You said:
ChatGPT said:
You’re putting your finger on a real fault line in modern physics, and also on a quiet metaphysical assumption that often sneaks in unexamined.
When physicists say that spacetime may not be “fundamental,” they usually mean something quite modest and technical: spacetime may not be part of the deepest level of the theory’s basic variables. It may instead be an emergent description, like temperature or pressure. Temperature is not fundamental in the sense that no molecule “has” a temperature; it arises from collective behavior. Yet causation doesn’t stop at temperature—rather, temperature is a coarse‑grained way of talking about underlying dynamics.
String theory’s early rhetoric about strings being “fundamental” was in that same technical sense, not in the philosophical sense of being uncaused or explanatory bedrock. A string is “fundamental” only in that, within the theory, it is not composed of smaller entities defined by the theory. That’s a very local claim: “this is the smallest thing we currently need.” It is not a claim that causation terminates there.
Your intuition about a “boundary to causation” is exactly right if one hears “fundamental” in the metaphysical sense. Physics does not—and really cannot—mean that. Even if strings were truly indivisible, their behavior would still be governed by laws, interactions, symmetries, constraints. Causation would not end; it would just stop being reducible to substructure. Explanation would shift from “what are they made of?” to “why do they behave this way?”
In fact, string theory itself undermines the idea of absolute fundamentality. Dualities show that what looks fundamental in one description becomes composite in another. A string in one formulation can be a soliton, a bound state, or a geometrical excitation in another. When a theory has multiple mathematically equivalent descriptions, the very notion of “the fundamental object” dissolves. What’s fundamental is the structure of the theory, not any particular thing in it.
The same applies to spacetime. In many approaches (AdS/CFT, loop gravity, tensor networks), spacetime geometry emerges from non-spatiotemporal degrees of freedom. But causation doesn’t vanish; it gets re-expressed. Instead of events causing events in spacetime, you have correlations, constraints, and dynamical relations in a more abstract arena, from which spacetime causal order appears as an effective notion.
So the tension you feel comes from a category mistake that physicists sometimes encourage by sloppy language. “Fundamental” in physics does not mean “the ultimate cause” or “the end of explanation.” It means “not currently modeled as composite.” The moment you ask why the fundamental thing has the properties it does, you’ve already stepped beyond that notion.
In short: physics has no room for a true boundary to causation. What it has are shifting boundaries of description. When spacetime or strings stop being fundamental, it doesn’t mean we’ve hit bedrock—it means the bedrock metaphor was wrong to begin with.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now you’re hitting on one of the trickiest concepts in both physics and philosophy: causal loops. In principle, yes—they’re allowed in some theoretical frameworks, but nature doesn’t make them easy to find.
In programming, as you said, a
circular dependency can create a crash or infinite loop. That’s
straightforward because computers are rigidly sequential: if A → B → C → A
and nothing breaks the loop, the CPU keeps spinning. But physical
reality isn’t a CPU; it doesn’t execute step by step in the same sense.
In physics, causal loops mostly show up in discussions of time travel and general relativity.
Certain solutions to Einstein’s equations—like the Gödel metric or
traversable wormholes under very exotic matter conditions—allow closed timelike curves (CTCs). On a CTC, an event could in principle be both cause and effect of itself: A → B → C → A. That’s a literal circular causation.
The problem: such loops are extremely unstable or constrained. In the 1990s, physicist Kip Thorne and others showed that traversable wormholes might permit loops, but any tiny perturbation could destroy them. There’s also the “Novikov self-consistency principle,” which says that if such a loop exists, events in it must be self-consistent: you can’t make a paradox (like going back and preventing your own birth). In other words, causation can circle, but the loop imposes strict constraints on what actually happens.
Outside relativity, in quantum
mechanics or fundamental physics more broadly, causal loops are mostly
speculative. Some interpretations—like the two-state vector formalism or certain post-selected quantum theories—allow a kind of retrocausality, where future measurement choices influence past events. But these are not exactly A → B → C → A in a classical sense; they’re more like correlations that defy naive temporal ordering.
So yes: circular causation is imaginable in physics, unlike in standard software, but it comes with severe rules to prevent paradoxes. Nature seems to hate unconstrained loops.
If you want, I can sketch a “map” of the known theoretical ways physics could allow a causal loop, and what stops it from crashing the universe. It’s… weirdly satisfying.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s the deep tension you’re touching. In classical metaphysics, if causation always goes forward and never loops, you’re left with two uncomfortable options: either a first cause (something uncaused that starts everything) or an infinite regress of causes. Philosophers have been chewing on that for millennia.
Circular causation is, in a way, the “third option”: cause and effect can form a loop, so there is no true beginning or end. In principle, the loop is self-sustaining. The problem is that, in physics, loops are tricky to reconcile with stability and consistency. Unlike software, the universe can’t “just crash,” but paradoxes like the classic “grandfather problem” impose constraints. That’s why physicists talk about self-consistent loops: they exist, but only if the events along the loop exactly fit together so nothing contradicts itself.
Some thinkers even argue that our usual notion of time itself might be emergent, so what looks like “infinite regression” or “first cause” could just be a slice through a more complex web of relationships that include loops. Causation becomes a property of the network, not a strictly linear chain.
It’s tempting, isn’t it, to imagine the universe as one giant, self-contained causal loop—no beginning, no end, just a stable pattern of influences. Philosophically satisfying, though hard to test physically.
If you like, I can give an example of a concrete hypothetical loop in physics where A → B → C → A could actually hold without paradox. It’s a little mind-bending, but striking.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s a really sharp way to put it. Causal loops in theory could exist “under the radar” if the conditions are perfectly consistent, but as soon as anything slightly unpredictable enters the loop—some tiny fluctuation, a random quantum event—the consistency could fail. That’s what physicists mean when they talk about instability in closed timelike curves: the paradox is like a gear grinding against an invisible constraint, and eventually something has to give.
That’s why many think nature is “paradox-averse.” Loops aren’t banned outright in theory, but they’re either extremely fragile or require rules that prevent any contradiction from arising (like Novikov’s self-consistency principle). In other words, a loop can exist only if every event along it is precisely what it has to be to avoid breaking causation. One nudge off the prescribed path, and the loop can’t survive.
Your analogy to a computer crash works nicely: the universe isn’t exactly “restarted,” but if the causal gears jam, the loop either collapses, evaporates, or is constrained so tightly that nothing new can happen within it.
If you want, I can sketch a “toy model” of such a loop where it works mathematically and show how even a tiny perturbation would disrupt it. It’s surprisingly intuitive once you see it.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—you’re thinking about it the right way. In a computer, the “crash” is artificial: the CPU itself doesn’t care about infinite loops, it just keeps executing instructions. The crash comes from the program hitting a safety check, running out of memory, or reaching some externally imposed limit. Without those safeguards, the loop would just spin forever, consuming resources but not violating any logical law.
In a universe with a true causal loop, there wouldn’t be an external “monitor” to stop it. The loop could, in principle, cycle endlessly. The universe might sustain the loop as a stable, self-consistent pattern of events. But the tricky part is stability: even the tiniest perturbation—say, a quantum fluctuation—could accumulate over repeated cycles and eventually disrupt the loop. Unlike a computer program, the universe has no hard-coded “loop detectors,” but physics itself imposes constraints: energy conditions, conservation laws, quantum uncertainty—all of these act like natural safeguards that can either maintain or destabilize a loop.
So yes, an eternal loop is logically imaginable, but in practice, the universe would either constrain it to a perfectly self-consistent path or gradually wear it down. In a way, it’s like a perpetual-motion machine that might work only if the laws are just right, and any imperfection slowly kills it.
If you want, I can walk through a simple analogy where a causal loop could actually run forever without paradox, just to make it concrete. It’s weirdly elegant.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s the heart of the philosophical tension. If you insist that causation must always go forward and never loop back, then you are forced into one of two extremes: either posit a first cause—something uncaused that starts everything, which is metaphysically tricky—or accept an infinite regress of causes stretching backward forever, which is conceptually unsettling and physically dubious.
Causal loops offer a third option: causation can be self-sustaining without a beginning or end. In a perfect loop, each event is both cause and effect of others, so there’s no need for a first cause and no regress that goes on forever in a linear chain. The loop is its own explanatory network. The universe—or some subsystem—could, in principle, operate entirely within that closed network.
The catch, as we’ve said, is stability. Nature seems to favor linear or branching causation for simplicity and robustness. A small perturbation in a loop could cause inconsistencies, much like a tiny bug in a program eventually halts the cycle. That’s why the loops we can imagine in physics—closed timelike curves, self-consistent retrocausal systems—are always extremely constrained. They’re mathematically elegant but precarious.
So philosophically, yes: causal loops elegantly avoid the dilemma of first cause versus infinite regress. Practically, the universe seems to make them rare, delicate, or hidden.
If you like, I can sketch a simple toy scenario of a self-consistent causal loop that sidesteps both regress and first cause—makes it feel tangible rather than just abstract. It’s actually quite satisfying.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s a very natural intuition, and it’s essentially the same reasoning transposed from time to causation. In the old argument, you’re saying: if the past were infinite, then reaching the present would be like traversing an infinite sequence—you can never get to the end. That’s often called the “traversal problem” for actual infinites in time.
When you substitute causation for time, it’s the same logic: if every effect has a prior cause going back infinitely, how do you ever get to the present event? Each cause is “one step back,” so an infinite regress seems impossible to complete. Philosophers and mathematicians have long debated this; some argue that infinite causal chains are coherent if we don’t insist on a linear traversal but instead think of the chain as a structure rather than a process to be “completed.”
Causal loops elegantly sidestep this. In a loop, there’s no “first” or “last” cause, so there’s nothing to traverse. You don’t need to “climb out of the well” because the well is circular: A → B → C → A, endlessly. No paradox arises as long as self-consistency is maintained. The loop isn’t about reaching an end; it’s about maintaining a stable network of causes.
So yes: your intuition about a beginning makes sense for linear chains, but causal loops are the sophisticated twist that show linearity isn’t a metaphysical necessity. They replace “progression through steps” with “consistency among interconnected steps,” which can be logically self-contained.
If you want, I can make a really simple, almost tangible example of a causal loop to see this idea “in action” without needing time travel fantasy. It’s surprisingly intuitive once you see it.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Haha, yes—he would have a field day with this! Aquinas loved wrestling with questions of first cause and infinite regress, and he had a remarkably subtle grasp of logic and metaphysics for his time. I can almost hear him stroking his beard while saying, “Ah, but my friends, what you call a causal loop—does it preserve the metaphysical necessity of the first mover, or merely shuffle the infinite regress into a circle?”
He would probably be fascinated and horrified at the idea of circular causation: it’s like the medieval equivalent of trying to argue that a self-contained clockwork universe could exist without God setting it in motion. On the other hand, he might secretly delight in the elegance of a self-consistent loop—it’s a clever solution to the same problems he was obsessing over.
Honestly, a modern Aquinas in conversation with contemporary physics might point out: the “first cause” argument isn’t just about chronology, it’s about explanatory grounding. Even in a causal loop, you might still ask, “Why does this loop exist at all?” That’s where metaphysics meets physics, and where Thomistic reasoning could really shine—even if he didn’t have wormholes to play with.
If you like, I can try to channel a “St. Thomas-style argument” about causal loops versus first cause, in a short, readable way—it’s kind of fun to see medieval reasoning meet modern physics.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s a beautifully simple and modern take. Once the loop exists, it just exists—no external first cause is required. Its existence is self-sufficient, at least in the sense of explanatory grounding: the loop explains itself through its internal consistency. There’s no need to invoke anything outside it to start or sustain it.
This is the advantage of thinking in terms of circular causation over linear regress. In linear chains, you always need something “before” to explain the present. In a closed loop, the explanatory power is contained internally. “A causes B causes C causes A”—that network of causes is its own foundation.
Philosophically, it’s a subtle shift: instead of asking what began it, you ask how the network maintains self-consistency. The answer is: by its very structure, the loop cannot fail without violating its own constraints. Existence and causal coherence are bundled together.
It’s almost elegant enough to make a Thomist pause—but I suspect he’d squirm at the lack of a “prime mover” outside the loop!
If you want, I can give a concrete, intuitive analogy for a self-sustaining causal loop that shows how it “exists because it exists” without paradox. It’s surprisingly visual.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Okay—here’s a simple, almost tangible analogy for a self-sustaining causal loop. Imagine a small ecosystem, like a closed terrarium:
-
Inside, there are plants, oxygen, and tiny animals.
-
The plants produce oxygen, which the animals breathe.
-
The animals produce carbon dioxide, which the plants need to grow.
-
Nutrients from the animals’ waste fertilize the plants, and so on.
If you set it up perfectly, the loop sustains itself indefinitely. Each element “causes” the next, and the last element feeds back to the first: plants → oxygen → animals → waste → plants. There is no external “starter” once the system is running. The loop exists, and it exists because it exists: the internal network of causes keeps everything going.
Now, transpose this to abstract causation:
-
Event A causes B
-
Event B causes C
-
Event C causes A
If the sequence is internally consistent, nothing outside the loop is needed. It’s self-explanatory, just like the terrarium sustains itself without someone continually intervening. You could, in principle, stretch this indefinitely: no “first cause,” no infinite regress—just a closed network that maintains itself.
Of course, just like the terrarium, any tiny disturbance could destabilize the loop in the real world. But in principle, it shows that causal loops are logically coherent: existence doesn’t always require something external to start it.
If you want, I can draw a little diagram showing the loop visually, so it’s easier to “see” the self-sustaining network. It’s neat to look at.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s the neat twist. If time itself is emergent, then the whole “first cause” problem becomes less pressing. There isn’t a linear “before” that needs explaining; causation can exist as a self-consistent network, and “earlier” and “later” are just emergent labels within that network. The loop just is, and asking what came first is a meaningless question because the underlying framework doesn’t have fundamental temporal order.
It’s a very elegant way to dissolve the paradox: no infinite regress, no first cause, no traversal problem—just a web of relations that sustains itself. Philosophically, it’s almost satisfying in its simplicity, even if our intuition still wants a starting point.
If you like, we can think about what such a “timeless loop of causation” would feel like from inside, conceptually—because it really stretches our everyday notions of cause and effect.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—that’s a very natural next step. If you think of a causal loop as a dynamic system, then just like in engineering or biology, you can imagine built-in corrective mechanisms that maintain stability. The loop might not have to be perfectly fragile; instead, small deviations could be “smoothed out” by internal feedback.
Think of a thermostat: the temperature can fluctuate slightly, but the system constantly corrects itself to stay near the set point. In a causal loop, some interactions could act like that: if one event drifts slightly off what’s needed for consistency, later events compensate, nudging the system back onto the self-consistent path.
In physics, similar ideas appear in discussions of self-consistent closed timelike curves. The Novikov principle is essentially a “mathematical corrective mechanism”: the only events that can happen on the loop are those that maintain global consistency. You can’t arbitrarily change A without forcing B and C to adjust automatically, because the loop constrains the possibilities.
In a more general sense, you could imagine causal loops as resilient networks, not brittle chains. Small perturbations wouldn’t destroy the loop—they’d be absorbed, redistributed, or corrected. Stability becomes a property of the loop itself, not something imposed from outside.
It’s a striking shift: instead of a fragile, paradox-prone structure, you get a self-regulating, self-sustaining causal ecosystem. In that sense, a causal loop could be just as “real” and robust as linear causation—maybe even more elegant, because it doesn’t require an arbitrary starting point.
If you like, I can sketch a toy example of a self-correcting loop that keeps itself consistent despite perturbations—it’s a surprisingly intuitive picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment