Causality and determinism

[maestro]

Does causality imply that the future is fixed? If not why not.

If the future is fixed, then where is the merit or demerit for the individual. The enlightened had no choice but be enlightened, and the fool had no choice to be otherwise, all are machines there is no value in one or the other.

[Carl G]

I don't believe in any of that causality bullshit. I am a free agent.

[maestro]

Can you give me an example where causality is violated.

[Carl G]

Actually I'd like to give a quick example of the opposite: I am caused to be sick to death with all the recent talk about causality on this board. Like A=A it is a non-starter as far as truths which mean something significant.

On the other hand, Gurdjieff said one can transcend the law of cause and effect (as he defined it), and G is my man.

[Cory Duchesne]

I don't believe in any of that causality bullshit. I am a free agent.

Riiiiiight - and the world is secretly being run by shape shifting reptilians from the constellation Draco.

Oh, wait a sec....that's actually what you believe, isn't it?

[Kevin Solway]

Does causality imply that the future is fixed?

Logically, yes it does. It is fixed from the perspective of the Absolute.

[Cory Duchesne]

Does causality imply that the future is fixed?

Of course.

If the future is fixed, then where is the merit or demerit for the individual.

We are caused to have values - and since we have values, we have no choice to deem some things as superior, and others inferior.

The enlightened had no choice but be enlightened, and the fool had no choice to be otherwise, all are machines there is no value in one or the other.

Something is of value when it serves our interest.

[Dave Toast]

Does causality imply that the future is fixed?

Nope.

If not why not[?]

Because you're using the present tense to refer to the future.

If the future is fixed, then where is the merit or demerit for the individual. The enlightened had no choice but be enlightened, and the fool had no choice to be otherwise, all are machines there is no value in one or the other.

This is the case anyway, from the ultimate perspective. You don't need to know whether the future will be fixed to know that things cannot be other than what they are.

But the likes of merit, demerit, pride, shame, achievement, failure, trying, not trying, etc. are also caused, as is the self. To the extent that the self exists and applies, i.e. non-inherently, so too these things exist and apply.

[maestro]

Because you're using the present tense to refer to the future.

What I meant was that if causality is never violated then time is an illusion, and the whole universe can be already seen as unfolded across the fourth dimension of time. That is it is a four dimensional static object, with each 3 dimensional cross section across the time axis representing its temporal configuration. We are merely artifacts along this third axis.

We are caused to have values - and since we have values, we have no choice to deem some things as superior, and others inferior.

But everything is what it is and it could not have been otherwise. This knowledge should demolish all claims to superior inferior.

Logically, yes it does. It is fixed from the perspective of the Absolute.

Then is it not fixed from all perspectives. It should be fixed from mine too, if I hold the correct perspective.

[Cory Duchesne]

M,

We are caused to have values - and since we have values, we have no choice to deem some things as superior, and others inferior.

But everything is what it is and it could not have been otherwise. This knowledge should demolish all claims to superior inferior.

No thing is superior or inferior in an objective sense. The characteristics of superiority or inferiority are the result of a very useful subjective construct.

Since we are caused to have our own subjective values (since we construct a value system) then it naturally follows that some manifestations (outcomes) are more valuable than others.

For instance - if I value smelting an ore into metal, there are more efficient (more superior) ways of doing this than others.

[Dave Toast]

Because you're using the present tense to refer to the future.

What I meant was that if causality is never violated then time is an illusion, and the whole universe can be already seen as unfolded across the fourth dimension of time. That is it is a four dimensional static object, with each 3 dimensional cross section across the time axis representing its temporal configuration. We are merely artifacts along this third axis.

You just can't know. You can perceive being, you can know been, but you can't know will be.

To the extent that time is an illusion, so too is this iron block spacetime universe.

But your question about personal accountability was surely the crux of what you were saying. The following part of my original answer is the more pertinent to that:

This is the case anyway, from the ultimate perspective. You don't need to know whether the future will be fixed to know that things cannot be other than what they are.

But the likes of merit, demerit, pride, shame, achievement, failure, trying, not trying, etc. are also caused, as is the self. To the extent that the self exists and applies, i.e. non-inherently, so too these things exist and apply.

[maestro]

You just can't know. You can perceive being, you can know been, but you can't know will be.

To the extent that time is an illusion, so too is this iron block spacetime universe

I am just saying that causality entails this static four dimensional static universe. Even if you cannot compute the future etc.

This is the case anyway, from the ultimate perspective. You don't need to know whether the future will be fixed to know that things cannot be other than what they are.

But if we have power to change the future then it matters. If not then what is going to happen has already "happened".

To the extent that the self exists and applies, i.e. non-inherently, so too these things exist and apply.

If you grant causality then these must be discarded, regardless of whether you have an illusion of self. Just as nobody thinks the earth is flat even though it appears to be.

[Steven Coyle]

Time's illusion, for being to learn. Never knowing the future, places past, places present. To see horizon, one's spirit must pass through - from languages in dream, to imagery, night to day. Morning in the east, evening in the west.

[brokenhead]

You just can't know. You can perceive being, you can know been, but you can't know will be.

Not so fast!

There is a limit to which you can perceive "being," and quite a restrictive limit it can be. Two people observing the same event will perceive it in different ways, some of which ways will even contradict. Suffice it to say, that no event can be perceived entirely and therefore entirely accurately, even in artificially closed systems and contrived circumstances. There is no such thing as an absolute point of view. What we do perceive is always smaller than what we can perceive, which is necessarily smaller than what actually is. Indeed it is this fact which we intuitively grasp which leads people who witness something, and are called upon to recount it, to add to it. Therefore, you can not know "been," because you have never truly perceived "being." And a moment's consideration will tell you that what we do perceive now, the being we do take in, can and does change been, our now can create our history. Events can be perceived by us, yet not ordered or evaluated, or even consciously remembered. But when additional perceptions provide additional information regarding something from our past, the past can blossom into a coherent whole ("Ah, now I know what that was all about.") In such a case, information not tying in with the new assemblage of facts into our new coherent story can be lost. Forever.

That leaves "will be." I submit that just as you can infer the last chapter of a mystery, you can "remember" the future to an degree. You own assemblage of data from your perceptions has given you a plot to work with, and you can make a guess as to what will happen in a given circumstance based on your current knowledge. We have seen that your knowledge of all the "nows" was slanted and incomplete; your selection of a "has been" that best fits your assemblage of percetions is not absolute; yet you can hazard such a "will be" that when the future becomes present and makes its way into the past assemblage, you can be completely unsurprised ("Told you so.") Whether or not we can say that the "will be" was known beforehand is immaterial, since we have seen that the "been" and "being" are not known in any absolute sense, either.

What I'm describing here is not the exception, it seems to me, but rather the rule of how our passage through time actually unfolds.

[brokenhead]

Just as nobody thinks the earth is flat even though it appears to be.

The cause and effect champions on the board would do well to keep this analogy in mind. It is not a mere analogy, I find. C&E is something we view locally by definition. We see an effect, such as a bird shitting on our windshield, and say what is the cause for that. We do not see the effect and start looking for its causes all the way back to, say, the Pliocene Epoch. Nor do we see the bird shit on our windshield and wonder what its effects on global warming will be. No, we usually settle for "I shouldn't have parked under the damn tree" and saying "Fucking bird!" while wiping with a paper towel.

Yet GF seems to want make an overarching philosophy of C&E. Keep in mind that the flat parking lot you see is not flat. If locally land were truly flat, you could never stitch such parcels of land together to get an oblate spheroid, which is the earth's overall shape, no matter how many you stitched together. C&E is linear thinking. Even in the small, it is likely an approximation, as no causes and no effects are ever completely known and so can be used to verify that the "law" of C&E is watertight. And when you try to extend it into even less linear realms, such as the origins or non-origins (infinite past) of the Universe, it becomes even more suspect. In fact, it is only one of the "usual suspects."

What David, Dan, and Kevin are saying is not very helpful. It amounts to no more than this: "We don't know what happened, but whatever it was, that's what we are saying happened, so by definition, we can't be wrong." If so, they are quite right. It is illogical to argue with that.

[maestro]

I would say that causality is true if there is no external agent acting on the universe, for then the universe simply acts on itself. This is true by definition since, the universe includes all. It does not require you to know the precise laws, and to trace every chain of cause and effect.

[samadhi]

Without showing how a belief in causality is reflected in choices and actions that are distinct from a belief in free will, it is a belief without impact or consequence.

[Leyla Shen]

A free will mentality dictates a criminal choses to be a criminal, gives him a sentence and then lets him loose into society again; funnily enough, even though his behaviour is entirely a matter of personal choice, just asking the criminal to change his mind and become an upright, productive citizen is not sufficient---he does evil because he is evil and must therefore be punished. Society chooses to incarcerate him because, in all their freedom, they have no other choice and can only be free without him.

[Kevin Solway]

What David, Dan, and Kevin are saying is not very helpful. It amounts to no more than this: "We don't know what happened, but whatever it was, that's what we are saying happened, so by definition, we can't be wrong."

We're not saying that. We are saying that all things are caused, as opposed to not being caused.

I would say that causality is true if there is no external agent acting on the universe

Causality is true even if there is an external agent acting on the universe. Strictly speaking, if an agent is acting on our universe, they're not really external to it, but are part of it. They are having effects on us and we are having effects on them.

Without showing how a belief in causality is reflected in choices and actions that are distinct from a belief in free will, it is a belief without impact or consequence.

Wise people, who believe in causality, act in a wise way — without emotional attachments and other delusions. By contrast, those who really believe that their will is free from the determining force of causality, act in a foolish way, because their life is based on a lie. The latter do not look to the causes of things, but treat things as inherently existent.

[maestro]

Without showing how a belief in causality is reflected in choices and actions that are distinct from a belief in free will, it is a belief without impact or consequence.

If everything is already done and you are merely an artifact, then there should remain no conflict no regrets, what is happening is the only way it could have happened, there is no will either it is only the all that acts. Nothing is rejected either, everything is what it could be and nothing could be better or worse.

To really know causality and to live in accordance with it is the heart of all the eastern wisdom, as far as I see, but you cannot do it unless it is destined, so that is that.

[Kevin Solway]

To really know causality and to live in accordance with it is the heart of all the eastern wisdom, as far as I see, but you cannot do it unless it is destined, so that is that.

But since we cannot foresee the future we'll have to wait to see what has been destined.

[brokenhead]

Wise people, who believe in causality, act in a wise way — without emotional attachments and other delusions. By contrast, those who really believe that their will is free from the determining force of causality, act in a foolish way, because their life is based on a lie. The latter do not look to the causes of things, but treat things as inherently existent.

People who believe A will act one way.
People who believe B will act in another way.

Then is belief volitional or not? Why do some people believe A and others B? If some believe A and others B, it must be because they were caused to do so. Since all people are caused to be who they are, and it follows they must have been caused to believe in what they do, does it make sense to call some fools?

Isn't it true that very many causes come from within a person rather than from without? Strong-willed people can cause many things to happen which - should their wills have been removed at any point - would not have happened. What causes wills to exist as opposed to not exist?

If one should look to the causes of things, that means treating things as effects which have been caused. It follows that since causes always precede effects, one would always be looking to the past. How does one then follow the exhortation "Be here, now"?

A man comes out of a bar late one night. He is not too inebriated since he is not a heavy drinker. He sees, just a few yards away, a man being mugged for his wallet by two other men. What would be the foolish thing to do and what would be the wise thing to do? Don't throw in extra shit, please, there are no cell phones around and there is no time to go fetch a constable. How should he act if he is wise?

[Jason]

Wise people, who believe in causality, act in a wise way — without emotional attachments and other delusions. By contrast, those who really believe that their will is free from the determining force of causality, act in a foolish way, because their life is based on a lie.

Wrong. Unfortunately, you were caused to be born as a fool; caused to be born as a fool who, ironically and wrongly, believes he knows what is wise.

[Kevin Solway]

Then is belief volitional or not?

It depends how conscious the person is.

If some believe A and others B, it must be because they were caused to do so.

Yes.

Since all people are caused to be who they are, and it follows they must have been caused to believe in what they do, does it make sense to call some fools?

Yes, since some people are caused to be fools, and I am caused to call things what they are.

Isn't it true that very many causes come from within a person rather than from without?

Ultimately, that which comes from "within" a person, actually comes from without, if you trace the causes back to their source.

Strong-willed people can cause many things to happen which - should their wills have been removed at any point - would not have happened.

Yes.

What causes wills to exist as opposed to not exist?

What causes trees to exist as opposed to not exist? The question is essentially the same in the sense that a whole complex of factors causes them.

If one should look to the causes of things, that means treating things as effects which have been caused.

Yes.

It follows that since causes always precede effects, one would always be looking to the past. How does one then follow the exhortation "Be here, now"?

If you are emotionally attached to thinking about the past, or the future, you will not be properly aware of the present. (And, as a matter of fact, you won't be properly aware of the past or future either)

A man comes out of a bar late one night. He is not too inebriated since he is not a heavy drinker. He sees, just a few yards away, a man being mugged for his wallet by two other men. What would be the foolish thing to do and what would be the wise thing to do?

The wise thing to do would depend on circumstances. The wise man would trust his intuition as to whether to physically confront the two men. If the two men are wielding knives, he probably won't physically engage them. If the two muggers are young and impressionable he might try to make them feel ashamed of what they are doing. He will make sure he can give a very accurate description of the men to the police.

The foolish thing to do would be to get upset, or fearful, or excited, etc. The wise thing to do is to think clearly, truthfully, and purposefully, and act on your thought.

[samadhi]

maestro,

sam: Without showing how a belief in causality is reflected in choices and actions that are distinct from a belief in free will, it is a belief without impact or consequence.

maestro: If everything is already done and you are merely an artifact, then there should remain no conflict no regrets, what is happening is the only way it could have happened, there is no will either it is only the all that acts. Nothing is rejected either, everything is what it could be and nothing could be better or worse.

Right. This was my argument in the debate and rejected by David and Kevin.

To really know causality and to live in accordance with it is the heart of all the eastern wisdom, as far as I see, but you cannot do it unless it is destined, so that is that.

It is a paradox to say that you can choose to live according to causality. It is the bookend to the paradox of no self. The latter points to a presence embracing what isn't, the former to an absence embracing what is.