The Meaning of Life

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

cousinbasil:
Carmel - I think Laird was not proposing time-travel to the past, but you are correct in saying it would not contradict causality. It was merely a tought experiment from our guest-of-logic.

Carmel:
gotcha, he seems to view causality as an empirical issue and not a logical one, so I took his statements in a more literal sense, but even as a thought experiment a new cause is introduced into the causal thought-web, so I still don't see how this scenario contradicts causality.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Why would I want to prove an irrational conception like "causal determinism"?
If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

If everything is identical, the answer can only be yes. If there is a change made in any way, however small, the answer would then become no.

David Quinn wrote:It isn't true that "an event is fully determined by prior events". Rather, an event is fully determined by the sum total of all its causes, both past and present.
I'm aware that that's your position, which is why the challenge specified, "ignoring the other types of causes you've mentioned" i.e. the causes in the present. In other words, the challenge was to prove that if you assume that the causes in the present have already been accounted for - i.e. so that they can be ignored and removed from the sum for the purposes of the proof - then the causes from the past fully determine the event.
This is a side-issue that moves away from the nub of the matter towards the superficial again (where you like everything to be). Again, the truth that all things are necessarily caused has already been demonstrated. Which, in turn, when you work through the logic of it, fully resolves the side-issue you raise.

Once you see that all things are necessarily caused, then you also see that it necessarily applies to all things without exception, including all parts of all things. There is nowhere for a thing, or any part of a thing, or any part of any process or event, to be without cause. The issue is now completely resolved.

We don't need to catalogue the countless causes of a thing, both past and present, and articulate the role that each cause plays in order to prove the truth of causality. It would be impossible for us to do this in any case, as these causes are too numerous in number to be observed and identified, let alone mapped. But again, there is no need for us to do this, as the truth of causality has already been logically proven. (You don't seem to understand this bit).

In essence, you're trying to rely on a "god of the gaps" type scenario, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists try to exploit the gaps in the fossil records in order to cast doubt on evolutionary theory and insert their god into the proceedings. You're trying to say that if we cannot empirically demonstrate the specific roles that each of the countless causes from the past play in determining a particular thing and model how all these causes come together to produce the thing in question, then casuality remains unproven. But it doesn't work in this case, as causality is already shown to be irrefutable from a logical standpoint.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:With what I say in the quote above, I am denying the possibility an event can be partially caused. If I say CD always holds, it is therefore up to you to give an example in which it does not. You cannot demand I give you all the causes and prove my list is exhaustive, or else claim I have not shown it has been "fully" caused and therefore CD is false.
The reason that I find this unhelpful is that it avoids the central requirement of a proof of causal determinism: that given the complete set of causes in a system at one time, the subsequent complete set of events in the system at a later time is a given; fixed; predetermined.
I've never understood the concerns that people have with this kind of thing. (Well, that's not true, I do understand it, but it means going into psychology).

After all, regardless of whether one accepts causality or not, it is still the case that whatever happens in a particular moment is precisely what happens in that moment and, once occured, cannot have been otherwise. In effect, the Universe has destined it to happen, simply by virtue of the fact that it has happened. For all the concens about protecting the validity of choice and free will (which are false concerns, at bottom), the occurances of the present still become fixed the moment they happen and their occurance alone shows that they have been destined to happen since time immemorial.

We are all prisoners of the present, if we want to put it that way, regardless of whether we want to believe in free will or not.

-
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by cousinbasil »

Locke wrote:But, with the fractal logic of "causality" couldn't I extend the light cone of W?
The electrons in the filament heat the wire due to resistance.
The electrons flow due to the circuit that is completed once the light switch is flipped.
The impetus to brighten the room causes me to flip the switch.
Me being born.
Collecting the right amount of star dust on this world to start life.
Stars burning out.
Stars being created.
The universe starts.

These are all in the light cone of the photon being emitted; and, if just one didn't happen the photon wouldn't have been emitted, correct? So, to simplify wouldn't it be correct ( in a causal sense) to say that event W was caused by the beginning of the universe?
Anything lying outside the past light cone of an event X cannot have influenced event X in any way, per special relativity. Your list above makes sense up to the "Me being born" part if you were the person who flipped the light switch.

But it is important to note that not all events which can be classified either as "Stars burning out" or "Stars being born" fall into the past light cone of event X. A moment's reflection should convince you that most past events do not fall within the past light cone of event X.

Also you should note that if X lies outside W's light cone, then W lies outside X's light cone. They lie in each other's respective "elsewheres." This is fully equivalent to saying neither event could have been a cause of the other, and neither can be an effect of the other.

Event Alpha (The universe starts) falls within the past light cone of every possible event, by definition.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by guest_of_logic »

cousinbasil wrote:I didn't know the task is to prove causal determinism.

I thought we were dealing with the simpler question of "Are all events caused?" I say yes. You say no.
Actually I haven't given my opinion on that yet: as I already explained, my disagreement was based on a misreading out of context of one of your statements. If you want my opinion on that question, though, then I would say that it depends on whether we make a distinction between "causes" and "conditions". If we make that distinction, then it is possible that some events, whilst possessing conditions, do not possess a cause.

Even without that distinction, though, it depends on what we count as a cause. For causal determinism, we consider as causes only prior events, so how about a scenario in which the universe has a definite beginning in time and owes its existence to some sort of quantum principle? We could not count the quantum principle as a cause because it does not exist in any prior state of the universe (because there is no prior state), and so any event at time zero would be without a cause (in the temporal sense - obviously not in the non-temporal senses that David also includes).
cousinbasil wrote:All you have to do is give me an example of an event for which no causes can be listed.
See what you think of what I've given you above. It's all hypothetical of course - I have no idea whether the universe actually started this way.
cousinbasil wrote:Keep in mind, to say all things are caused is not to say that all things are predetermined. You do understand this important distinction? The second implies the first, but the first does not imply the second.
I do, and our miscommunication seems to be that I have been expecting you to argue for the latter, whereas you have actually been arguing for the former.
cousinbasil wrote:By the way, give me an example of a system in which either the complete set of causes is known or a subsequent complete set of effects is known. Here any type of system will do, open, closed, or isolated.

You are making a proof of causal determinism necessitate that one be able to know both complete sets in every type of system in all possible instances, something which you know is not possible even in theory.

Again, you are asking for proof of an induction.
All I'm saying is that causal determinism can't be definitively proved through pure logic. If you induce it, then you must at the same time acknowledge the limitations of induction.
guest_of_logic: If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

cousinbasil: The answer is yes, Laird. Now prove me wrong.
But my position is that we cannot know for certain, and that it cannot be proven either way, so I cannot prove you either right or wrong. You, though, are making the positive claim, and so the burden of proof falls on you. I suggested the possibility that events could be truly random (as I defined that phrase earlier in the thread) - and so your proof would entail disproving that possibility. How are you going to go about that?
cousinbasil wrote:I think Laird was not proposing time-travel to the past [...] It was merely a tought experiment from our guest-of-logic.
Yes, that's correct.
David: Why would I want to prove an irrational conception like "causal determinism"?

guest_of_logic: If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

David: If everything is identical, the answer can only be yes.
Well, that's causal determinism in a nutshell, so I don't know why you're calling it irrational, unless your own beliefs are irrational.

Having, like cousinbasil, made the positive and definitive claim, the burden of proof lies on you, and no, pointing out the necessity of such non-temporal causes as constituent parts and environments does not meet the burden of a temporal proof.
David Quinn wrote:After all, regardless of whether one accepts causality or not, it is still the case that whatever happens in a particular moment is precisely what happens in that moment and, once occured, cannot have been otherwise.
So far, so good, but...
David Quinn wrote:In effect, the Universe has destined it to happen, simply by virtue of the fact that it has happened.
...here you fall down. If causal determinism is false, then there is no destiny. You could rewind the universe and get a different outcome on its replay.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:I didn't know the task is to prove causal determinism.

I thought we were dealing with the simpler question of "Are all events caused?" I say yes. You say no.
Actually I haven't given my opinion on that yet: as I already explained, my disagreement was based on a misreading out of context of one of your statements. If you want my opinion on that question, though, then I would say that it depends on whether we make a distinction between "causes" and "conditions". If we make that distinction, then it is possible that some events, whilst possessing conditions, do not possess a cause.

There is no real difference between a "cause" and a "condition", at bottom. Both fall into the category of being part contributors of a thing's existence (and never anything more).

No thing can ever generate another thing into existence by itself. Always it acts in concert with numerous others things. "Causes" are really just background conditions and nothing more, when it comes down to it.

Space is as much a cause of a tree as its DNA is a condition of it.

guest_of_logic wrote:
David: Why would I want to prove an irrational conception like "causal determinism"?

guest_of_logic: If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

David: If everything is identical, the answer can only be yes.
Well, that's causal determinism in a nutshell, so I don't know why you're calling it irrational, unless your own beliefs are irrational.

It is the idea that causal determinism should be confined to a particular set of causes - e.g. the realm of past causes - which is irrational. The "everything is identical" bit that I talk about refers to all causes, not just some of them.

A thing can never be separated from its causes, just as the present can never be separated from the past.

Your contrived exclusion zones are only serving to complicate the matter unnecessarily (which, of course, is the aim).

Having, like cousinbasil, made the positive and definitive claim, the burden of proof lies on you, and no, pointing out the necessity of such non-temporal causes as constituent parts and environments does not meet the burden of a temporal proof.
It does, but you're not currently seeing it. It is important to tease out all the logical implications of the matter. For example, it is logically the case that the present couldn't happen without the past. It is only by things disappearing into the past that room can be made for things to emerge in the present. So already the connection between past and present is logically demonstrated.

guest_of_logic wrote:
David Quinn wrote:After all, regardless of whether one accepts causality or not, it is still the case that whatever happens in a particular moment is precisely what happens in that moment and, once occured, cannot have been otherwise.
So far, so good, but...
David Quinn wrote:In effect, the Universe has destined it to happen, simply by virtue of the fact that it has happened.
...here you fall down. If causal determinism is false, then there is no destiny.

Sorry, no amount of amount of quantum fluctuations, uncaused events, changed histories, etc, can stop destiny from happening. Whatever happens is destined to happen, by default. It is the reality of actuality.

You could rewind the universe and get a different outcome on its replay.
Even if you could rewind the universe and get a different outcome, then that new outcome would be the destined outcome. Just as the rewinding itself would be a destined outcome. And so too the desire to rewind it.

-
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

guest_of_logic: If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

Carmel:
It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same in this hypothetical scenario because there is no way of escaping the fact that new causes have been introduced. i.e.
cause: hypothetically rewinding the universe
effect: There are now two versions of the same five year period existing in this causal thought-web, instead of just one.

but even so, your hypothetical is too vague, alluding to David's response, you need to address whether the variables are the same or different in each five year time period.

I'm not going to address the rest of your points, except to say, I'm still having trouble understanding your line of reasoning. What is your argument exactly?!
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by guest_of_logic »

David Quinn wrote:There is no real difference between a "cause" and a "condition", at bottom.
That depends on what you mean by "real". Conditions are defined to be less relevant than causes, but yes, "Both fall into the category of being part contributors of a thing's existence".
David: Why would I want to prove an irrational conception like "causal determinism"?

guest_of_logic: If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

David: If everything is identical, the answer can only be yes.

guest_of_logic: Well, that's causal determinism in a nutshell, so I don't know why you're calling it irrational, unless your own beliefs are irrational.

David: It is the idea that causal determinism should be confined to a particular set of causes - e.g. the realm of past causes - which is irrational. The "everything is identical" bit that I talk about refers to all causes, not just some of them.
Why is that irrational? Definitions by their nature include certain things and exclude certain other things, and you've already noted your agreement with this definition - now you're just trying to save face. Of course past causes include non-temporal relationships (your "everything is identical" bit), but if you want a term that includes non-temporal relationships in the effects too, then go ahead and invent one!
guest_of_logic: Having, like cousinbasil, made the positive and definitive claim, the burden of proof lies on you, and no, pointing out the necessity of such non-temporal causes as constituent parts and environments does not meet the burden of a temporal proof.

David: It does, but you're not currently seeing it.
*Facepalm*
David Quinn wrote:It is important to tease out all the logical implications of the matter. For example, it is logically the case that the present couldn't happen without the past. It is only by things disappearing into the past that room can be made for things to emerge in the present. So already the connection between past and present is logically demonstrated.
This is another strawman. I'm not disputing a relationship between past and present, I'm disputing that we can know for certain that the past wholly determines the present, such that a "replay" of the universe would definitely follow the same course. You haven't proved that we can know that, David.
David Quinn wrote:Whatever happens is destined to happen, by default. It is the reality of actuality. [...] Even if you could rewind the universe and get a different outcome, then that new outcome would be the destined outcome.
That's blatantly false. For an event to be destined means that at some given time, the future occurrence of that event is fixed; inevitable. If causal determinism is false, however, then no future events are fixed at any given time.

David, the irony is that whilst you accuse others of having a "crude" conception of causality, it is yours that is crude and unsophisticated.

Hi Carmel,
Carmel wrote:It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same in this hypothetical scenario because there is no way of escaping the fact that new causes have been introduced. i.e.
cause: hypothetically rewinding the universe
effect: There are now two versions of the same five year period existing in this causal thought-web, instead of just one.
If you want to think of it like that, then you can think of these "two versions" as being entirely causally isolated, such that neither has any affect on the other. Also, in response to your implied question as to "whether the variables are the same or different in each five year time period": they are stipulated to be completely identical at the start of the replay only; whether they remain identical later is a matter of contention.
Carmel wrote:I'm not going to address the rest of your points, except to say, I'm still having trouble understanding your line of reasoning. What is your argument exactly?!
Thank you for asking and giving me an opportunity to step back and consolidate what I've been trying to say.

The essence of my argument is in this hypothetical. Under causal determinism, which both David and cousinbasil, and by implication, prince, have professed a belief in, if you "rewind the universe and then replay it", you will end up with exactly the same sequence of events as on the original "play". I'm suggesting the possibility that this is false: that if you "rewind and then replay" the universe, you might end up with a different sequence of events.

If this possibility were in fact the truth, then it would imply that there is no such thing as destiny. In particular, it would imply that no event is "fixed" or "determined" until the very instant that it occurs. There would be no such thing as "predetermination": the future would be even in principle unfixed and uncertain and unknowable.

My argument, then, is that we cannot know (from a standpoint of "pure logic") whether this possibility is true or not. We can, though, evaluate its implications. One recommendation that it has is that it potentially allows for a way out of one of the absurdities that I mentioned: that of the experience of free will being an illusion. If events are not predetermined, then they are in some sense "free" (in the causal sense), and this opens the door to the possibility of a truly libertarian free will.

On the other side of the equation, it's hard to mount an argument for a truly free (libertarian) will based solely on indeterminism, because it would seem that "true randomness" (as I've been calling it) is not a meaningful basis for "will": will would seem to require some sort of structure above and beyond randomness.

This is why I suggest, then, the possibility that the dichotomy of determinism versus indeterminism might one day be broken down into more sophisticated categories, and perhaps - who knows? - one of those categories might allow for the possibility of truly libertarian free will.

The indeterminism that I've described, too, has the intuitive benefit of matching our experience: deja vu and related phenomena aside, we do not experience the future as being fixed until it actually occurs. Deja vu and related phenomena pose a potential challenge to this indeterminism, but a first pass explanation might hold that even assuming that they are "real" phenomena, they are possible due to the extent to which the universe actually is deterministic: in other words, that in certain scenarios, indeterminism plays only a small role and determinism holds most of the sway.

OK, so that's where I'm coming from. Let me know whether it makes any sense to you.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

Laird:
If you want to think of it like that, then you can think of these "two versions" as being entirely causally isolated, such that neither has any affect on the other.

Carmel:
ok, but I'm having trouble conceiving of these two versions as being "causally isolated", the very term "causally isolated" seems like a oxymoron to me.

Laird:
Also, in response to your implied question as to "whether the variables are the same or different in each five year time period": they are stipulated to be completely identical at the start of the replay only; whether they remain identical later is a matter of contention.

Carmel:
If I suspend my disbelief about the two versions not affecting each other, or the very act of "rewinding" affecting the second version, then I don't see any reason why the second version would be any different than the first. rewind, repeat.

Laird:
If this possibility were in fact the truth, then it would imply that there is no such thing as destiny. In particular, it would imply that no event is "fixed" or "determined" until the very instant that it occurs. There would be no such thing as "predetermination": the future would be even in principle unfixed and uncertain and unknowable.

Carmel;
The key word here is "if". If this, then that... or if this, then maybe that. The problem I'm having with this line of thought is that it's entirely too hypothetical, but unlike a scientific hypothesis, it can't be tested and verfied, so, in essence this whole thought experiment is fairly futile. It really amounts to wishful thinking or fiction. You can create whatever outcome you want simply by imagining the desired outcome, in this case, imagining the second version of reality to be different than the first, but I haven't seen any logical argument that supports this.

Laird:
My argument, then, is that we cannot know (from a standpoint of "pure logic") whether this possibility is true or not. We can, though, evaluate its implications.

Carmel:
I wouldn't claim to "know", but I would say, without reservation, that all logic points in that direction.

Laird:
One recommendation that it has is that it potentially allows for a way out of one of the absurdities that I mentioned: that of the experience of free will being an illusion. If events are not predetermined, then they are in some sense "free" (in the causal sense), and this opens the door to the possibility of a truly libertarian free will.

Carmel:
"If"! :)...ok, but here you're telling me why you want to believe in free will, but still no argument is being made.

Laird:
On the other side of the equation, it's hard to mount an argument for a truly free (libertarian) will based solely on indeterminism, because it would seem that "true randomness" (as I've been calling it) is not a meaningful basis for "will": will would seem to require some sort of structure above and beyond randomness.

Carmel:
I'm still not clear what you mean by "true randomness". To me, that phrase simply means, "truly unpredictable". ...and what do you mean by "some sort of structure above and beyond randomness"? Are you invoking God here?

Laird:
This is why I suggest, then, the possibility that the dichotomy of determinism versus indeterminism might one day be broken down into more sophisticated categories, and perhaps - who knows? - one of those categories might allow for the possibility of truly libertarian free will.

Carmel:
I'm not opposed to exploring possiblities, but I need viable reasons to back them up, otherwise, it's just an exercise of the imagination and won't have any effect on my viewpoint.

Laird:
The indeterminism that I've described, too, has the intuitive benefit of matching our experience: deja vu and related phenomena aside, we do not experience the future as being fixed until it actually occurs. Deja vu and related phenomena pose a potential challenge to this indeterminism, but a first pass explanation might hold that even assuming that they are "real" phenomena, they are possible due to the extent to which the universe actually is deterministic: in other words, that in certain scenarios, indeterminism plays only a small role and determinism holds most of the sway.

Carmel:
I've experienced both dejavu and precognition(yes, really:), or even both surrounding the same event. Determinism would help explain both of these phenomena, especially precognition. This is just a personal anecdote, take or leave it...

It's interesting that determinism actually does match my intuitive experience, but doesn't seem to match yours, but how we experience things is highly subjective and not really something to base an argument on, my own experiences included.

Laird:
OK, so that's where I'm coming from. Let me know whether it makes any sense to you.

Carmel:
I think I understand it somewhat better now, but I can't help but wonder if your religious views could be a large influencing factor on your beliefs. i.e. The notion that God gave us free will, etc...Do you think that's the case?
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by cousinbasil »

Laird wrote:The essence of my argument is in this hypothetical. Under causal determinism, which both David and cousinbasil, and by implication, prince, have professed a belief in, if you "rewind the universe and then replay it", you will end up with exactly the same sequence of events as on the original "play". I'm suggesting the possibility that this is false: that if you "rewind and then replay" the universe, you might end up with a different sequence of events.
Ho-o-o-old on thar, Baba Looey. Far be it from me to defend David, who seems to do just fine defending himself, but he expressly denied talking about what you are calling "causal determinism."

But I can speak for myself. I have not been discussing causal determinism, but mere causality. You are introducing a hypothetical ability to rewind the entire universe, and then basing an argument upon analyzing the result!!

Laird - I am not talking about this hypothetical scenario in the least. I am talking about what is, and only what is. Surely, if I allow you this one hypothetical ability to rewind time for every aspect of the present universe, what's to stop you from arrogating to yourself the ability to then send that universe forward again to an outcome that is to your liking, that is, to an alternative present which differs from the one we started with so you can then proclaim the death of causal determinism?

We might be philosophers here, but at the same time, we should strive to base our arguments on reality.

Which is all I am trying to do. I am saying that at each temporal point, the world is at it is and not some other way. I do not believe everything everywhere is linked by a causal web which exists in the present. In other words, you cannot tweak something in a distant galaxy and have a repercussion of it here in the next instant.

But I do believe that the state of the universe at any moment and at any location is a result of prior causes.

That is the sum total of what I have been saying.

Now picture a quantum mechanical experiment which can be repeated as many times as we desire. It can have one of two outcomes (say, a double-slit experiment). This means it can only have one per trial run, and it must have one, and it can only have one of two possible ones.

In a sense, by repeating this experiment, I am "rewinding" the clock in a very localized and specific sense. In our experiment, QM predicts result A will occur 75% of the time. Therefore, necessarily, event B will occur 25% of the time. QM is fabulously predictive. When this trial is run more and more times, the observed values get closer and closer to the predicted values. (QM has never failed in this regard.)

You are claiming this bears out that causal determinism must be failing, since the trial runs are set up identically and never changed.

My position is simply this: No matter how we isolate the system, the trial runs cannot be said to be precisely identical. But that is really neither here nor there. The fact is, each result, whether A or B, has been caused to happen.


Do you see the difference? I am not arguing causal determinism, but rather simply causality. It is a logical necessity, since you cannot give an example of an uncaused event. I also cannot reject determinism logically based on such an experiment, as I clearly cannot know every single cause of each outcome. (You will note that many if not most quantum physicists do not rule out causal determinism based on QM alone.)
If events are not predetermined, then they are in some sense "free" (in the causal sense), and this opens the door to the possibility of a truly libertarian free will.
I am not convinced that human choice can be classified as an event the same way every physical event is classified. By this I mean, human will can be a cause, and it can be an effect, but it need not be either. Human mentation seems as if it can occur unrelated to previous events, either internal or external. And surely one has thoughts which disappear without a trace, never to be repeated or recalled, and that have no bearing on external reality - meaning thoughts which have no effect, and therefore cannot be classified as causes. (While every external event must be a cause as well as an effect.)
Even without that distinction, though, it depends on what we count as a cause. For causal determinism, we consider as causes only prior events, so how about a scenario in which the universe has a definite beginning in time and owes its existence to some sort of quantum principle? We could not count the quantum principle as a cause because it does not exist in any prior state of the universe (because there is no prior state), and so any event at time zero would be without a cause (in the temporal sense - obviously not in the non-temporal senses that David also includes).
You'll note that in a response to Locke, I proposed a hypothetical Event Alpha, which is the one event lying withing the light cone of every event in the universe besides itself at every subsequent instant of time.

This would be, say, a Big Bang, whether a quantum fluctuation or something else. If there is an Alpha Point, causality is meaningless there, just as equations of QM and relativity break down there and run to mathematical singularities.

If David is correct and there was no such uncaused beginning of things, your example reduces to another thought experiment that has the same value as your "rewinding the universe" Gedankenexperiment.

David, however, does not and cannot know - he is just surmising based on logical consistency, which is as valid a motivation as any other, I suppose.

But if he is not correct and there was an Alpha Event, it does not alter the fact that every subsequent event is caused, and causes another event in turn.

If your motivation for questioning causal determinism if the "determinism" part - which I suspect it is - all of us are glossing over the fact that reality has more than one level. It is quite possible that the higher realms (thought) are not always causally related, but I maintain that every physical manifestation of reality must be both caused and also be a cause itself, whether one can know all the prior causes or subsequent effects or not, even in theory.

You want to think free will cannot be ruled out. As I have remarked, I have no dog in this race, but I find I cannot rule out free will, either. David is clearly applying logic which holds in the physical realm to a realm which is not entirely physical. I cannot make that leap - it is too much like calling an apple an orange simply because they are both fruits.

David and I are in agreement on the necessity of causality in the physical realm, at least - simply because we are asserting the least possible thing, namely: "It is what It is!"
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
David Quinn wrote:There is no real difference between a "cause" and a "condition", at bottom.
That depends on what you mean by "real". Conditions are defined to be less relevant than causes, but yes, "Both fall into the category of being part contributors of a thing's existence".

A "condition" is just as relevent to a thing's existence as a "cause is". A tree can no more exist in the absence of space than it can in the absence of its DNA.

guest_of_logic wrote:
David: Why would I want to prove an irrational conception like "causal determinism"?

guest_of_logic: If somehow we were able to rewind the universe five years, and then let it continue on its course again, would it follow the exact same course that it followed in the original five years and end up after five years in the exact same state that it is in now?

David: If everything is identical, the answer can only be yes.

guest_of_logic: Well, that's causal determinism in a nutshell, so I don't know why you're calling it irrational, unless your own beliefs are irrational.

David: It is the idea that causal determinism should be confined to a particular set of causes - e.g. the realm of past causes - which is irrational. The "everything is identical" bit that I talk about refers to all causes, not just some of them.
Why is that irrational?

I've already explained why it is irrational.

Definitions by their nature include certain things and exclude certain other things, and you've already noted your agreement with this definition - now you're just trying to save face.

The only definition of causality that I agree to is "things cannot exist by themselves", or "things necessarily come from other things". I've already explained this as well.

Of course past causes include non-temporal relationships (your "everything is identical" bit), but if you want a term that includes non-temporal relationships in the effects too, then go ahead and invent one!

The term "cause" is perfectly adequate, defined as "anything that is necessary for something else to exist". Such a definition covers every possible contributing factor to a thing's existence.

guest_of_logic wrote:
David Quinn wrote:It is important to tease out all the logical implications of the matter. For example, it is logically the case that the present couldn't happen without the past. It is only by things disappearing into the past that room can be made for things to emerge in the present. So already the connection between past and present is logically demonstrated.
This is another strawman. I'm not disputing a relationship between past and present, I'm disputing that we can know for certain that the past wholly determines the present, such that a "replay" of the universe would definitely follow the same course. You haven't proved that we can know that, David.

The proof was demonstrated a number of posts ago. Given that a thing can only come from what is not itself, where else can the present come from but from what is not itself?

The problem with this conversation, apart from the fact that you don't want to understand anything, is that you are basing your "speculations" about the possibility of uncaused events on the false, academic idea that things and events exist as discrete entities. In other words, you're conceiving of things as separate, isolated lumps, as it were. So your starting basis in all of this is rooted in fiction.

For whatever reason, you're not tuning into the truth that things can never be separated from their causes, both past and present; that no thing exists over and above its causes, that there is no real begining or end to anything, etc. If you could tune into it, then the "problem" you are raising would instantly be resolved.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

cousinbasil wrote:David, however, does not and cannot know - he is just surmising based on logical consistency, which is as valid a motivation as any other, I suppose.
I don't think you're fully understanding the nature of logical consistency when you say this - in particular, its level of omniscience.

How best to illustrate this? If I were to say that it is impossible for married bachelors to exist anywhere in the universe (given the way we define these terms), what would you say if another person responded with something like: "David, you do not and cannot know this. You're just surmising based on logical consistency." You would conclude that he hadn't quite grasped the matter, wouldn't you?

-
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

David,
I've never understood the concerns that people have with this kind of thing. (Well, that's not true, I do understand it, but it means going into psychology).
there's the archetype that manages it's mood by way of arguing or conceptual duelling...that gets its endorphin rush not by getting resolution but keeping the action happening..
it's trying to get to the next rush...

the psychological transformation happens in the recognition of emptiness...

when the mind finally meets its own emptiness,
all questions and all possible answers naturally disappear by themselves.
and what is found there is the knowing of oneself as totally naked and unencumbered by anything...
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by cousinbasil »

David Quinn wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:David, however, does not and cannot know - he is just surmising based on logical consistency, which is as valid a motivation as any other, I suppose.
I don't think you're fully understanding the nature of logical consistency when you say this - in particular, its level of omniscience.

How best to illustrate this? If I were to say that it is impossible for married bachelors to exist anywhere in the universe (given the way we define these terms), what would you say if another person responded with something like: "David, you do not and cannot know this. You're just surmising based on logical consistency." You would conclude that he hadn't quite grasped the matter, wouldn't you?

-
Omniscient, are we? Clearly I am out of my league here.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

You don't see the omniscience involved in seeing that it is impossible for a married bachelor to arise anywhere? Logic does have unlimited power in this sense.

That's essentially what philosophy is - eliminating all logical impossibilities from the mind and bathing in what is left. An omniscient wisdom.

-
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by cousinbasil »

David Quinn wrote:You don't see the omniscience involved in seeing that it is impossible for a married bachelor to arise anywhere? Logic does have unlimited power in this sense.

That's essentially what philosophy is - eliminating all logical impossibilities from the mind and bathing in what is left. An omniscient wisdom.

-
If you need to bathe, don't let me stop you.

I do see the simplicity inherent in knowing a thing cannot be what it is not (a bachelor cannot be married.) Though I think it is just a matter of time before Hollywood belches out a romantic comedy with "The Married Bachelor" as a title.

But my original point was that you cannot know the universe had no beginning. By using logic, reasoning, and just a touch of science, modern cosmologists have argued that the univese did in fact have a beginning.

They can't know, either, by the way.

So you just go right ahead and bathe whenever you feel like it.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Russell Parr »

cousinbasil wrote: But my original point was that you cannot know the universe had no beginning. By using logic, reasoning, and just a touch of science, modern cosmologists have argued that the univese did in fact have a beginning.

They can't know, either, by the way.
Here you're defining "universe" as a thing. Things do indeed have boundaries and characteristics, which you can apply a "beginning" to.

However, if by "universe" you mean absolute Reality (Totality), then you cannot apply boundaries to it, because it includes all things, including the "ball of energy" that became our physical universe (big bang theory), AND the circumstances and background conditions which allowed it to do so.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

cousinbasil:
But my original point was that you cannot know the universe had no beginning. By using logic, reasoning, and just a touch of science, modern cosmologists have argued that the univese did in fact have a beginning.

Carmel:
yes, that's true, but that's not the whole truth...

cousinbasil:
They can't know, either, by the way.

Carmel:
While it's true that cosmologists generally agree that the Universe had a beginning, they also acknowledge an unknown state of existence prior to the Big Bang. They don't know what this state was nor do they know what caused the Big Bang, but they do acknowledge that the Universe was caused. Some cosmologists have theorized that it was caused by two Universes colliding, but they don't know with any degree of certainty. Current scientific theory is not at odds with the concept of a beginingless Universe(Omniverse).
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

cousinbasil wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You don't see the omniscience involved in seeing that it is impossible for a married bachelor to arise anywhere? Logic does have unlimited power in this sense.

That's essentially what philosophy is - eliminating all logical impossibilities from the mind and bathing in what is left. An omniscient wisdom.

-
If you need to bathe, don't let me stop you.

I do see the simplicity inherent in knowing a thing cannot be what it is not (a bachelor cannot be married.) Though I think it is just a matter of time before Hollywood belches out a romantic comedy with "The Married Bachelor" as a title.

But my original point was that you cannot know the universe had no beginning.

If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.

By using logic, reasoning, and just a touch of science, modern cosmologists have argued that the univese did in fact have a beginning.
It doesn't really matter what they argue, as it isn't a scientific issue. It's an issue, rather, of pure logic.

Don't be fooled. Modern cosmologists don't have any evidence at all that the Universe began at the Big Bang. It is simply an assumption they insert into the current theory.

You really need to be clear about this. When it comes to these fundamental issues, science has absolutely nothing to say. It is wholly beyond the power of science to resolve these issues, one way or the other.

-
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

David:
Don't be fooled. Modern cosmologists don't have any evidence at all that the Universe began at the Big Bang. It is simply an assumption they insert into the current theory.

Carmel:
That's not the whole truth, either. Keeping in mind that due to the dynamic of the space-time continuum, when scientists look out into space, they can literally see the conditions of the Universe back in time. Based on this, they know quite accurately what the conditions of the
Universe were within one minute after the Big Bang occured. The Big Bang Theory entails far more than "an assumption they insert into current theory".

David:
You really need to be clear about this. When it comes to these fundamental issues, science has absolutely nothing to say. It is wholly beyond the power of science to resolve these issues, one way or the other.

Carmel:
I still don't understand why you seem to display what appears to be an anti-science bias, when, in fact, modern scientific theory seems to confirm your philosophies at every turn. "The Omniverse", a term which is gradually replacing "universe", acknowledges a boundless, infinite universe(omniverse), not unlike your version of "The Totality".
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by cousinbasil »

Carmel wrote:While it's true that cosmologists generally agree that the Universe had a beginning, they also acknowledge an unknown state of existence prior to the Big Bang.
As I understand it, they agree that space-time has a closed curvature going back in time. The General Relativity theory indicates time itself had a beginning, therefore it is a bit misleading to speak of something prior to the Big Bang. Hawking has said this would be like asking what lies ten feet north of the North Pole.
They don't know what this state was nor do they know what caused the Big Bang, but they do acknowledge that the Universe was caused.
Well, it's here, isn't it?
Current scientific theory is not at odds with the concept of a beginingless Universe(Omniverse).
You just said cosmologists generally agree the universe had a beginning.

But I know what you mean. You are referring to the various "brane" theories that have universes winking in and out on unimaginably large timescales.
DQ wrote:You really need to be clear about this. When it comes to these fundamental issues, science has absolutely nothing to say. It is wholly beyond the power of science to resolve these issues, one way or the other.
Science has quite a lot to say, but I will grant you science cannot resolve cosmological issues. This is because the scientific method cannot be applied to them.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Russell Parr »

Carmel wrote: I still don't understand why you seem to display what appears to be an anti-science bias, when, in fact, modern scientific theory seems to confirm your philosophies at every turn. "The Omniverse", a term which is gradually replacing "universe", acknowledges a boundless, infinite universe(omniverse), not unlike your version of "The Totality".
By definition, it is impossible for science (which relies on the empirical) to conclude to the infinite nature of reality. This realization is concluded by logic alone.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

bluerap:
By definition, it is impossible for science (which relies on the empirical) to conclude to the infinite nature of reality. This realization is concluded by logic alone.

Carmel:
Scientists have reached the same conclusion via logic as well. The only difference is that they called it a theory, rather than an absolute truth. The important thing to remember is that it is the mechanism of logic which yields the same conclusion.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Russell Parr »

Carmel wrote:Scientists have reached the same conclusion via logic as well. The only difference is that they called it a theory, rather than an absolute truth. The important thing to remember is that it is the mechanism of logic which yields the same conclusion.
Only weak logic would conclude that it is just a theory.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

bluerap:
Only weak logic would conclude that it is just a theory.

Carmel:
This is a faulty conclusion on your behalf. Strong logic yields the same conclusion.i.e. an infinite, boundless omniverse, You completely missed that point.
Locked