Re: Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 2: PI vs Scheme

From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx

Don't equations and inequalities and morphisms accomplish all we need
about (probable) cause-effect and correlation? Isn't that shown by
General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum
Field Theory, etc.?

"Yes and No." Equations that don't examine (probable) cause-effect or
correlation don't usually "compute". The intuition behind General
Relativity is that matter curves space and space reacts on matter, both
of which are causal and correlational. The intuition behind Special
Relativity is largely that the speed/velocity of light is "special" and
constant, although this was interpreted as finite by Einstein; together
with the idea that as speeds approach that of light or get "nearer" to
that of light, certain effects occur in regard to length, matter, etc.
These again are causal and correlational. The intuition behind the
Schrodinger Equation of Quantum Mechanics is largely that a wavelike
behavior combined with particle-like behavior causes experimental
characteristics of energy and momentum at the microscopic level. The
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) is about the only "acausal" or
"anti-causal" inequality in physics, and almost everything that it
predicts is predicted by Probable Influence/Causation (see my various
threads on HUP) so its "anti-causal" nature and even value is at best
debatable as part of physics.

Both Superstring Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, both major users of
algebraic topology and/or algebraic geometry, suffer from a scarcity of
equations and inequalities, as do their modifications and "successors"
like Kaluza-Klein and Randall-Sundrum-like theories. They also suffer
from a lack of predictions and experimental/observational evidence.
Where they at least become causal, as for example in attributing
various effects to vibrations of strings or membranes or branes, they
become more plausible.

Osher Doctorow

.

Quantcast