Natural Causality Hypothesis

[tylers100]

Introduction

A model diagram made by myself, is attached to this post. I recommend use it as reference while reading this post.

Summary

The idea is that all natural things follow the natural causality. From simplest to complexity (or vice versa) of life could be based on it, in an universal manner.

History - Where Did Hypothesis Came From?

The idea was inspired by the patterns in the Nature; form, growth, stable, decay, and death – as observed by myself.

Originally, it was a theory by myself called, “General Causality Theory”. It was precursor-ed by adaptive semi-determinism or asd / ASD. It was first conceived by myself years ago but discarded after a while. After stopping with the asd thing, I decided to give this another try, which that resulted in an improvement with refining it. Then changed it into a hypothesis from theory because it is not fully developed, researched, and / or no math yet.

Goal

The goal of this is to see if natural causality hypothesis is true in an universal manner. And if true, then it could assist with providing some explanations for the common patterns in life, which from simplest to complexity (or vice versa) of life could be based on it.

Natural Causality Concept

The Natural Causality tells us what happens with the Nature.

The parts that make up the natural causality concept:

- Natural Process; form, growth, stable, decay, and death.
- Causality; source, use, and make.
- Interactions between both; Natural Process and Causality.

Examples:

Natural Process; form (tree seed), growth (tree growing), stable (tree at peak age), decay (old tree), and death (tree stops growing leaves and / or fall down).

Causality; source (tree on soil ground / co2 / sunlight / etc), use (tree uses soil ground and co2, sunlight / etc), and make (clean air).

Interactions between both; Natural Process and Causality (tree and everything surrounded it).

Natural Process

The natural process in an ordered way is; form, growth, stable, decay, and death. These are observed in everyday life as patterns.

Causality

I have divided the causality into three fundamental meanings. These are; source, use (cause), and make (effect).

- Source is an energy or reason. It can be from any part of natural process.
- Use is as cause by source in order to actualize making. An use can occur on any part of natural process.
- Make is result by use. A making can actualizes any of natural process.

[note: when if use and / or make occurs on any of natural process, that can be perceived as 'change' itself.]

Interactions

There are bi-directional interactions between natural process and causality – as shown on the model diagram. These show how causality can consider any of natural process as source, or an use can occur on any of natural process, and / or make any of natural process. These interactions could be reason why sometime the life seems to be overwhelming and complex – because some natural objects can be occupied in all interactions.

Potential Usefulness

This or model diagram could provide an improvement with understanding about interactions in the Nature, if found to be true.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Your ASD had no model and no evidence. This appears to be no different in that regard, and is a requirement for discussion.

 

[tylers100]

Very well.

Natural Process and Its Patterns

Let's focus on the natural process for a moment, and consider its patterns; form, growth, stable, decay, and death. These are found in the Nature as obviously so (e.g. trees, grass, flowers, etc) and it is common sense that these are part of life span. It would be very silly for me to deny all of these as evidence, because these are apparently real in life.

[Area54]

Your overview seems merely a stating of the obvious in an imprecise and exceedingly general manner. I can see it might be a useful loose structure to which to append a personal appreciation of nature, but nothing in it appears either original, or useful to a wider audience. I would challenge another's observation that you have not presented a model. I think you have, but it is just so trivial as to be of no obvious practical value.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Do you have a model? Can you make specific predictions, which would represent falsifiability?

Something more than “stuff happens”

 

[tylers100]

Communication

Ok, just to make communication between us to be a bit more understandable and better, just letting you know that I am deaf. I use the English language differently as told by my dad; "deaf" writing.

Model

swansont, I was a bit confused about the model. I thought the diagram I produced that is attached to my 1st post is a model. But now, it seems to be insufficient from your perspective.

I will attempt to produce another model according to guidelines I looked up on this website:

link: https://www.carolina.com/teacher-resources/Interactive/how-to-make-a-good-scientific-model/tr39525.tr

Just to check, is the scientific model guidelines on the stated website good enough?

As for prediction..

Entropy Prediction

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

As for potential prediction(s) yielded from this hypothesis, it is about entropy in context of the Nature based on my current understanding:

1st concept of entropy - irreversible: true

2nd concept of entropy - disorder, randomized, etc: false

The Nature could be open system sustainability whereas humans manufacturing systems to be closed systems (in that case, 2nd concept is seemingly true) then proceed to impose 2nd concept on the Nature which could be per-matured assumptions and / or predictions about the entropy, specifically its 2nd concept, in the Nature.

How? The Nature as Jigsaw Puzzles

I think of the Nature as a completed picture of jigsaw puzzles.

We, as humans, take something from the Nature then manufacture tools, foods, trashes, recycles, etc etc - that is akin to taking some puzzles from the completed picture then re-arrange these into a particular order (e.g. tools, foods, etc) then entropy, its 2nd concept, exists. But in case of the Nature apart from our tools, foods, etc - the 2nd concept of entropy seems not to exist - only so in ours because I think that we..

.. mismatch jigsaw puzzles in varying degrees. Get it?

Quoting a snippet from the entropy wiki:

"It has found far-ranging applications in chemistry and physics, in biological systems and their relation to life, in cosmology, economics, sociology, weather science, climate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication."

repeated link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

^ translates to found mismatched puzzles aka entropy.

That is my current understanding regarding entropy.

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Communication

Ok, just to make communication between us to be a bit more understandable and better, just letting you know that I am deaf. I use the English language differently as told by my dad; "deaf" writing.

Model

swansont, I was a bit confused about the model. I thought the diagram I produced that is attached to my 1st post is a model. But now, it seems to be insufficient from your perspective.

I will attempt to produce another model according to guidelines I looked up on this website:

link: https://www.carolina.com/teacher-resources/Interactive/how-to-make-a-good-scientific-model/tr39525.tr

Just to check, is the scientific model guidelines on the stated website good enough?

That's fine. But you haven't done any of that.

You haven't provided any specific examples where you explain observations or predict new ones.

You have no equations or simulations, or a physical model.

 

39 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

As for prediction..

Entropy Prediction

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

As for potential prediction(s) yielded from this hypothesis, it is about entropy in context of the Nature based on my current understanding:

1st concept of entropy - irreversible: true

2nd concept of entropy - disorder, randomized, etc: false

The Nature could be open system sustainability whereas humans manufacturing systems to be closed systems (in that case, 2nd concept is seemingly true) then proceed to impose 2nd concept on the Nature which could be per-matured assumptions and / or predictions about the entropy, specifically its 2nd concept, in the Nature.

We already have thermodynamics and a model for entropy. As we do for other phenomena you've brought up.

You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion. We already have a concept of causality. Perhaps the better approach would be to learn what we already know, instead of striking out on your own. You're trying to discover a land that has already been mapped.   

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

Ok, just to make communication between us to be a bit more understandable and better, just letting you know that I am deaf. I use the English language differently as told by my dad; "deaf" writing.

You may be deaf (sorry to hear that)

But you seem to have no trouble reading and writing.

And you seem to have a genuine interest in sensible ideas rather than outlandish nonsense, even if your ideas are not yet developed.

 

So I am not going to enter any discussion about the rules here.

But I will offer discussion about your idea of Natural processes.

18 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Very well.

Natural Process and Its Patterns

Let's focus on the natural process for a moment, and consider its patterns; form, growth, stable, decay, and death. These are found in the Nature as obviously so (e.g. trees, grass, flowers, etc) and it is common sense that these are part of life span. It would be very silly for me to deny all of these as evidence, because these are apparently real in life.

Firstly you seem to have restriced natural process to living things. Non living things, of course don't die. Further they may or may not 'grow'.

Would you for instance declare that the process of melting is not a natural one ?

Or perhaps you might like to consider that your definition is unneccessarily restrictive and could be expanded.

OK so what about processes caried out by (some) living things ?

Would you say flying is a natural process ?

I recently posted a thread here referring to the fact we have only just dicovered how and why butterflies can fly.

I am going to offer two books that should be of interest.

You also mention patterns so

The Self Made Tapestry  - pattern formation in nature

Philip Ball

(He has also written some other books on this subject but this is the best one)

Here he ranges over animate to inaminate patterns (eg the zebra stripes evolved and how rivers evolve) to what is the best % filling of a cement mixer and even brushes lightly on some comments about entropy.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Self-Made-Tapestry-Pattern-Formation-Nature-Ball/22872534828/bd?cm_mmc=ggl-_-UK_Shopp_Tradestandard-_-product_id=COUK9780198505068USED-_-keyword=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkuzUieaR7wIVENPtCh3M6QsbEAQYAyABEgL_w_D_BwE

and

Cats Paws and Catapaults by Steven Vogel.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/223609.Cats_Paws_and_Catapults

Steven compares the way Nature and Man achieve the same objective by different methods (processes).

 

Both can be obtained second hand quite cheaply and both are delightful reading that you do not have to readd chapters 1, 2,3 ..etc to follow what is going on as in a textbook. You can dip in and out of both.

 

I hope this will pull this thread round for you to achieve something productive.

🙂

[tylers100]

On 3/2/2021 at 8:18 AM, swansont said:

That's fine. But you haven't done any of that.

You haven't provided any specific examples where you explain observations or predict new ones.

You have no equations or simulations, or a physical model.

 

We already have thermodynamics and a model for entropy. As we do for other phenomena you've brought up.

You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion. We already have a concept of causality. Perhaps the better approach would be to learn what we already know, instead of striking out on your own. You're trying to discover a land that has already been mapped.   

 

 

Swansont, since I stated this natural causality to be hypothesis as per definition:

Hypothesis Definition as I Understood it

The hypothesis is an idea that assumes something that could be true but requires a research, expanding, disprove, or prove - that involves promoting and entailing a discussion.

Theory Requires Evidence, Model, and Math

The theory on other hand, you are right as I am more aware by now, requires a scientific model of various scientific types, math, and evidence. Yet this natural causality is not a presently theory since I already stated that I changed it to hypothesis because it obviously lacks research, expansion, discussion, scientific model or math etc hence this thread.

Conceptual Model

The model diagram I attached to my 1st post is a conceptual model, to clarify and depict the natural causality hypothesis.

What is New?

What is new regarding natural causality hypothesis? Is it could assess how the nature operates and handles the entropy issue in order to understand and how to co-exist with it better. Isn't that what the primary objective of science is (that is if I assumed correctly)?

Here is some specific examples of observance:

• Some trees growing and some decaying to death (at areas nearby my home)
• Food decaying (ball of lettuce in my case, I frequently forget all about it)
• leaves on trees regrow in spring time and decay to death in the fall season onward through winter season.

The patterns behind these seem to be as follow in an ordered way: form, growth, stable, decay, and death. The natural causality is my way of describing how the Nature operate with these patterns. Of course, that is a hypothesis and have to yield a further discussion and find out an evidence for that.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Hypotheses based on observation mean there are specific events (or sequences of events) that have been observed. You have not shared any such observations.

Any model needs to be able to be applied in a similar fashion. To specific situations.

The first rule of speculations is 

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

You are not in compliance with this rule

 

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

Causality is a very human-centred way of looking at things around us. Events may not be caused much as beings may not. We may start to look at things as being more of "processual" nature rather than causing/being caused. Causal features in human nature can be no other than mere transcendental structures of pure experience. Without (human) experience , no causality can manifest. Moreover , originative causality has something very serious to do with time , too. It is of an absolute temporal nature. This also has to be taken into consideration and explained. For example , Let's remind ourselves that much ( or all ? ) of the difference between observer and the observed vanishes once we stumble upon the  "rim-spin"  of lots of electric media. 

I shall feel very grateful towards Tylers100 if (s)he , please , initiates to elaborate on some of these concerns . . . . . . .. 

[tylers100]

Specific Observance

I see the natural process in snow, trees, etc and I was gonna take a picture of that, but the model diagram or this natural causality hypothesis requires causality at work (being observed as live interactions) and I'm unable to capture that thus this hypothesis is useless without it.

Lock or Move to Trash Can

From now to future, I will refrain from proposing a hypothesis or theory unless I can capture live interactions. The interactions seemingly "are" there (presumably from microscopic level to macroscopic level or vice versa) as I seem to know that, but I have no technological means to capture or measure that or unless my mind is wrong.

Lessons Learnt

• No hypothesis proposal unless have an observable evidence.
• No theory proposal unless have an observable evidence, model, and math.

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Lessons Learnt

• No hypothesis proposal unless have an observable evidence.
• No theory proposal unless have an observable evidence, model, and math.

Lessons not learnt.

I asked you 3  simple questions, identified by the question mark at the end of each sentence.

You have not replied to any of them.

That contravenes the rules.

[tylers100]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

Lessons not learnt.

I asked you 3  simple questions, identified by the question mark at the end of each sentence.

You have not replied to any of them.

That contravenes the rules.

Questions and Answer

Q - "Would you for instance declare that the process of melting is not a natural one ?"

Q - "OK so what about processes caried out by (some) living things ?"

Q - "Would you say flying is a natural process ?"

A - These questions depend on a situation that constitutes what natural and non-natural is within human's scope of knowledge on that. That means a requirement is needed to understand what knowing what ultimately naturalness is. I think that we compare what is natural and non-natural based on our own judgments when the Nature is naturally occurred chaos but not in the disordered or randomized way that some people seem to think. I think the chaos concept need to be refined or approach differently. Because I sometime think some aspects of human's scope of understanding regarding the Nature is an inverse understanding.

An inverse understanding = order way, seems how I see that way.

Natural Process

An example: A butterfly flipping it wings; form (starts) > growth > stable > decay > death (ends) then repeats.

I'm referring natural process to be inclusive of both concept and physical, as applicable to any situation.

But.. this natural causality hypothesis (especially with the model diagram) is "outside" of the Nature and describing what is occurring in either concept or physical is within the Nature. Yet, it has no observable evidence (especially of actual live interactions) as I already and recently stated.

 

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Questions and Answer

Q - "Would you for instance declare that the process of melting is not a natural one ?"

Q - "OK so what about processes caried out by (some) living things ?"

Q - "Would you say flying is a natural process ?"

A - These questions depend on a situation that constitutes what natural and non-natural is within human's scope of knowledge on that. That means a requirement is needed to understand what knowing what ultimately naturalness is. I think that we compare what is natural and non-natural based on our own judgments when the Nature is naturally occurred chaos but not in the disordered or randomized way that some people seem to think. I think the chaos concept need to be refined or approach differently. Because I sometime think some aspects of human's scope of understanding regarding the Nature is an inverse understanding.

An inverse understanding = order way, seems how I see that way.

Natural Process

An example: A butterfly flipping it wings; form (starts) > growth > stable > decay > death (ends) then repeats.

I'm referring natural process to be inclusive of both concept and physical, as applicable to any situation.

But.. this natural causality hypothesis (especially with the model diagram) is "outside" of the Nature and describing what is occurring in either concept or physical is within the Nature. Yet, it has no observable evidence (especially of actual live interactions) as I already and recently stated.

 

 

So no answers to discuss then, just gobbledegook.