Cause & Efect

Syncopation - in music, the displacement of regular accents associated with given metrical patterns, resulting in a disruption of the listener's expectations and the arousal of a desire for the reestablishment of metric normality; hence the characteristic "forward drive" of highly syncopated music. Syncopation may be effected by accenting normally weak beats in a measure, by resting on a normal accented beat, or by tying over a note to the next measure.

The pattern is typical of much folk-dance music, especially in eastern Europe, and its use in the Western written tradition may be traced to the 14^th century. It is a characteristic element of jazz and figures prominently in the music of Igor Stravinsky and other 20^th-century composers.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Although disputed by some quantum physicists, the concept of cause and effect is at the core of "our description of the world and ourselves within it" and it is crucial for survival of our species as well as (I suspect) of other species (even low level organisms). As a concept, it is inseparably linked in our minds with the concept of time. It also gives sense to a number of other, time related concepts: the cycle, the rhythm, the second law of thermodynamics...

In 18^th century Europe a picture of a deterministic universe ruled. A picture sometimes described as a Divine clock devised and put into motion by God. Although pleasing to the church, this picture also created some problems - notably as to the question of free will. Two extraordinary minds - David Hume and Immanuel Kant - tried to address the issue of causality and to reconcile it with the concept of free will without “losing causality.” Hume tried to find empirical evidence for our concept of causality in our experiences (he calls them impressions) - and failed. Kant (on the basis of Hume’s failure) took a different approach and concluded that our concept of the cause & effect is what he calls “a priori”.

“A priori” – Latin – a kind of predetermined, some would say “hard-wired”, concept of our mind that is independent of our experiences. This is in contrast to “a posteriori” that is derived from our experiences.

Contributions of both of them to our civilisations are hard to overstate. Kant, for example, with his concept of a priori led us towards what we now call “active perception”, while Hume led me towards, what I would call, “our concepts only corresponding to what is ‘out there’.” I do, however, think that both of them tried (consciously or not) to preserve and justify our concept of the cause & effect - and this might be an issue lingering behind many debates that echo their ideas.

I think that the importance we are giving to our concept of cause & effect is increasingly untenable. There is no doubt in practicality of cause & effect concept and its (limited) explanatory power. But this should not prevent us from looking beyond and maybe find an underlaying concept with a bit more explanatory power. (Altering the meaning of the concept does not seem feasible in this case.) I would therefore, suggest that our concept of the cause & effect is the product of our experiences and yet (based on our experiences) evolved “a priori” - a dynamic relation established in “our description of the world and ourselves within it.” It could be summarised as (fulfilled) expectation - cause - that initiates another (possibly fulfilled) expectation - effect. In a chain, these expectations may grow so strong that even faintest confirmations can sustain them - giving us, as in musical example of syncopation (above), an illusion of a regular rhythm. This particular concept of ours is relatively “soft” compared to some other concepts - like our concept of colour is. I would further suggest that through the interplay between our world of concepts and the rest of “our description of the world and ourselves within it” all of our concepts (even “hard-wired” ones embedded into our genes) could be “altered” or “replaced” to “fit” better to what is “out there.”

Nowadays, the causality is at the core of the prevailing (closed) picture of the probabilistic/deterministic universe - with little, if any, evidence of the strength of cause-effect chains. Even in the most strictly controlled environments we are not able to predict an outcome with 100% accuracy. This should give us pause - how much our concept of causality, especially in its "pure" form, corresponds to what is really "out there"?

Carl Gustav Jung established another concept - synchronicity, i.e. similar phenomena occurring with little, if any, separation in time and notable separation in space. The notion of synchronizing is also at the core of complexity theory. And indeed - wherever we look - synchronization occurs. In living forms and inanimate matter alike. Two old fashioned clocks (with pendulums) hanging on the same wall that transmits their ticks will silence each other or start to tick in unison. Schools of fish, flocks of birds or fireflies pulsing in unison are other well-known examples. Our concept of causality could also be expressed as similar phenomena occurring with little, if any, separation in space and notable separation in time.

Considering possible space/time combinations, I would suggest an alternative to our (closed) picture of the probabilistic/deterministic universe in which similar phenomena occur:

Behind all these combinations seems to be a single phenomenon - a kind of tuning across space and/or time that we interpret as causality, synchronicity or continuity. This "tuning factor" seems to be increasing as a distance in space and/or time decreases and vice versa. It is also interesting to note that an increase in space/time distance also leads to an increase of uncertainty - giving us an answer why we are not able to predict anything with 100% accuracy.

Units of space and time of our perception cannot be divided into smaller and smaller parts ad infinitum. Neither can they be multiplied into larger and larger parts ad infinitum. Although these concepts might be suitable within our domain, we should start to think about their constraints and try to adjust them accordingly.

This "tuning factor" might be emerging in the chaotic arena of quantum physics as non-local wave aspects localise particle aspects of each other (the "collapse of the wave function") in a kind of spatial/temporal symmetry. In this, the Planck's constant could be viewed as (a result of) a restraining factor that does not allow for an infinite number of possible particle positions within space/time. (Our concept of a continuum is obviously discontinued at this level.) The increase in the "volume" of interplays with little, if any, separation in space and/or time might also lead towards the emergence of the phenomenon we call gravity.

As we climb the ladder from the chaotic arena of quantum physics, the "tuning factor" seems to be increasing while uncertainty seems to be decreasing - however, this might be deceiving as we witness the return of uncertainty by moving along space/time scale. This indicates a possible equivalent to Plank's constant at our "level" also and, behind both, a link to a unifying theory - a dream of many.