phenomenological musings

[Trevor Salyzyn]

clyde,

Cause and effect, even as a principle, cannot exist without things and time.

Why does causality require the existence of things or time? You are limiting the principle's scope unnecessarily, and actually making it not an essential feature of reality.

I feel the logical form "P implies Q, AND not-P implies not-Q" expresses the fundamental truth "there is no effect without a cause" more perfectly than your version.


Leyla,

I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite.

I don't think cause and effect can be separated at all, and I believe it completely accidental to our language that they are two concepts. They should rightly be one word (causality).

It is similar to the infinitive form of a verb. English is the only language that I know of where you can split an infinite ("to boldly go...").

God damn it. Is there no escaping Her?! :)

Oh my gosh. What a terrible example I used!

[clyde]

Trevor;

What is P? What is Q?

Yes, I know that they are symbols, but aren't symbols things?
And doesn't cause occur before effect and effect occur after cause?

Do no harm,
clyde

[Trevor Salyzyn]

clyde,

Yes, I know that they are symbols, but aren't symbols things?

A symbol is a thing, but what it refers to does not necessarily have to be a thing. Unless, of course, you use the broadest possible definition of thing... in which case, the logical form would be nearly identical with your version.

And doesn't cause occur before effect and effect occur after cause?

Causes can occur before effects, in anticausal views of the world. I don't understand time very well, and I'm growing pretty certain that nobody understands exactly what time is. I prefer to keep time out of my theories so they can remain timeless (bad pun).

[clyde]

Trevor;

It seems to me that your “principle” may not be cause and effect, but logic.

Of course, one could argue that logic has no self-existence, but requires a mind to exist and that logic also requires “things” such as (logical) operators and operands.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Trevor Salyzyn]

clyde,

It seems to me that your “principle” may not be cause and effect, but logic.

No, my principle is the simplest logical expression of causality.

That one event is dependent on another, and that it would not occur had the other event not occured can be expressed as "P then Q, AND not-P then not-Q".

[clyde]

Trevor;

OK, I asked (re: logic) and you answered.

Then P and Q are symbols for events which occur. How do you define and understand an event? Clearly two events are required (a cause event and an effect event), so they must be differentiated. What must exist for the differentiation (e.g. – space and time)?

Do no harm,
clyde

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kevin,

I was thinking of an infinite number of different kinds of brains.

I'm of the opinion that there are only so many ways that matter can arrange itself to form a brain, and thus there is a limitation to the possible number of different sorts of brains.

I consider the higher dimension to be a logical necessity. If a thing "wraps around" then it does so within a dimension . . . in which it wraps around. Were it not for that other dimension, it wouldn't be able to wrap around.

Actually, come to think of it, I really don't see why the fourth dimension should be necessary at all. It wraps around because that's the way it is. It's curved. If you drew a straight line across a non-euclidean universe it'd eventually meet back up with itself. To suggest that there would have to be another dimension for the geometry of our universe to work like this doesn't make much sense to me. No more then insisting that there would have to be another dimension for our universe to operate according to euclidean geometry.


Leyla,

Cause and effect, which is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

Virtual particles pop out of nothing all the time. Atomic decay happens at random intervals. Electrons move indeterminately. Causes have effects, but not all causes are themselves caused, including, perhaps, the beginning of the universe.

[Leyla Shen]

Cause and effect, which is a principle that arises with things and time and cannot therefore be separate from/independent of them, is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

If we have predicted the end of this solar system, have we at the same time accurately predicted the end of the universe?

In response to the above, clyde wrote:

Actually, no. I don’t know what the universe is, but even things and time have conditions (e.g. – space). But let’s move on to the second sentence.

Well, wait a minute, if you don’t know what the universe is--not even a provisional definition for it--in what context exactly are we discussing anything on the matter?

By definition, there can be no cause without an effect.

So, you just pulled this out of your arse in order to prove what? How can you know this without knowing what the universe and thus time, space and causality (cause and effect) are?

.

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan wrote:

By definition, cause cannot exist without effect, and effect cannot exist without cause. Based on your proposal, this "necessarily" makes the universe infinite. How so?

[laughs] Wow. Seriously, it kinda sticks out like dogs balls to me! But I will work on expressing it another way. Give me some time.

Perhaps you might like to work on another way to express your antithesis?

.

[Leyla Shen]

Trevor:

It is similar to the infinitive form of a verb. English is the only language that I know of where you can split an infinite ("to boldly go...").

I'm not sure I understand this similarity between causality as "cause and effect" and a split infinitive. In grammatical terms, an infinitive verb is a verb without limitations, such as "boldly, willingly, solemnly," etc. Adding an adverb is splitting the infinitive.

Can you elaborate?

.

[Tharan]

Perhaps you might like to work on another way to express your antithesis?

What is my antithesis? I am a simple unfrozen philosopher caveman. Your ideas of Perfection and Infinity confuse and frighten me.

I have no presonal emotion on whether or not "perfect infinity" is a real thing or is a figment of religiously minded individual's imaginations. If it is real..great! If it is not real...great! The reality is, we are surrounded by finite objects and limiting parameters with absolutely no evidence of objects or situations without limiting factors. As far as my limited, Neanderthal mind can see, it is simple physics and an honest expression of observable Nature. It is you and other believers that must prove your hypothesis of "perfect infinity," not me.

[clyde]

Cause and effect, which is a principle that arises with things and time and cannot therefore be separate from/independent of them, is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

If we have predicted the end of this solar system, have we at the same time accurately predicted the end of the universe?

In response to the above, clyde wrote:

Actually, no. I don’t know what the universe is, but even things and time have conditions (e.g. – space). But let’s move on to the second sentence.

Well, wait a minute, if you don’t know what the universe is--not even a provisional definition for it--in what context exactly are we discussing anything on the matter?

Leyla;

Sorry about that. I had not meant that including “things and time” would complete the definition. But you seemed agreeable and had accepted my comment, so I did not want to extend the list (and I’m not able to give the definitive list) and accepted what you proposed as the provisional definition.

By definition, there can be no cause without an effect.

So, you just pulled this out of your arse in order to prove what? How can you know this without knowing what the universe and thus time, space and causality (cause and effect) are?

.

I don’t know it. It is how I define cause and effect, as mutually dependent occurrences; it’s like two ends of a stick, you can’t have just one end.

How do you understand cause?

Do no harm,
clyde

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

[laughs] Wow. Seriously, it kinda sticks out like dogs balls to me! But I will work on expressing it another way. Give me some time.

The problem with your suggestion is that you assume that all things must be caused. You essentially go off of Hume's definition of causation in which an effect directly follows from a cause. This doesn't seem to be the case. We can see that though a lit match can cause a forest fire, not every lit match will cause a forest fire. The effect doesn't follow from the cause. Now if we think of a cause as merely the appropriate conditions to create an effect, we should suggest that a match thrown into a pile of dry leaves in the middle of a forest will cause a forest fire. Still, this isn't always the case. We can continue to add stipulations to this, but for many effects we'd have to conclude that we can never establish perceivable initial conditions that will lead to an guaranteed outcome. For the role of a dice, for instance, the effect may be partially determined by interactions at the quantum level. Nevertheless, even at the quantum level there are plenty of events we cannot predict reliably based on initial conditions.

Here's a breakdown of your logic.
P1) Every effect must have a cause.
P2) Every cause must have an effect.
C) The universe must be infinite.

You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, so we'll add an additional premise that I think you mean to imply.

P1) Every effect must have a cause.
P2) Every cause must have an effect.
P3) Everything must be caused.
C) The universe must be infinite.

It's P3 that I disagree with.

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan:

What is my antithesis?

Oh, you just like getting in on the “action“?

I am a simple unfrozen philosopher caveman.

Thanks for the belated warning.

Your ideas of Perfection and Infinity confuse and frighten me.

I don’t think they are confusing or frightening. But which idea/s are we talking about, exactly?

I have no presonal emotion on whether or not "perfect infinity" is a real thing or is a figment of religiously minded individual's imaginations. If it is real..great! If it is not real...great!

Good for you!

The reality is, we are surrounded by finite objects and limiting parameters with absolutely no evidence of objects or situations without limiting factors.

Where does what I have said imply that there are objects or situations without limiting factors? I think you are arguing with a ghost.

As far as my limited, Neanderthal mind can see, it is simple physics and an honest expression of observable Nature. It is you and other believers that must prove your hypothesis of "perfect infinity," not me.

Again, “perfect infinity” is a substance you have injected into the discussion, not me.

~

I will invest no time into rephrasing my position toward further discussion with you. I think you're just playing a strange little game here, whilst what I am putting forward actually means something to me--even if it did turn out to be false (which I have no reason to assume it is, so far).

.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

P1) Every effect must have a cause.
P2) Every cause must have an effect.
P3) Everything must be caused.
C) The universe must be infinite.

It's P3 that I disagree with.

Yes, that's the way I see it.

But, why do you disagree with P3? I don't think the fact that one can't know all the specific causes of everything is an argument against causality. What are the premises that lead to that conclusion?

.

[Leyla Shen]

Hey, clyde, no worries. I'll review the course of our discussion soon and see if I can get it back on track.

.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

But, why do you disagree with P3? I don't think the fact that one can't know all the specific causes of everything is an argument against causality. What are the premises that lead to that conclusion?

I can't give a proof that invisible gnomes don't exist, but if I demonstrate that we have no evidence of invisible gnomes, then I feel that constitutes something of an argument against belief. If you don't believe in causality because you observe it, then what is your reason for belief? Now you can suggest that we do see causality, but I'm not arguing against causality in general, just necessary causality. My opinion is that it's possible that everything is caused, but there is no reason to suspect it must be. If you're merely trying to say that it's probable that time is infinite, then I'd have to agree with you.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Leyla,

I'm not sure I understand this similarity between causality as "cause and effect" and a split infinitive. In grammatical terms, an infinitive verb is a verb without limitations, such as "boldly, willingly, solemnly," etc. Adding an adverb is splitting the infinitive.

The adverb would be "boldly".
"To go" is the infinitive form of the verb.
Splitting the infinitive is when you place a word between the "to" and the "go" (such as "boldly").

The infinitive form of the verb be, "To be", in French is "Etre" (with a little top-hat over the first E). Because it's one word, you can't split infinitives in French.

It's never "to not go", since not go is not a verb. It is "not to go", or in unusual cases "to go not". There should not be a space between the to and the the go.

In the same way, "cause and effect" seems a complete misnomer. It should really just be "causality", since it's really only one concept. When you say the word "cause", you automatically imply that there is an effect, and vice versa. Cause and effect is a process that cannot be meaningfully split into two entirely different things.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

P1) Every effect must have a cause.
P2) Every cause must have an effect.
P3) Everything must be caused.
C) The universe must be infinite.

It's P3 that I disagree with.

L:

But, why do you disagree with P3? I don't think the fact that one can't know all the specific causes of everything is an argument against causality. What are the premises that lead to that conclusion?

ExI:

I can't give a proof that invisible gnomes don't exist, but if I demonstrate that we have no evidence of invisible gnomes, then I feel that constitutes something of an argument against belief.

Wait…since we can’t know all the specific causes of things (“invisible gnomes”), then all the evidence that points to the fact that things are caused (empirical and logical) becomes false because we might just as well literally believe in invisible gnomes?

[Edit: added first two quotes to assist in maintaining focal point of discussion]

.

[Leyla Shen]

Trevor, man, punctuation can be deadly! One extraneous comma and the whole subject goes to hell.

"Cause and effect" is not really a misnomer and any separation is indeed inferred--it is, however, the detail in an understanding of causality. Even the French have a word for all three ideas.

You sure your problem's not with the word "and"?

.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

Wait…since we can’t know all the specific causes of things (“invisible gnomes”), then all the evidence that points to the fact that things are caused (empirical and logical) becomes false because we might just as well literally believe in invisible gnomes?

Actually, that's not really what I was saying at all. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe that causation is absolutely necessary, given that many observable phenomena seem to get by just fine without it. I think the idea of necessary universal causation is something of a relic from a bygone era when everything observable seemed quite obviously to have a cause of some sort. Now that research into quantum mechanics has demonstrated that such isn't the case, there really is no good reason to insist that everything requires a cause to happen. Things do seem to depend upon specific conditions, but that's hardly causality in the way that Hume and others have defined the term. Probabilistic causality, rather then traditional causality, strikes me as having something to it, but it also seems to be somewhat of an information void theory. It says little beyond the fact that things aren't all utterly arbitrary, which I imagine nobody would disagree with.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

[snip] there's no reason to believe that causation is absolutely necessary, given that many observable phenomena seem to get by just fine without it.

Well, I am compelled to challenge this. What does it mean to say that many observable phenomena “get by just fine without causality”?

I think the idea of necessary universal causation is something of a relic from a bygone era when everything observable seemed quite obviously to have a cause of some sort. Now that research into quantum mechanics has demonstrated that such isn't the case, there really is no good reason to insist that everything requires a cause to happen.

Oh, I don’t think so. Why are they looking for the graviton if there is no good reason to insist that “everything requires a cause to happen”? You would think that would be the end of it, no?

Things do seem to depend upon specific conditions, but that's hardly causality in the way that Hume and others have defined the term.

Well, I am speaking with you. I have no idea how “Hume and others” are defining causality.

Probabilistic causality, rather then traditional causality, strikes me as having something to it, but it also seems to be somewhat of an information void theory. It says little beyond the fact that things aren't all utterly arbitrary, which I imagine nobody would disagree with.

I can't give a proof that invisible gnomes don't exist, but if I demonstrate that we have no evidence of invisible gnomes, then I feel that constitutes something of an argument against belief.

OK. So, if you can’t prove that things don’t exist without causes but can demonstrate that everything that appears does so under causal circumstances (“traditional” and/or “probabilistic”)--experimental physics, for example, since there can be no experimental results without the experiments, experimenters, etc.--then what exactly is the argument against causality?

.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Leyla,

Well, I am compelled to challenge this. What does it mean to say that many observable phenomena “get by just fine without causality”?

It means that atoms decay at random intervals, electrons move at indeterminate trajectories, and virtual particles can pop into existence in vacuums. Perhaps they have a cause, perhaps they don't.

Oh, I don’t think so. Why are they looking for the graviton if there is no good reason to insist that “everything requires a cause to happen”? You would think that would be the end of it, no?

They've got to look of course. They've been looking for the cause of many of the phenomena that I've described above for a good long while now. It should be easy to see why indeterminism doesn't sit well with a lot of folks, but like I said, despite the best efforts by many of the most intelligent minds around, there are many phenomena which appear to act in an indeterminate manner. In fact, they do act in an indeterminate manner, unless there's a non-local cause. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't.

experimental physics, for example, since there can be no experimental results without the experiments, experimenters, etc

It sounds to me like you're just making an argument for time having an arrow, rather then causality. It doesn't follow from the notion that time moves forward, that time is then infinite. In fact, I'm now wondering what grounds you have for suggesting that the universe didn't pop into existence at some point, and will pop back out of existence at it's leisure.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI:

They've got to look of course. They've been looking for the cause of many of the phenomena that I've described above for a good long while now. It should be easy to see why indeterminism doesn't sit well with a lot of folks, but like I said, despite the best efforts by many of the most intelligent minds around, there are many phenomena which appear to act in an indeterminate manner. In fact, they do act in an indeterminate manner, unless there's a non-local cause. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't.

Well then, we have totally opposite understandings of local and non-local. Local is macro scale time/space--objects coming into contact with other objects and affecting them. Non-local describes the phenomena of the quantum realm (string theory, etc.)--things popping up out of nowhere/instantaneously affecting other things non-locally--that is, with no apparent cause. Now, by definition, such a thing could not possibly be considered as causal or determinate since there is no passage of time and change. They would, in fact, merely be the same thing, I reckon, though they might appear to be separate. I think it’s beyond reason to try and have it both ways.

It sounds to me like you're just making an argument for time having an arrow, rather then causality.

Moi? No way. More likely just a bad communicator at times. :)

Here’s an excerpt from one of my posts in The Tao Te Ching: a partial translation thread for your consideration:

If you imagine an aerial view of the ripple effect in a body of water from the centre of an impact outward then take a cross section of this view by slicing through the body of water, you will see such a linear cause-effect/cause-cause wave as you speak of above. The Eternal Tau, in this instance, would be best pointed to by indicating not only the cause-effect/cause-cause linear wave view but also the lateral aerial view as well as those same views of the observer as the centre of its own ripple effect at the same time; and so on.

.

[tharpa]

I am curious about these non-caused thingies 'popping up out of nowhere' as being arguments against 'causality'.

My understanding of causality is that the thrust-meaning is that everything is the result of multiple conditions/causes without which 'it' could not be so as such 'it' does not really exist per se.

Even if the causes of these 'popping out of nowhere' thingies are hard to discern, nevertheless, as soon as they pop out they are still a product of multiple conditions/causes, including the space/location they pop up into. For example, simply put, their location depends upon all the other millions of things already in their place that define their current locality. This holds true even for those particles that seemingly time travel, i.e. go from place A to place B instantaneously, for both places involve untold infinites of causes.

Personally, I prefer the term 'conditions' to causes. And the effect is simply that the new permutation in the overall continuum has changed the nature of all the pre-existing conditions, whose relationships are thereby all changed in some way instantly (results) and thus new conditions (causes) also instantaneously jiggled.

Everything that happens floats in the sea of the universal continuum, so any movement of any element therein effects every other element in that continuum. There is no end to this continual state of inter-relatedness, therefore no individual particulate within it fundamentally, and therefore it is also essentially beginningless as well, i.e. timeless and spaceless, since these are essentially relative level cognitive inferences.