물리학 및 의식의 인과성의 본질

### 인과관계에 대해 다시 생각하기: 물리학, 자유 의지, 의식의 교차점
* 🔍 인과관계는 흔히 하나의 사건이 다른 사건을 유발하는 간단한 개념으로 인식되지만, **태양 주위를 도는 지구 궤도와 같은 복잡한 현상**에 적용하면 이 정의는 미끄러지기 마련입니다.
* 🌌 아인슈타인의 방정식은 천체의 움직임을 인과관계 없이 설명하기 때문에 이러한 개념이 물리학의 영역에서도 적절한지에 대한 의문이 제기됩니다.
* 🌀 우주가 불변의 법칙에 따라 작동한다는 생각은 역사적 사건과 물리적 현상을 모두 **'하나의 연속된 것'**으로 볼 수 있다는 것을 시사하며, 인과관계에 대한 우리의 이해를 더욱 복잡하게 만듭니다.
* 🤔 자유 의지에 대한 우리의 인식과 우주의 결정론적 성격을 조화시키려는 노력은 많은 사람들이 **진정한 자유 의지가 없을 수도 있다는 사실**를 받아들이기 어렵다는 점에서 또 다른 복잡성을 더합니다.
* ⚡ 의식의 어려운 문제는 주관적 경험을 이해하는 데 있어 무생물과 마찬가지로 **인간도 동일한 자연 법칙에 구속**될 수 있다는 사실을 받아들이기 어렵게 만듭니다.
* 🔗 최근의 이론은 우주를 **불연속적인 계산 시스템**으로 모델링할 수 있다고 제안하며, 규칙을 적용하면 전통적으로 이해되는 것보다 훨씬 겸손한 의미이지만 **인과적 연결**이 만들어집니다.
* 📉 인과관계에 대한 이 수정된 개념은 제한적이기는 하지만, **특수 상대성 이론과 양자역학을 포함한 현대 물리학의 복잡성**을 신이나 신비주의적 설명 없이 이해하는 데 매우 중요합니다.
* 🌐 인과관계에 대한 이러한 미묘한 관점을 수용하면 **우주의 작동 원리를 더 깊이 탐구**할 수 있으며, 추상적인 방정식과 우리가 경험하는 혼란스러운 현실 사이의 간극을 좁힐 수 있습니다.

일반적으로 이해하는 인과관계는 우주의 방정식에는 존재하지 않을 수 있으며, 이산적 계산 모델에서는 더 낮은 수준의 연결성을 드러냅니다.

do you know what causality is? If you do, let me know because I'm not so sure. I've never come across a conception of causality that makes sense to me. After all, our universe seems to follow simple equations like this one, and there's no mention of causality in these equations. It makes me think that maybe there's no such thing as causality unless... well, here's the thing. I'm no longer sure that our universe does follow these continuous equations. I'm beginning to think that at the smallest scale, our universe might evolve through discrete computation. If that turns out to be true, it allows for a limited conception of causality. After all, it's causality, Jim, but not as we know. [Music] It... what is causality? You might think it's a silly question. I mean, causality, it's straightforward, isn't it? It's when one thing causes another. If I throw this ball, it flies through the air. The motion of my hand causes the ball to move through the air. That's causality.

Right, well sure. I mean, that gives us an idea of what we mean when we say the word cause, but I still haven't said what causality is. I confess that I find the concept of causality slippery. Sure, if we think in the abstract, we can say things like the cause must precede the effect, the cause must create the necessary conditions for the effect, the cause must increase the probability of the effect, or if we dare be less timid, the cause must necessitate the effect. But the moment we try to apply the concept of causality to real phenomena, these abstractions prove meaningless. Let me show you what I mean. Take the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Even the Catholic Church now concedes that this is a real phenomenon. Here's an equation that describes the orbit of the Earth around the Sun rather precisely. Einstein's equation tells you everything you need to know about how the Sun, the Earth, and the various other conglomerations of matter in the vicinity war space and time in such a

way that the Earth follows its slightly wobbly elliptical orbit around the sun. I'll say that again. That equation tells you everything you need to know. So, where's the causality in this phenomenon? Can we say that the Sun causes the Earth to move as it does? Can we say that the Earth causes the sun to move as it does? Can we say that the Sun and the Earth cause the warping of space and time, and that the warping of space and time causes the motion of the Sun and the Earth? Well, we could, but any such statement about what causes what seems redundant because I'll say it again. The equation tells you everything you need to know, and there's no mention of causality in the equation. These statements about the Earth causing the sun to move as it does or the sun causing the Earth to move as it does don't even conform with our abstract ideas of causality. Our most basic abstract idea of causality is that the cause must precede the effect. Does the sun precede the Earth?

does the Earth precede the sun? These questions are meaningless. Do the Sun and the Earth precede the warping of space and time? Does the warping of space and time precede the motion of the Sun and the Earth? Again, these questions are meaningless. There's no precedence; it all happens at the same time. There's no cause, no effect. Einstein's equations don't specify matter as the cause and motion as the effect any more than they specify motion as the cause and matter as the effect. Things aren't looking good for causality here. We have a real phenomenon: the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and there's just no Ro for causality. Here's my conjecture: there's no such thing as causality, at least there's no such thing as causality in the common sense of the word, no such thing as the causality we invoke when we say that the motion of my hand causes the ball to move through the air. Sure, when it comes to history in all its chaos and complexity, you can talk

about causality. You can write an essay about the causes of the First World War, or if you really want to, I'm not so sure how much sense such an essay can make. I tend to think that history is just one thing after another, but sure, the causes of the First World War, that makes some kind of sense. But when it comes to physics, the kinds of phenomena like the orbit of the Earth around the Sun that can be described by an equation, there's no place for causality. I'll say it one more time: whether it's Newton's equations of gravitation and motion, Einstein's equations for the warping of space and time, or whatever formulation might supersede these theories in the future, the equations tell you everything you need to know. Here's the catch: if you think that the Universe evolves according to immutable laws of nature rather than, say, divine intervention, occult forces, or magic spells, then it's difficult to argue that there's a place for causality in history any more than there's a place for

causality in physics. If you think that the Universe evolves according to immutable laws of nature, then the only difference between the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the First World War is the chaos and the complexity and the endless poetry. Physics and history are the same, just one thing after another. If we think that the Universe evolves according to immutable laws of nature, then why do we insist on causality? Well, here's another conjecture. We insist on causality because we insist on Free Will. It's easy to look at the Sun and the Earth and accept that there's no causality; it's all just equations. It's more difficult when we ourselves are involved. When I think about my throwing the ball, I placed the emphasis on the I. I decided to throw the ball. Sure, the Sun and the Earth just follow equations, but not me. I'm Different. The Sun and the Earth have no choice, but I do. I decided to throw the ball, but I could have decided not to throw it. I have free will. Sure, when it

comes to inanimate objects like the Earth and the Sun. Maybe it's just equations. Maybe there's no place for causality. But when it comes to me, well, I have free will. I decided to throw the ball. I caused the ball to fly through the air. Our concept of causality comes from our concept of free will. There's only one problem with this line of reasoning. There's no such thing as free will. Okay, I realized that by saying that there's no such thing as free will, I've just lost half my audience. There's something I've noticed about Free Will. No one over the age of 22 ever changes their mind about free will. All sorts of people of all sorts of ages changed their minds about all sorts of things, about whether God exists, about whether to have children, about the best flavor of ice cream. But if at the age of 22 you still believe in free will, then there's nothing I can say that'll change your mind. Why do we find it so hard to accept that there might be no such thing as

free will. Part of the problem is that, well, it feels like we have free will. Actually, it's deeper than that. Part of the problem is that it feels like anything at all to be ourselves. This is the hard problem of Consciousness. I can't tell you precisely how it feels to be me, but I can tell you that it does feel like something. If it didn't feel like anything at all to be me, if I were an ultimate on rather than a conscious human, then it wouldn't feel like I have free will. If that were the case, it wouldn't be so hard to accept that we humans, like the Sun and the Earth, just follow equations and that we, like the rest of the universe, evolve according to immutable laws of nature, that there's no need for a concept of causality. I don't have a solution to the hard problem of Consciousness. I don't know why it feels like something to be me. That's why they call it the hard problem of Consciousness. It's a hard problem to solve.

but I do have an idea why, quite apart from the fact that it feels like we have free will, we find it so hard to accept that we might be as bound by the immutable laws of nature as the Sun and the Earth. It goes back to the chaos and the complexity. It's difficult to overstate how much more chaotic and complex my throwing the more is than the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Think about it: the mechanism by which my muscles contracted in the precise configurations required to move my hand in such a way as to throw the ball is not too complicated. Electrical impulses propagated along the nerves from my brain to my muscles; sodium and calcium ions were released into the muscle fibers; these fibers contracted. I mean, even here, it's tempting to lapse into the language of causality: the electrical impulses caused the release of the sodium and calcium ions; the sodium and calcium ions caused the muscle fibers to contract. But here, at least, it's not too hard to imagine that it all just follows.

from the biological pathways, which follow from the chemical reactions, which follow from the physical equations. Call it causality if you must, but it's all just one thing after another. Where we run into trouble is in tracing those electrical impulses back into my brain. What was the mechanism by which the neurons in my brain fired in the precise configuration required to move my hand in such a way as to throw the ball? Well, that's an astonishingly, ridiculously, impossibly complex question. The answer of the Free Will believer that I decided to throw the ball explains nothing. Any serious answer to that question must address the following realities: I threw the ball at the point in this episode which I first mentioned during the B. It seemed appropriate when I wrote the script of this episode. I is a simple visual example of what we think of as causality that involved what we think of as free will. I actually originally thought of throwing a stone, but I decided it would be better if I threw a ball since it's a clear demonstration of Val.

and so why did I write this script? Well, I wrote this script because I wanted to tackle the question of what causality is, since it's a natural question to arise from my previous episode on causal invariance, as well as an essential question to answer ahead of my upcoming episodes on the causal graph. I launched the last Theory because I heard about war physics, found a compelling opportunity to fight about it, and make videos about it. As I explored it, I was well placed to do so because I'd spent half a lifetime reading physics, reading philosophy, writing books, writing code, creating simulations, creating visualizations, and making movies. These predilections were made possible by the circumstances of my life, including the Technologies of paper, computers, cameras, and the culture of Education, Enterprise, and Freedom. The civilization in which I find myself arrived at these technologies and this culture after thousands of years of exploration, commerce, persuasion, and revolution. If the circumstances of my life made my reading, writing, coding, and creating possible, my genes too predispose me to these directions. My

genes are an improvable combination of nucleotides in spirals that have evolved over billions of years of life on Earth, influenced by an unimaginable number of incidents in which organisms with different combinations of nucleotides thrived or wasted away. These nucleotides are made up of atoms formed in stars, scattered through space through supernova explosions, made up of particles formed in the first few seconds of the universe. I don't mean to be grandiose, but the story of how I came to throw the ball is the story of the universe. It's easy to accept that the parabolic path of the ball through the air follows simple equations. It's harder to accept that the billions of years of chaos and complexity that lay through particles, atoms, nucleotides, genes, evolution, proteins, and neurons, not to mention all of human history, to my throwing the ball also follows simple equations. That's just harder to accept. I don't blame you if you're tempted to collapse this low-level chaos and complexity into a more harmonious

high-level concepts such as God, the human soul, or free will. And if you do, I can see how the concept of causality might come along for the ride. God decrees human souls commit acts of virtue and vice. I, in an exercise of free will, decide. But if you hold out hope that there might be equations that tell you everything you need to know about how the universe evolves without resort to any such Dex smina, then you might be inclined to conclude that there's no such thing as causality. And yet, I do think that there's a role for causality in physics. I wouldn't be making videos about causal invariance and causal graphs if I didn't. There is such a thing as causality; it just ain't what you think it is. In this episode, I've been talking about equations like this one in which there's no role for causality. Lately, however, I've been beginning to wonder whether such continuous equations, though they undoubtedly capture the behavior of our universe at a large scale, might not be

mere approximations to a discrete computational model at a small scale. Warr physics postulates that the Universe might be modeled by a hypergraph of nodes and edges that evolves over time through the repeated application of rules in this discrete computational model of space and time. Physics is literally just one thing after another. There are no Godlike equations that trace the simple stable orbit of the Earth around the Sun over billions of years, at least not at the smallest scale, not at the scale of the nodes and the edges of the hypergraph. There's just one application of a rule to the hypergraph, then another application of a rule to the hypergraph, then another application of a rule to the hypergraph, and all the chaos and complexity that arises from these simple applications of a rule to the hypergraph. And it's here, in these applications of a rule to the hypergraph, that we uncover a role for causality. After all, if one application of a rule to the hypergraph plays a part in creating the necessary conditions for

another application of a rule to the hypergraph. We can say that there's a causal connection between those two applications of a rule to the hypergraph. It's not much. I'm not saying that one application of a rule to the hypergraph causes the other application of a rule to the hypergraph. I'm just saying that there's a causal connection between them. This is not your grandmother's causality. It turns out, though, that this humbler conception of causal connection is crucial to our understanding of the universe. According to the Warfare model, it takes us to the causal graph, and that takes us to special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. There's no de ex machina here, no God, no human soul, no free will. But if you're willing to accept that causality ain't what you think it is, if you're willing to embrace this humbler concept of causal connection, well, we can go a long way with that. [Music]

Causality ain't what you think it is

The Last Theory

인과관계는 종종 간단해 보이지만, 그 개념은 미끄럽고 추상적일 수 있습니다.

연사는 인과관계에 대한 전통적인 이해, 특히 인과관계를 언급하지 않고 방정식이 모든 답을 제공하는 것처럼 보이는 태양 주위의 지구 궤도와 같은 실제 현상에 적용할 때 인과관계에 대한 전통적인 이해에 의문을 제기합니다.

연사는 우주가 가장 작은 규모의 불연속적인 계산을 통해 진화할 수 있으며, 이는 인과관계에 대한 제한된 개념을 허용할 수 있다고 제안합니다.

지구의 태양 주위를 도는 궤도와 시공간의 뒤틀림 현상에서 인과관계에 의문을 제기하며, 이러한 현상이 명확한 인과관계 없이 동시에 발생한다는 것을 시사합니다.

저자는 인과 관계를 암시하지 않고 방정식으로 현상을 설명하는 물리학에서는 일반적으로 이해되는 인과 관계가 존재하지 않을 수 있다고 주장합니다.

인과관계에 대한 주장은 자유의지 개념과 연결되어 우주의 결정론적 본질과 개인의 선택에 대한 인식 사이에 긴장감을 조성합니다.

자유 의지의 개념에 의문을 제기하는 사람들이 종종 있으며, 저자는 자유 의지가 실제로 존재하지 않는다고 주장합니다.

사람들은 22세가 되면 자유의지에 대한 믿음이 굳어지는 경향이 있어 마음을 바꾸기 어렵다고 합니다.

공을 던지는 것과 같은 인간 행동의 복잡성과 혼돈은 자유 의지에 대한 환상을 불러일으키지만, 저자는 인간도 무생물처럼 자연의 법칙에 구속될 수 있다고 말합니다.

인과관계와 자유 의지의 복잡성

인과관계는 사건의 연속이지만 뇌의 전기 자극을 추적하는 것은 매우 복잡합니다.

자유의지에 대한 믿음은 다양한 요인과 상황에 의해 영향을 받기 때문에 행동에 대한 만족스러운 설명을 제공하지 못합니다.

화자의 삶의 경험, 기술, 유전자는 모두 행동과 결정을 형성하는 데 중요한 역할을 합니다.

유전자의 진화와 인과관계의 복잡성

유전자는 뉴클레오타이드로 구성되어 있으며, 지구 생명체의 역사에서 다양한 사건의 영향을 받아 수십억 년에 걸쳐 진화해 왔습니다.

이 뉴클레오타이드의 이야기는 우주의 첫 순간에 형성된 입자와 별에서 생성된 원자로 거슬러 올라갑니다.

연사는 우주 진화의 혼돈과 인과관계 개념 사이의 관계를 고찰하며, 인과관계가 존재하지만 일반적으로 생각하는 것만큼 간단하지 않을 수 있음을 시사합니다.

하이퍼그래프로 보는 우주: 불연속 계산 모델

우주는 노드와 에지의 하이퍼그래프로 모델링할 수 있으며, 규칙의 적용을 통해 시간이 지남에 따라 진화합니다.

우주의 안정성을 지배하는 신과 같은 방정식은 없으며, 대신 혼돈과 복잡성은 단순한 규칙 적용에서 비롯됩니다.

인과 관계에 대한 이러한 겸손한 개념은 우주를 이해하는 데 매우 중요하며 특수 상대성 이론, 일반 상대성 이론, 양자역학에 대한 통찰로 이어집니다.