God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[brokenhead]

You're merely repeating Robert's presumption without adding anything. Where is the proof that a vacuum is an idealization and nothing more? I haven't seen it yet.

As you point out, it will always be impossible for us to establish that an observed portion of space really is a vacuum or not. The limitations of our observing equipment will always make such a determination impossible either way.

You are answering your own question.

One can create a hypothetical space that is devoid of matter. It is an idealization as such. When physicists attempt to isolate a region of space and have that region be devoid of matter, virtual particles come into play.

The limitations of the observing equipment have nothing to do with it.

If we had more powerful observing equipment, it is possible that we could see beyond the realm of virtual particles and observe a true vacuum there. On the other hand, that too could be an illusion generated by the limitations of that particular observing equipment. We would have no way of knowing.

-

All I can conclude is that you are less well-read than I am on contemporary physics, David. "Beyond the realm of virtual particles" is what the research at the LHC is supposed to be doing.

We would have no way of knowing.

Also, I am curious as to who this "we" is. Is that just an Australian usage with which I am unfamiliar?

[David Quinn]

If we had more powerful observing equipment, it is possible that we could see beyond the realm of virtual particles and observe a true vacuum there. On the other hand, that too could be an illusion generated by the limitations of that particular observing equipment. We would have no way of knowing.

All I can conclude is that you are less well-read than I am on contemporary physics, David. "Beyond the realm of virtual particles" is what the research at the LHC is supposed to be doing.

Good for them. It doesn't affect the point I am making.

We would have no way of knowing.

Also, I am curious as to who this "we" is. Is that just an Australian usage with which I am unfamiliar?

I don't believe so. "We", in this case, means all sentient beings. The limitation I describe can never be circumvented by anyone or anything. It is the price we pay for being sentient.

-

[brokenhead]

Good for them. It doesn't affect the point I am making.

Well, I have reread our exchange in this thread and I must say I am less certain now what that point is supposed to be. Are you saying a perfect vacuum is a physical possibility?

From the Wikipedia entry for Virtual particle:

Since these particles do not have a permanent existence,[clarification needed] they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy. In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum, which bears some similarity to Aether theories.

An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in a vacuum is the Casimir effect. Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in a vacuum can be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: their zero-point energy results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.

As you know, the uncertainties inherent in QM have nothing to do with the limitations of "our" instrumentation. There is a saying that "Nature abhors a vacuum."

One would think that a sage who recognizes cause and effect in all things would understand that there can be an absolute vacuum only in an imagined sense. It is an idealization and nothing else.

[Robert]

What's leaving me confused here is when you said, David; "From the human race's current perspective, a vacuum is a contrived mental construct. It is something we have imagined by mentally abstracting everything away from a conceived region of space."

What do you mean by current perspective? That would seem to imply that possibly one day we (sentient beings) will have the equipment necessary to create and observe a true vacuum, yet you later go on to suggest that no matter how powerful the equipment, we would have no way of knowing for sure if our observations are still illusory.

Do you mean a change in the current scientific empirical perspective is needed?

Edit:
brokenhead, I posted the above at around the same moment as your post. We seem to be asking the same question.

[David Quinn]

Good for them. It doesn't affect the point I am making.

Well, I have reread our exchange in this thread and I must say I am less certain now what that point is supposed to be. Are you saying a perfect vacuum is a physical possibility?

It is impossible for us to know.

I assume by a "perfect vacuum" we mean a vacuum which is utterly empty of everything all the way down forever, on a progressively smaller and smaller scale. I can't think of any logical reasons why such a thing's existence would be impossible, but clearly it is not something that we could observe and establish as existing in the world, as we would have no way of reaching the end in order to make the determination.

As you know, the uncertainties inherent in QM have nothing to do with the limitations of "our" instrumentation.

True, but that is a different issue.

There is a saying that "Nature abhors a vacuum."

If such a saying were true, then it would only affirm the existence of vacuums. After all, Nature cannot rush to fill what doesn't exist to begin with.

One would think that a sage who recognizes cause and effect in all things would understand that there can be an absolute vacuum only in an imagined sense.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What logical arguments do you have to support the idea that causal conditions cannot create a vacuum?

-

[David Quinn]

What's leaving me confused here is when you said, David; "From the human race's current perspective, a vacuum is a contrived mental construct. It is something we have imagined by mentally abstracting everything away from a conceived region of space."

What do you mean by current perspective? That would seem to imply that possibly one day we (sentient beings) will have the equipment necessary to create and observe a true vacuum, yet you later go on to suggest that no matter how powerful the equipment, we would have no way of knowing for sure if our observations are still illusory.

Do you mean a change in the current scientific empirical perspective is needed?

Not really. I made that comment in the context of setting up the issue to be explored. The vacuum-concept started its life as a pure abstraction and still remains that to this day. In setting up the issue, I started from that perspective and posed the question of whether a vacuum can be anything more than an abstraction, or alternatively, whether we can prove that it can never be.

Nothing more to it than that, really.

-

[brokenhead]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What logical arguments do you have to support the idea that causal conditions cannot create a vacuum?

It is difficult to put into words, but I will try. If the idealized perfect vacuum were realizable for a finite volume of space, then one could imagine that to be, in principle, scalable. So then it would be possible to have a bounded region of space of arbitrary size in which cause and effect cannot hold. Nothing can be caused to happen inside the volume, and nothing inside the volume can effect anything outside the volume. We then would have a boundary that is not imaginary, and at which cause and effect ceases to operate, by definition of a perfect vacuum.

The idea of virtual particles - which would make our vacuum not a prefect vacuum - is that the very fabric of space is a medium for cause and effect. In the absence of virtual particles, such as photons or gravitons, there can be no interactions such as the repulsion of one proton by another proton. In the real world, virtual particles appear and annihilate instantly. If one of a virtual pair is prevented from annihilating the other, such as on the edge of a black hole when one of them is absorbed into the event horizon, the other virtual particle becomes a real particle and escapes.

[Ataraxia]

Nothing can be caused to happen inside the volume, and nothing inside the volume can effect anything outside the volume. We then would have a boundary that is not imaginary, and at which cause and effect ceases to operate, by definition of a perfect vacuum.

Wouldn't the vacuum be acting upon the boundary?
Lets say it is bounded by a sealed beaker.There would be a 'sucking force' upon it.Cause and effect would still be.

As you said,nature fills vacuums.

[David Quinn]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What logical arguments do you have to support the idea that causal conditions cannot create a vacuum?

It is difficult to put into words, but I will try. If the idealized perfect vacuum were realizable for a finite volume of space, then one could imagine that to be, in principle, scalable. So then it would be possible to have a bounded region of space of arbitrary size in which cause and effect cannot hold. Nothing can be caused to happen inside the volume, and nothing inside the volume can effect anything outside the volume. We then would have a boundary that is not imaginary, and at which cause and effect ceases to operate, by definition of a perfect vacuum.

Your understanding of cause and effect is still very limited if you think that it can somehow cease inside a vacuum. At the very least, a vacuum creates the space for things to rush in and fill it, in which case it is having an effect on those things.

As John says, scientists are able to initiate causal processes which can create partial vacuums at least. It is simply a matter of moving objects to one side, as it were, and creating a localized space. So clearly, vacuums, if they existed, would still be part of the overall process of cause and effect.

The idea of virtual particles - which would make our vacuum not a prefect vacuum - is that the very fabric of space is a medium for cause and effect. In the absence of virtual particles, such as photons or gravitons, there can be no interactions such as the repulsion of one proton by another proton. In the real world, virtual particles appear and annihilate instantly. If one of a virtual pair is prevented from annihilating the other, such as on the edge of a black hole when one of them is absorbed into the event horizon, the other virtual particle becomes a real particle and escapes.

Cause and effect doesn't require a specific "medium" in order to function. It functions through all mediums, be they empty or full, as a matter of course. It is the creator of all mediums, which means there is no place where it can cease to be.

-

[brokenhead]

Nothing can be caused to happen inside the volume, and nothing inside the volume can effect anything outside the volume. We then would have a boundary that is not imaginary, and at which cause and effect ceases to operate, by definition of a perfect vacuum.

Wouldn't the vacuum be acting upon the boundary?
Lets say it is bounded by a sealed beaker.There would be a 'sucking force' upon it.Cause and effect would still be.

As you said,nature fills vacuums.

You are confusing causes and effects. Inside the vessel that "contains" a perfect vacuum, there is nothing by definition. Therefore, no cause, no effect. Nothing=no thing. The "sucking" force is the pressure of the outside atmosphere acting upon the exterior of the vessel.

[brokenhead]

Your understanding of cause and effect is still very limited if you think that it can somehow cease inside a vacuum. At the very least, a vacuum creates the space for things to rush in and fill it, in which case it is having an effect on those things.

My understanding of cause and effect is fine, David. It cannot cease inside a "vacuum" because a perfect vacuum does not exist in the real world.

This is precisely why a perfect vacuum is only an idealization.

And you are missing the point I was making, most likely deliberately. A perfect vacuum is not a place where things rush in and fill. A perfect vacuum is just the opposite. It is a region of space where nothing is filling it. The rushing in and filling is the cessation of a vacuum. While it exists, it is by definition a volume of space within which no cause and effect can occur because there is nothing in it.

Don't be so obtuse all the time.

My argument is that such a perfect vacuum cannot exist because there can be no region where cause and effect cannot occur. You are too stubborn to realize I am arguing for your own philosophical viewpoint.

[David Quinn]

Your understanding of cause and effect is still very limited if you think that it can somehow cease inside a vacuum. At the very least, a vacuum creates the space for things to rush in and fill it, in which case it is having an effect on those things.

My understanding of cause and effect is fine, David.

I assure you, it is extremely poor. It is no more developed than the average unthinking person's understanding of it.

And you are missing the point I was making, most likely deliberately. A perfect vacuum is not a place where things rush in and fill. A perfect vacuum is just the opposite. It is a region of space where nothing is filling it. The rushing in and filling is the cessation of a vacuum.

Of course. And yet without the prior existence of a vacuum, there could be no cessation of it and no rush on the part of things to fill it. The things in question would be doing something other than rushing into it.

This alone shows that a vacuum can act as a causal force.

While it exists, it is by definition a volume of space within which no cause and effect can occur because there is nothing in it.

No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

A vacuum can act as a causal force in the same way that an empty room can act as a causal force on the people who own it, or the way that an absence of information can cause a person to start an investigation, or the way that a region of space can causally determine a planet to remain on its orbital path.

My argument is that such a perfect vacuum cannot exist because there can be no region where cause and effect cannot occur. You are too stubborn to realize I am arguing for your own philosophical viewpoint.

You're not doing a very good job of it.

-

[JohnEDPMalin]

Robert, Brokenhead & David:

I have been asked to elaborate on some of my pilfered observations from the sources I had cited.

I regret my business duties interfere with this enjoyable pasttime.

I suspect a Wikipedia article can give further refinement.

I will have my mathematical twin brother join this group; he will have more penetrating observations than I. (Where I pluck most of my scientific physico-mathematical notions).


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

P.S. I generally agree with David, even though I don't always understand the significance of some of his observations, such as 'perfect' vacuum or cause-effect. Biological organisms have both cause and effect self-contained in them. Physical systems seem a better illustration of cause and effect, than biological systems.

--

[David Quinn]

P.S. I generally agree with David, even though I don't always understand the significance of some of his observations, such as 'perfect' vacuum or cause-effect. Biological organisms have both cause and effect self-contained in them. Physical systems seem a better illustration of cause and effect, than biological systems.

I don't know what you mean by the phrase, "have both cause and effect self-contained in them". How do biological systems differ from physical systems in terms of cause and effect?

-

[marcothay]

David wrote: No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

Oh yeah? So what is the cause of that definition?
Really, I can imagine a vacuum very easily, so, tell me what is the cause of that
mental picture?
Might be an illusion or "delusion", yes, but what cause those illusions?

[David Quinn]

David wrote: No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

Oh yeah? So what is the cause of that definition?
Really, I can imagine a vacuum very easily, so, tell me what is the cause of that
mental picture?
Might be an illusion or "delusion", yes, but what cause those illusions?

Causal processes create the definition of a vacuum, but the definition itself doesn't refer to an absence of causal processes. It merely refers to an absence of matter/energy.

-

[MindExpansion123]

No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

I think you're missing the point. There is no matter/energy due to the fact that it's in a vacuum - and furthermore, it is caused to be a vacuum, and therefore, there is no matter/energy inside. You see? So, how does it have nothing to do with cause and effect? Everything has something to do with cause and effect.

[divine focus]

David wrote: No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

Oh yeah? So what is the cause of that definition?
Really, I can imagine a vacuum very easily, so, tell me what is the cause of that
mental picture?
Might be an illusion or "delusion", yes, but what cause those illusions?

Causal processes create the definition of a vacuum, but the definition itself doesn't refer to an absence of causal processes. It merely refers to an absence of matter/energy.

-

I have to agree with Robert's first impression that a vacuum would have to be everything in order to exist. If it were only to be a specific region of space, what in that space could cause all energy to vacate (before it immediately returned)?

There is a problem with basing cause and effect on something other than energy. What exactly is it (for example, the vacuum) that is causing anything? It must be energy to exist (energy etymology: "operation, activity" in Greek). What is anything if we're going to take it as something real and apply our mental laws to it?

[Loki]

in a soup, the various chunks of meat and vegetables have no empty space in between them, there is the liquid soup holding all the chunks.

The molecules in a chair might all be held together by another form of viscous matter, much like the chunks in a soup are held in place by the liquid broth.

Does that mean that if a piece of meat and a bean are thrown into a soup, one after the other, they are no longer separate? Why is a liquid deemed to be an acceptable joining force, but not space or air?

You're right, it's arbitrary. I'm going to have to muse over our discussion and try to get more clear on what I know. Thanks for the discussion, DQ.

[David Quinn]

David wrote: No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.

Oh yeah? So what is the cause of that definition?
Really, I can imagine a vacuum very easily, so, tell me what is the cause of that
mental picture?
Might be an illusion or "delusion", yes, but what cause those illusions?

Causal processes create the definition of a vacuum, but the definition itself doesn't refer to an absence of causal processes. It merely refers to an absence of matter/energy.

I have to agree with Robert's first impression that a vacuum would have to be everything in order to exist. If it were only to be a specific region of space, what in that space could cause all energy to vacate (before it immediately returned)?

When a couple move all the furniture out and create an empty room, does the empty room become everything that exists?

There is a problem with basing cause and effect on something other than energy. What exactly is it (for example, the vacuum) that is causing anything?

It is the things and processes that already exist which do the causing. For example, a vacuum in one moment of time is caused, in part at least, by the vacuum which existed a moment before.

It must be energy to exist (energy etymology: "operation, activity" in Greek).

Energy becomes a meaningless term if everything is deemed to be energy, with nothing else to contrast it. It degenerates into being a synonym for the Totality itself. In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence.

-

[Blair]

It seems that your average human brain has many blindspots in terms of comprehending how causality is infinite.

They seem to think, in this case, within the vaccuum itself. Even though it's an abstract concept, the human minds ignorant tendency is to go for the easier visualisation. It might help those who can't grasp it, to remove oneself from the abstract situation, ie; see the vaccuum from a furthur distance, as a bubble which has an exterior. It must have an exterior in order for it to exist in relation to what is apparent.

[Robert]

They seem to think, in this case, within the vaccuum itself. Even though it's an abstract concept, the human minds ignorant tendency is to go for the easier visualisation. It might help those who can't grasp it, to remove oneself from the abstract situation, ie; see the vaccuum from a furthur distance, as a bubble which has an exterior. It must have an exterior in order for it to exist in relation to what is apparent.

Got it prince, that's exactly how I began thinking about this, from within the vacuum. It's obvious the mistake, once you take a distanced viewpoint.

In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence.

David, could you develop this a little further please? My (admittedly average) brain is having a hard time getting to grips with causality to this extent.

Edit:
I've taken the liberty of reproducing here some of your writings on cause and effect from "The Wisdom of the Infinite":

From a logical point of view, it is easy to see that the process of cause and effect is necessarily causeless. This is because anything which can be postulated as being the cause of cause and effect will automatically be a part of cause and effect itself. It is thus irrational to think of cause and effect as being causally created in any way. It has always been around. There has never been a time when it was absent.

...

A far more pertinent question, perhaps, is the question of why there is a process of causation in the first place and not nothing at all. In other words, why is there "something" rather than nothing? This is an important question to resolve because it goes to the very heart of understanding Reality itself.

In answering this, I must point again to the fact that the process of cause and effect is not a created thing, but the very principle behind all created things. This needs some qualification, however. Even though I use the word "principle", it should not be taken to mean that causation is a physical principle of some kind, or even a spiritual one. In fact, in a certain sense, it does not really exist at all. It isn't a manifested entity which exists above or behind the realm of created things. In the end, created things are all that exists - there is nothing else apart from them, nothing beyond them.

The "principle of causation", then, is merely a figure of speech. It is a description of how created things change into other created things. It is a conceptual construct which points to the fact that objects arise out of what is already there in the world. It asserts that a thing is created out of necessity from the circumstances which are present and that it is impossible for anything else to be created in its place. It also points to the truth that things have no beginning or end, and thus points to the essential "oneness" of Reality.

Given this, the question of why there is causation rather than nothing at all is a meaningless one. Even the state of nothingness is itself a created thing, a product of causation. It can only occur in a region where things are entirely absent - that is, when the causal circumstances are ripe. Moreover, when one analyses it further, one finds that it is nothing more than a mental construct. Nothingness only comes into being when consciousness conceives of it - or more accurately, when consciousness conceives of things being absent. As such, a state of total nothingness, in which nothing exists at all, is logically impossible. At the very least, it would need the existence of consciousness to think it into being.

To sum up, then, the principle of causation which is responsible for the existence of all created things, including states of nothingness, itself never comes into existence and therefore is incapable of experiencing birth and death. If it was possible for it to experience birth, it would immediately cease being the core principle of creation and instead be just another created thing. Because it never experiences birth, it is timeless and beyond all explanation.

In the end, no matter where we look, we are literally staring into the very first moment of creation. Beginningless time and the present moment are the same. There is no "before".

...

Is it a legitimate question to ask how this "principle" of causation actually causes anything/nothing at all? I mean, is it possible to have an explanation for the mechanism of causality, empirically or otherwise ('to know the mind of God')?

[Sapius]

David : The question is, does such a conception actually refer to a reality in the physical world? Or alternatively, does our mental concept of a vacuum involve a contradiction in terms?

S: it might help if you could tell me if the ‘physical world’ is a contrived mental construct or not?

D: It is a contrived mental construct, but because we directly experience what this concept points to during each moment of the day, it differs from the vacuum-concept.

You mean points to something empirical? May be It could differ, but does direct experience automatically make the ‘physical world’ more credible than a contriver mental construct? Well, I could point to the Magdeburg hemispheres experiment then.

What we call the physical world is a simple sub-division of our overall experience of life.

I know, and I also know that both are mind dependent, so that differentiation should be arbitrary as well I think.

In the case of a vacuum, we don't know if we ever experience it in the physical world or that it even exists.

As far as a vacuum goes, what exactly would there be to experience, except experience its effects? If direct experience is what you place your faith in, then I might have to build a big enough vacuum cleaner to fit a person. Show me causality then. What exactly are you going to point to? Show me time then. Show me gravity then. Show me electromagnetism then. (I’m sure the more learned could point to other similar things as well)

It could well be an abstraction without a referent, which would give it the same status as a line of longitude or a mathematical point.

Are you saying an abstraction does not point to what it means? We do define vacuum, don’t we? Same status as mathematical points you say… how do you think planes and ships navigate and reach their intended destinations if those abstractions were without a referent?

To put it another way, the "physical world" is a label we give to a particular set of experiences, while the "vacuum" is a label we give to something which hasn't been experienced (as far as we know) and which may never be experienced.

So that makes it the same as ‘emptiness’ then, which is logically “there”, but which may never be experienced, so what crime did ‘vacuum’ commit?

So the question boils down to this: Is the vacuum just as abstract and contrived as the mathematical point? And if so, how could this be demonstrated?

How about this?

S: And further more, just like ‘vacuum’, which we have imagined by mentally abstracting everything away from a conceived region of space, have we not imagined by mentally adding everything together and conceived totality? Does addition not qualify as a contrived mental construct?

D: The difference is, the totality exists (beyond the mere concept of it) out of logical necessity. The vacuum doesn't have that particular luxury.

For a start, there could be nothing thinkable that isn’t a mere concept, so any thing thinkable cannot have that luxury either, unless one believes that that has nothing to do with that mind of ours. Or do you believe that direct experiences do not require any conceptual carving up of what is being directly experienced?

Further more, could there not be another reason than some 'out of logical necessity'? That being that you trust your eyes, and that direct experience of scattered things are added up as a contrived mental construct... result... totality.

Ah! You can't even actually point to totality either, which you cliam EXISTS beyond the mere concept. What exactly are you going to point to? The ALL? So how exactly does one come up with the ALL would be the question? And how exactly does one directly experience THAT?

[Sapius]

in a soup, the various chunks of meat and vegetables have no empty space in between them, there is the liquid soup holding all the chunks.

The molecules in a chair might all be held together by another form of viscous matter, much like the chunks in a soup are held in place by the liquid broth.

Does that mean that if a piece of meat and a bean are thrown into a soup, one after the other, they are no longer separate? Why is a liquid deemed to be an acceptable joining force, but not space or air?

You're right, it's arbitrary. I'm going to have to muse over our discussion and try to get more clear on what I know. Thanks for the discussion, DQ.

I don’t get it, Loki. What exactly are you going to muse over?

You said…

The molecules in a chair might all be held together by another form of viscous matter, much like the chunks in a soup are held in place by the liquid broth.

So one thing is clear, that for a chair to be a chair, there has to necessarily be some other thing (in this case say air) that is of a relatively different density or structure, and the directly experienced point or boundary of difference is what makes a chair a chair and air air, where which holds together what would be an empirical matter, not a philosophical one.

So what exactly is the confusion with the soup and floating bits of meat and beans? Isn’t it exactly the same? Or are you here equating the chair to the totality?

IMO, if we didn’t directly experience them as different things to begin with, how could we define them as soup, meat and beans, which evolution so generously granted us the ability primarily for the sake of communication, otherwise nothing would make any coherent sense, even to ones own self.

Similarly, vacuum, or anything the we care to define for that matter, will always hold meaning in relative terms only, it does not matter if a “perfect” vacuum can be created or experienced, for even any imagined place or area will for ever remain relatively full or empty. Even within say an "imperfect" vacuum, how can we be sure that there aren't any infinitely tiny vacuum particles/bubbles not present on some beyond the presently known quantum level?

If there are quarks or bosons or dark matter, or whatever really, still floating around in what we might determine to be a vacuum, then for all practical needs and purposes it is a vacuum simply becasue we define it so, (in other words, by definition) and surely due to certain effects that are apparent and helpful in various fields and are open to the scrutiny of direct experience too. All we need do is stick a finger in perhaps.

Have you ever tried a suction pump around your… well… finger? Just curious :D

[David Quinn]

In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence.

David, could you develop this a little further please? My (admittedly average) brain is having a hard time getting to grips with causality to this extent.

The problem with equating causality with energy is that it turns causality into a limited dualistic phenomenon, which then generates all sorts of false problems and imaginary confusion.

For example, you might start imagining causality to be a physical force which pushes inert matter around. This then throws up the problem of how this force operates ("its mechanism") and how it relates to inert matter, and so on. You would also have problems with vacuums and the like, because they don't really fit in with this conception of causality. Before long, you are lost in a sea of imaginary problems that have no bearing on reality.

It is better to think of causality as a logical principle rather than a physical one. It is an abstraction which allows us to look into the essential "sameness" of all processes. Whether it an inert thing like a vacuum, or an energetic thing like a waterfall, the principle behind the creation and sustenance of these things is exactly the same.

Is it a legitimate question to ask how this "principle" of causation actually causes anything/nothing at all? I mean, is it possible to have an explanation for the mechanism of causality, empirically or otherwise ('to know the mind of God')?

Now I am going to seemingly backtrack from what I wrote above. At root, there is no mechanism of casuality, nor is it strictly accurate to think of it as a principle. It is a description, rather, of how things naturally transform into other things.

We could say that there are an infinite number of causal mechanisms, each one unique to a particular set of circumstances. Or, changing our perspective, we could say that there is only mechanism and that it exactly the same in all circumstances. It depends on how you look at it.

So in short, it is important to be able to see the "sameness" of causality in all situations, as well as its infinite variety. That is, to be able to see it as both a timeless logical principle and as a pointer to the endlessly diverse processes all around us - and further, to be able to fuse these two apparent opposites into a single coherent understanding.

-