical sciences. Evidences not explained by causality principle were categorized within the relativity principle. 

Also, quantum physics cannot work within classical causality principle simply because time and location in the atomic world cannot be determined simultaneously. So, how causality principle got such a hold on our comprehension of the universe?

The main question is: Are cause and effects relationship valid tools for explaining the “real world”? Or are they used as an interpretation gimmicks to observed phenomena wrapped under the code name of rational and logical thinking? 

Take any phenomena and its set of cause and effects relationship and you will realize that an expanded definition of the phenomena and an exhaustive description of the processes can be valid “stand alone” in describing the real world.

Fact is, a child brain develop causality processes to view the world in a coherent fashion and to navigate securely in his universe.  Time line, successive events in time, and space organization are basic guidelines for the brain to complete its re-structuring.  Thus, sciences are fundamentally methods to codify “logically” how our brain was trained to comprehend its universe and how it functions.

Otherwise, “unscientific” methods are labelled “metaphysical” pseudo-thinking.  Thus, fundamentally, the universe has always functioned without the need of having a cause to affecting other events: cause and effects experiments are plainly rational methods meant to satisfying the way our brain was wired to comprehend the successive events and phenomena.  Scientific methods extend the illusions of achieving better and more accurate and plausible definitions and description of a phenomena.

How scientific methods were fine tuned?  My interpretation is based on two elements:  first, Measuring instruments and second, direct observations by mankind sensory organs.  I include microscope and telescope as extensions to direct sensory visual observations.

There are measuring instruments that use energies outside the capability of mankind to sensing directly and consequently, the corresponding observations are transformed into sensory energies within man capabilities. I classify these measuring instruments as mental interpretation to observations and thus, categorized as more “abstract” facts or evidences than normal sensing.  Measuring instruments within the capability of mankind sensing are the “culprit” to modern causality principle.  Why?

Measuring instruments are conscious inventions meant to validating “philosophical” concepts or visions:  They are essentially biased to confirming what man wants to believe in. 

Fact is, we observe what we originally intend to see; thus, we design experiments according to pre-conceived ideas or hypothesis and we implicitly want confirmation of what we had in mind as the most plausible occurrence to any phenomena.

There are many kinds of experiments not designed to discovering cause and effects but to collecting observations or data in order to discriminate among trends.  These experiments and corresponding statistical packages are meant as exploratory steps in order to designing more focused and “principled” experiments.

Basically, human and social sciences want to get positioned so that they can be counted as “real or hard” sciences, though they are doing science and their results are far more informative than physical science.

Soon, a scientist will offer an alternative paradigm to “Einstein world” and scientists will get busy emptying all the evidences contained in the Einstein black box and classifying them according to the appropriate paradigmatic world.  That is what scientists do: classifying observed characteristics and features into distinct categories; best if the categories are exclusively distinct from one another.

The same process will happen when someone offers an alternative paradigm to Heisenberg world.  All that I wish is that science be focused on the well being of mankind and his environment.  That is where most funding should be diverted to.

And nature follows its course and has nothing to do with mankind experiments and rational thinking.  And the chance happening of us the living, who were born, we have to pay the ultimate price after surviving the infantile phase…

1 Response to "What sciences have to do with Einstein and Heisenberg?"

[…] What cause and effects phenomena? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




June 2010

Blog Stats

  • 1,468,196 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 802 other followers

%d bloggers like this: