Are causeless effects possible?
This is a simple question. It's the answer that's difficult.
Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen?
I asked this question in another topic, and received baseless and unjustified assertions in response. People seem surprised that someone would even ask if causeless effects could occur. But isn't that what philosophers do? They ask questions, and they question things others take for granted (without scrutiny, I might add :wink: ).
I definitely do not assert that causeless effects exist, or can occur. I just wonder, that's all. Do you wonder too?
It seems to me that every effect has a cause, but is that simply because I was raised to think that way? A lot of our thinking assumes that effects are caused. It's difficult even to imagine otherwise. Is this because effects and causes are indivisibly and irrevocably linked, or our lack of imagination?
Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen?
I asked this question in another topic, and received baseless and unjustified assertions in response. People seem surprised that someone would even ask if causeless effects could occur. But isn't that what philosophers do? They ask questions, and they question things others take for granted (without scrutiny, I might add :wink: ).
I definitely do not assert that causeless effects exist, or can occur. I just wonder, that's all. Do you wonder too?
It seems to me that every effect has a cause, but is that simply because I was raised to think that way? A lot of our thinking assumes that effects are caused. It's difficult even to imagine otherwise. Is this because effects and causes are indivisibly and irrevocably linked, or our lack of imagination?
Comments (201)
Every effect on large scales has a cause. In quantum physics, however, there are particles popping in and out of existence all the time. The famous outburst from Einstein about not playing dice with the universe is in relation to that. What causes these particles to pop in and out of existence? They seem to be exactly that, something out of nothing, then back to nothing.
The full understanding of this is unknown at the time and that's just the point. If we cannot know it, we cannot deduce that something cannot come from nothing. Claiming that requires knowing more than all of science can know at this time in history.
In this sense: It is self-caused, having a cause - and causeless, having no cause.
Here's an analogy: You see it because it is there. It is there because you see it.
I have no trouble with the answer for me:
I do not know. Nor do I see any way to determine if it is more likely "Yes than no" or more likely "No than yes."
I would add: I doubt anyone else knows either.
We can however deduce that something permanent cannot naturally come from nothing if time was infinite (because matter density would become infinite).
It seems that some QM events can and do happen spontaneously, so is that the answer to my question? [I'm no QM expert, so I may have misunderstood.]
Unless a balancing amount of 'permanent' somethings go back to nothing at some point/time, as in the QM example?
Assertions (without justification) are a problem here. We are wondering if effects can happen without causes, and you respond by saying they can't and don't, but you offer no justification. Don't misunderstand me: I have no magical explanation. But simply to assert "No, they can't happen" does not advance the discussion.
It is not our experience that matter disappears. I have not heard of this from QM. I would have thought that the conservation of energy means matter would not disappear, it would possibly convert to energy. But then that leads to infinite energy density (with infinite time).
If matter appeared randomly, lasted for a set time, then disappeared, what accounts for the overwhelmingly positive balance of matter in the universe? The appearance/disappearance ratio would have to be set precisely right I think to avoid infinite density?
I'm referring to entropy, to causality for any large events (large being larger than quantum level, which means smaller than atoms, neutrons/protons and even quarks, is the quantum limit. If the probability of events not happening at random is at an infinite number as soon as their properties as matter and energy becomes defined by quantum events, then causality can't be broken, i.e causality for large scale events are determined. But at quantum levels, where matter and energy get properties by how the elemental particles behave, particles can form out of nothing. Meaning, there is no cause to a particle popping into existence and there's nothing after it disappears.
My conclusion isn't that this concludes in any answer, my conclusion is that because of this, we don't have an answer. Therefore to claim that something cannot come from nothing is lacking enough data to support such a conclusion, especially when little is known about the properties of the universe pre-BigBang.
The simple conclusion we can arrive at by just reasoning is that we simply don't know at this time and cannot conclude anything out of that uncertainty. Any attempt is to assume something we have no data in support of.
But that is my understanding of the Big Bang. I have read that a load of nothing transformed itself into a load of something, and a balancing number of anti-somethings. Somehow, the anti-somethings returned to nothingness in greater numbers than the somethings, leaving a load of somethings behind. The universe. Have I got this wrong?
But causality is what we're questioning here, so I'm afraid this resolves to another unjustified assertion, doesn't it? You are using causality to justify causality.... :chin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity
The matter either preexisted the Big Bang (existed timelessly) and went into making the Big Bang.
Or there was some special process that only took place in the Big Bang that made matter from nothing. A hypotheses along these lines is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
It's not the point. The point, the conclusion I made was that because we don't have enough data and understanding of pre-BigBang properties we cannot conclude anything. You cannot apply our universal laws to something that defies them or works in another way. Just as you cannot explain the properties of the center of a black hole.
As long as you can't solve what was before, you can't conclude anything. For example, why is there not equally an amount of anti-matter to matter? It all formed at Big Bang, so if you know the properties of pre-BigBang, you would have an answer to that question as well.
Quoting Devans99
:chin: Universes! :gasp: You just can't trust 'em! :wink:
Did you read the entirety of what I wrote? Causality in our universe from Big Bang has mathematical precision, before it, we don't know. Therefore defining anything based on causality or any properties of our known universe to something outside of it is impossible with our current knowledge.
Yes. I commented on the bit that I couldn't make sense of. :up:
Per the usual Humean approach, do we really observe causality in any case of phenomena that we observe? It's not clear that we do and that we're not always talking about conceptual abstractions that we make.
So it's not clear is we ever observe "causeless effects" or "caused effects," and it's not clear how we'd ever empirically establish the difference with any epistemic certainty.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I am making the special exception that for the special BB, it is possible that something came from nothing (zero energy universe hypothesis)
But personally I'm more in favour of the matter pre-existing the BB (conservation of energy).
We could go into detail on causality in itself, but I think the key answer to the question of causeless effects is that in our universe, no, not possible. But we have areas, both before Big Bang and for example in black holes, that defy our laws of physics, which means we cannot know if it is possible without making a huge assumption on what was before and what is inside a black hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qu9XaF2K10
The video explores a variety of time related issues, some proven fact, others only interesting theories.
As example, it's proven that time runs at different speeds in different circumstances.
The video claims that there's nothing in the laws of physics that would prevent time from running backwards.
The video speculates that all moments in time, past, present and future may exist simultaneously.
As best I can tell, the speculation and unproven theories in the video are all based on reference to current physics. That is, it's not a new age video or anything of that nature.
Point being, if we can't firmly establish that time runs in only one direction, then cause and effect may be a meaningless concept.
We cannot know, how can we? How can you make a certain deduction without the certainty of the properties of pre-BigBang? You make an assumption that fit the narrative of a first cause argument, but you simply cannot know. And as the math shows about things like black holes, it's not easy to simply slap a "first cause" to something that doesn't exist under our known laws of physics. Before we know the properties of pre-BigBang, we cannot assume anything. And doing so is only in support of an agenda, not deductive truth.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
That argument does not use cause and effect and it still leads to a timeless first cause.
Most of the other arguments for a timeless first cause use cause and effect. But when it comes to pre-BB physics; if causality does not apply, it would surely be just a crazy, impossible universe?
Another term we use for effects without a cause is "randomness". Effects that appear random are so because of the lack of information we have (we try to get at the cause). Once we determine the cause, things are no longer random. They become predictable. How can things go from being random to predictable if there is no causation? How can a random process (QM) give rise to a predictable one?
QM seems to imply that consciousness is part of the cause for how things turn out (the effects) in the quantum world, but our lack of understanding of consciousness prevents us from explaining just how, so quantum events seem random, when it's not. Our understanding is incomplete.
Quoting Jake
Interesting. Thank you both.
Quoting Devans99
Yet another unjustified assertion.
Quoting Devans99
So when we consider the only example we've come up with, of what could have been a causeless event, you dismiss it as a special case? :gasp:
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, isn't that what we're trying to do?
Quoting Christoffer
Oh look! Another unjustified assertion! :worry:
The justification is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
Quoting Pattern-chaser
The BB has a cause. But the BB itself generates matter from nothing - so that is not causeless matter but it is matter from nothing (well matter in exchange for negative gravitational energy).
Ah, so the reason you argue against causeless events is because you can't imagine a universe where such things exist? And you could be quite right, of course. But should we abandon our consideration because we don't understand? After all, it was my own lack of understanding that lead me to post this topic, to see if anyone else had any ideas, or helpful explanations. IMO, the best philosophy tries to break new ground. That isn't easy, but that's no reason not to try, is it?
No it isn't. I keep looking at that link when you post it, and - surprise! - it turns out to be based on unjustified assertions and nothing else. Wishful thinking is what it looks like to me.
And that cause is...?
We should continue to try to get to the bottom of things... if that's possible.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
What unjustified assertions? I countered every counter argument on that thread.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
The cause of the BB is the timeless first cause - the creator of the universe. I'm not 100% sure of that but thats the way it looks to me.
We only say an effect has a cause because we link the effect to something else, we link an observation to something else. Now if you see something move in a peculiar way, and there is nothing you observe that you can link to this peculiar motion, you can assume that there is something you don't see linked to this motion, or you can assume that this motion is causeless.
Scientists often work from the assumption that every effect has a cause, so to any effect that they observe causeless in apparence they will assign a theoretical invisible cause, and then model that cause by studying the effect, and then come to see their theoretical construct as referring to a real invisible thing causing the effect, so by construction we come to see every observable effect as having a cause. But you could as well see the effect as causeless, and simply model the effect itself.
If the apparent behavior of the effect is random then it doesn't describe anything more to say that there is an underlying cause behind this random behavior, unless this underlying theoretical cause can be used to describe other effects that are not random. The effect of Brownian motion comes to mind, the random motion of small visible particles in a fluid could be seen as a causeless effect, or it could be assumed that the fluid was made of a bunch of fast-moving tiny invisible particles causing the apparent random motion of the small visible particle as a result. The hypothesis that a fluid is made of fast-moving tiny particles (molecules) was linked to other observable effects, so it was more convenient/useful to view these effects as having the same invisible cause rather than seeing them as causeless.
On the other hand the motion of subatomic particles is modeled as partly random (in fact they are often modeled as not even having a definite trajectory), and for now there is no significant usefulness gained in assuming an underlying cause to these random motions as opposed to making them an inherent part of the behavior of these particles, so in some sense that randomness can be seen as causeless. But then fundamentally we are never explaining why the fundamental constituents of the universe behave the way they do, we are just describing how they behave, so that fundamental behavior could be seen as a causeless effect. Every effect having a cause would be akin to asking "why?" forever and always having an answer before the next "why?".
Why does the apple fall? Because it is attracted by the Earth. Why is it attracted by the Earth? Because it is made of small things that are attracted to the small things that make up the Earth. Why do these small things attract each other? We just describe how they attract each other, and that behavior is causeless until we come up with an underlying cause which itself will then be causeless, and so on and so forth.
In this thread the question is, Are Causeless Effects Possible?
If we start from the assumption that time runs in only one direction, this is an interesting provocative question to ask. If the nature of time is far different than what we typically assume from our everyday experience, then perhaps not.
In other threads (so many! :smile: ) the question is, Does God Exist? This could be a useful question if our understanding of existence aligns with the nature of reality. If our understanding of existence is totally screwball, then a billion competing answers aren't likely to accomplish much.
In many threads the hidden underlying question is, Is Human Reason Capable Of Understanding This Issue? If the answer is shown to be yes, then a philosophical inquiry may indeed be warranted. If the answer is no, or if the qualifications of reason for a particular task can not be established with some confidence, then the entire discussion may be a total waste of time.
What may be obstructing such an examination of the questions of such threads is that, by and large generally speaking, we often aren't actually that interested in the topic itself, but are instead motivated primarily by a desire to debate. If that's the case that could explain why we so often ignore inspecting the validity of the question and dive immediately in to the competing answers contest.
No, based on what we know in physics. Before Big Bang and within a black hole, we can only speculate since we don't have data and observations that can describe it. And even if there are possibilities outside the current understanding of physics, it is as close as we can get to the nature of causality within our laws of the universe. So how is that an unjust assertion?
Not "unjust" - lacking in justice - but "unjustified": no justification offered; no evidence to back your claim; no reason for it to be true. You see?
How about most major publications in physics? Causality is a basic part of it, so what evidence do you mean doesn't exist?
From a strictly semantic point of view: no. Labeling something "an effect" implies it is an effect of something, and that "something" is its cause. In other words: there is a cause if and only if there is an effect.
Perhaps you're asking if causeless things can exist. Within the universe, it appears that every state of affairs has been caused by prior states of affairs. The state of the universe at time Tx is a direct consequence of the universe's state at time Tx-1.
So-called "virtual particles" were brought up. They are caused. A "virtual particle" refers to interactions between a quantum field and other things (other fields, measurement devices). Quantum fields fluctuate in a deterministic manner per a Schroedinger equation (here is a good description of "virtual particles.")
So if things within the universe are caused, what about the universe itself? The universe may be the result of physical conditions that necessarily cause universes to exist. What about these prior physical conditions? Perhaps these were caused by still earlier conditions, and this reflects a long chain of cause-effect. Does the chain end? We're left with two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain of causes, or there is an uncaused cause. Some of us argue that an infinite causal chain is impossible, while others insist it is possible. Take your pick.
Quoting Frank Apisa
But despite your propensity to doubt that anyone else knows you should say, in strict accordance with your own philosophy:
Quoting Frank Apisa
since you only have a sample size of one who doesn't know to judge from.
Nicely put. An infinite causal chain is provably impossible. To illustrate this with an example, imagine a pool table:
- The cue hits the white ball.
- The white ball hits the black ball.
- The black goes in the pocket.
Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal infinite regresses are impossible.
Agreed, concepts do not need causes. Maths was not created. It just existed as a concept waiting for a discoverer.
I am being consistent.
I DO NOT KNOW if every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen\.
There is no way to KNOW it. One would have to show that every effect, everywhere in the universe, has had a "cause" (including any possible gods) in order to KNOW that.
Otherwise IT IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE that there could be an effect without a cause. (Which is what I said.)
I did not say that nobody else knows...I merely said I had a doubt that anyone else does.
Anyone with a functioning brain would have that same doubt.
Are you saying you do not?
If it existed prior to our 'discovery' of it, where, in the real-life space-time universe, was it kept? What was its location? It couldn't be in human minds, because we hadn't yet 'discovered' it.
[b]Where is the concept store?
What is the concept store?[/b]
If your 'discovery' myth is true, you must be able to answer these questions. If not, then you should stop asserting it. :up: :smile:
Concepts are not material so they don't exist in spacetime. I am not sure it can even be said of concepts that they 'exist' - there is the theory of forms of cause - but I don't really buy that.
Concepts are discovered by intelligence, but different intelligences discover the same concepts; so they have independent existence of a non-material manner.
Quoting Christoffer
You claim that cause and effect exists because physics refers to it? Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it.
Define how? I have asked if we can consider the possibility of effects without causes. What further definition do you require?
As to making the discussion meaningful, this seems to depend on whether cause and effect is valid, in itself, and also whether causeless effects can or do exist. And that is the purpose of this discussion: to consider whether causeless effects can/do exist.
Fair point. The relationship between cause and effect is assumed to exist by the definitions of the terms cause and effect. But that has little to do with whether cause and effect is valid, or whether causeless effects can/do exist.
Agreed. :up:
Quoting Devans99
So, having agreed that concepts don't exist (outside of the minds that contain them), you assert once more that they exist. But now it's in a "non-material manner". I can't make much of that, but let's set it aside for now. If they exist, in whatever form, then please point to the place where they exist, the location where these concepts are stored, prior to their discovery. Yes, they are non-physical, so the place where they're stored is not a physical shelf or cupboard, but they must be stored somewhere, in some sense, if they exist. So where in the universe is the concept storage facility, and what form does this repository take?
For example, approximate triangles exist in nature. Is that where we get the idea? But then just thinking about object shapes in general leads to the abstract idea of a triangle.
I think maybe there exists common sense and reality and concepts are deducible from common sense and reality - so they do not have existence until they are discovered/deduced at which point they exist in our minds.
Physics doesn't just accept an axiom and form theories from it, the concepts work as premises in an argument, they need to be true and are measured and calculated through math. It's a combination of real observations from large scale galaxy events, down to elemental particles found at CERN combined with theoretical physics which needs extreme scrutiny in order to be accepted at all. To dismiss this as something close to being a "belief" is seriously a naive perspective on physics.
Yes, it does. That's what an axiom is: something accepted with no evidence or proof.
But there's lots of evidence for causality in physics.
Where? There are lots of cases where causality is assumed (unexamined) to be present, and so it appears. But appearance is less than scientific proof. A lot less.
1) Are you skeptical of causation within the universe? The progress of science depends on the assumption that everything in the universe has a causal explanation (i.e. the PSR). Although it is an unprovable assumption, the success of science provides abductive support for it.
2) Are you (merely) contending that brute facts are metaphysically possible?
3) Are you generally skeptical, such that you choose to believe only that which can be proven analytically? Some of your posts give me this impression, and this may explain why you (seem to) question the PSR.
Hi, Pattern-chaser. Have you looked at this?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
It seems to me that we look for causes because they are useful. In practical terms they help with prediction and control. They also ameliorate our fear of the dark, metaphorically speaking. I personally see no reason to embrace the PSR as anything more than a description of what we tend to do. Maybe some things 'just happen.' Indeed, assuming that every event has a cause leads to its own problems.
There remain som more interesting considerations: 1) is causation present due to physical necessity or metaphysical necessity? 2) if everything that exists has been caused, does this imply an infinite causal chain? If not, then this implies something exists (or existed) that was not caused.
Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...
...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...
...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."
It is nonsense.
No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap.
Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible?
We are of one mind in the cause/effect; creation/creator semantic issue.
That last part I'd have to think about a long time...and I doubt I could come up with a strong conviction for my inclination. My inclination is that "brute facts" are possible. Whether humans can figure out what is a fact and what is not...is the question that initially intrudes for me.
Some things simply ARE. Whether we humans know they ARE or not...does not impact on whether they ARE or not...or at least, I do not think it does. (It may.)
Why think this is true? Because it appears everything has been caused. This seems reasonable - within the context of the universe (broadly defined as "all of material existence"). There's a causal chain that reaches back, either into an infinite past or to initial conditions (or "first cause"). Setting aside an infinite causal chain (which I find objectionable), I settle on there being a first cause - which is itself uncaused. What is its nature? EITHER it is something that exists out of metaphysical necessity, or it exists as brute fact. Theists rule out brute facts because we don't know of any brute facts existing. But on the other hand, we don't know of any necessary existents that are causally efficacious (i.e. the only thing we know that exists necessarily are abstractions, like the law of non-contradiction).
Therefore, at minimum, I think it reasonable to argue that that it is at least as likely that brute facts exist as it is for a necessarily existing non-physical creator to exist. I lean strongly toward brute fact because it cannot be shown that a creator has properties that exist necessarily (theists simply assume the properties are necessary).
I personally agree. :wink:
Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why.
And finally, should we conclude that causation is "highly likely" to be true? If we have reason - reason based on the scientific discipline of statistics, that is - then yes, of course we should. But do we have any statistical justification at all for assigning a numerical probability to the supposed truth of causation? No, I don't think we do.
Most important of all: nothing I have written here points to the collapse of causation, or of science. I am only trying to explore the long-held axiom of causation, to see if there is anything to be learned, other than blind acceptance.
Quoting Relativist
I agree! It would be exciting if we could show that some effects are causeless, or maybe that the causes of some effects follow them chronologically. Exciting because it would be a new discovery, promising new conclusions, and maybe new avenues of research. But neither science nor the universe offers novelty for its own sake. The likelihood is that causation will remain axiomatic, because it looks to be true. For the sake of accuracy, we'll leave it as vague as that. :smile: :up:
:smile: :smile: :smile:
I'm really uneasy about introducing theism or atheism into this topic. Uneasy because I see no justification for that introduction. What does it add to the discussion? Little that I can see. There may or may not be brute facts (causeless effects). I wonder if we would realise their actual nature if we observed such things? Or would we just assume they were caused, and thereby miss them? Maybe.
An uncertain world is an interesting world.
A lot of people say this, but what would proof of causation look like? How do you know that we don't have proof of cause and effect? The assumption isnt just made up. There must be a reason for this assumption and why it is so common.
Because if we had a proof, we'd use it. No need for guesses (axioms), we'd justifiably assert the truth of causation, based on our proof, and that would be that.
I think the thought experiment is useful. Brute facts can't be proven to exist nor to be metaphysically impossible, but the causal chain provides some reason to think ultinate brute fact is fundamental to existence.
(I wish you'd stop using the semantically problematic term "causeless effect" instead of "brute fact").
Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little.
Another thing to note is the quantum world is, on some view, acausal/nondeterministic.
What we experience as causation on a human scale may not apply at another scale. For instance in the subatomic level radioactive decay is random. At the scale of the universe itself we don't know the cause for its expansion (Big Bang Theory).
I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.
Zero, nil, none, zip.
Why do you consider that extreme?
You skipped over the most important question in my post. Again, what would proof of causation look like? What reasons do we have to argue for causation? Why would anyone have posited such an idea and how did it become common if there is no proof?
Funnily enough, what that effectively suggests is that feasibly we're experiencing a "momentarily popped in" state within a "popping in and out of existence" overall dynamic.
This aligns, in its vast mysteriousness, with the proposal by certain physicists that there are countless "big bangs" happening continually throughout a broader reality beyond the edge of the universe. If I recall correctly, this is only a guess hazarded based on two dimensional images captured by some kind of (wave resonance?) imaging the name of which I don't even slightly remember.
But the notion is basically that these "big bangs" vary in magnitude and don't necessarily birth universes.
Self contradiction:
Statement F: "I, for one, do not do any 'believing' at all."
Therefore you don't believe statement F.
There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently.
Do you NOT believe you are alive and have to do various things to stay that way? (eat, breath,...). Do you not make choices, and when doing so - do you not sometimes base it on expected outcomes (i.e. outcomes you believe might occur)?
Belief needn't equate to certainty.
Not 'self-contradictory" at all.
I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.
I KNOW IT.
I have no idea of what in hell you are trying to sell here...but I am not buying.
A belief, in the context of "do gods exist or not"...is nothing but a blind guess.
No need to justify a blind guess.
One might want to think about why one is disguising a blind guess by calling it a "belief"...but it doesn't much matter.
No...I KNOW I am alive and that I have to eat, breathe, etc. in order to stay alive.
I "expect" lots of things...I "guess" lots of things...I "estimate" lots of things...I "suppose" lots of things.
When I do, I say that I expect, guess, estimate, suppose...those things. I do not disguise the fact that I am expecting, guessing, estimating, or supposing...by calling any of those things "believing."
As I said...I do not do "believing."
Not at all.
Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F.
Bullshit!
In any case, I am totally willing to change F to "I suppose F to be true." Or "I guess F to be true." Or "I estimate F to be true." I "suppose" F to be true.
Whatever makes you happy.
BUT...I do not do "believing"...because I also estimate, guess, suppose, think, feel...that striking "believe" and "belief" from the lexicon would make planet Earth a more enjoyable place on which to exist. It would eliminate lots of contentious misunderstandings of what is being said in conversations where those words are used.
Said again: I do not do "believing."
" The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[5] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. "
I'm not the semantics police. Feel free to use words however you like, but try not to get mad when this leads to misinterpretation.
C'mon, Relativist.
You quote one ancient philosopher from a Wikipedia comment...and expect that to be definitive.
And from an opening remark that begins with:
"Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. "
I DO NOT DO BELIEVING...which no matter what Plato or anyone else says. "Believing is the act of a person saying, "I believe...(x)..."
I DO NOT DO THAT.
If I suppose (x)...I say, "I suppose (x).
If I guess (x)...I say, "I guess (x).
If I estimate, propose, think, assume (x)...I say, I estimate or propose or think or assume (x).
I never say that I "believe" (x). So let's get off you telling me that I must "believe" something in order to write what I wrote...and to which you took exception.
I am telling you that I do not do "believing."
I wish more people would do the same. We would stop all this "I believe (in) God"; "I believe there are no gods" and crap like that, which, in a philosophical setting and discussion, should more properly and truthfully, be stated, "I guess or suppose there is a God" or "I guess or suppose there are no gods."
Now, with as much respect as I can show at this moment, let us please move on with the discussion, because I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.
The things that you 'know', you act on them. You 'know' that such or such thing is going to happen in such or such situation, even though you may turn out to be wrong. Same goes with those who 'believe'. When they believe, they know that such or such thing is going to happen or not happen. You say you do not do believing because you call it knowing, but the thing that you do others call believing. Some people do not just guess that there is a god or no god, they 'know' it, based on what they have experienced.
Then some call a guess a belief, but it's a matter of semantics.
Thank you, Relativist.
I tend to over-react to people disputing (or if I think they are disputing)...
a) that I am NOT an atheist
b) that I do NOT do "believing"
c) that I am NOT a Democrat (although I champion a progressive agenda.)
Without re-reading my remarks, I probably went over the line in some of my responses to you on the "believing" issue.
I'm afraid I prefer the former. I started this topic to consider cause-and-effect, and the possibility of causeless effects: effects that have no cause. The phrase "brute fact" is less well-known and therefore less well understood. And Wikipedia says "...brute facts may be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation)." This isn't exactly what I'm trying to get at. I'm focussing on spontaneous events, to give them another name, not mysterious facts.
You say the success of science offers evidence, but you don't say what it is, and I can't see it in what you write. :chin: Then you follow up simply by asserting that causality should be assumed (i.e. accepted as an axiom). Why? Causality wasn't invented to facilitate science; science was built onto a pre-existing theoretical scaffold already founded by causality, and the other axioms that we usually use.
Quoting Relativist
Absolutely, yes. To have any other position than this would be to go beyond the available evidence - scientific heresy! :wink: - and to deny logic (in its everyday sense; I'm not advocating de Morgan's Theorem here).
Quoting Relativist
Extreme? How can accepting what is be extreme? And yes, welcome to the world of uncertainty, the real world. Although I would have put it slightly differently: I believe all kinds of nonsense, as we all do, but I know very little, as you observe.
Causality is certainly something we think we have identified, but have we? There are always different ways of looking at things. If we think A causes B, Pirsig suggests we can say that B values pre-condition A instead. I don't doubt there are many other ways we could look at this. Perhaps one of them might prove interesting?
We could also wonder if we would or could identify a causeless effect even if we saw one? Is our perception of the causality pattern an accurate perception? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just wondering....
Good questions. I don't have answers, sadly, but they're good questions. Especially the last one. I imagine the idea became popular because it proved useful?
You say you are agnostic to all things that are unproven. Compare your position to mine: my position is that if something isn't proven, then we should be open to the possibility it is false. I am agnostic to the degree that we can't have absolute certainty about much of anything. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I live my life based on believing that a variety of things are (probably) true. For example, I expect my keyboard to correctly enter the letters I am typing, and that the contents of my typing will appear in my reply to you. I would regard as "extreme skepticism" the attitude that one could have no degree of trust in anything that is unproven (the sun might not rise tomorrow; the world external to my mind actually might not exist,...). Are you indeed extreme in that sense, or are you closer to my position - such that you acknowledge uncertainty, but accept that we can have varying degrees of confidence about many aspects of the world?
What does it mean to be useful if it doesn't carry some degree of accuracy?
This question is irrelevant. If there is an ‘effect’ that isn’t ‘caused’ then it isn’t an ‘effect’ - that is the semantic problem. Putting that aside what does it matter for how are we meant to know whether or not the ‘cause’ is hidden or merely absent? In other words if we cannot comprehend such things then what place to we have to talk of them? And if we’re not talking of them here then what are we doing other than willingly chasing our own tails under the belief that our own arse smells delightful?
I’ve never been overly keen on sniffing my own farts :D
Nicely expressed.
It is like calling the universe "The creation" and then arguing that there must be a creator.
Yes, that's half of a description of agnosticism, isn't it? Open to the possibility it's TRUE; open to the possibility it's FALSE.
-------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Relativist
No degree of trust? No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't accept that we "can have" "varying degrees of confidence", but that's because the phraseology is not what I would've chosen. :wink: To say that we assume "varying degrees of confidence" is to describe what we actually do, in RL. Because we have no choice, in practice. But those assumptions are unjustified; they're just guesses, nothing more. But most of the time, our guesses work, so we use them. :up:
But there's more to my stance than this. Take the possibility that Objective Reality bears little or no resemblance to the apparent world our senses show to us. Most people would say "Oh yes, but the chance of that being so is infinitesimally small." And there lies my problem. It is so very, very unknown that we have no way to assign a probability value to it. There is no valid part of the science of statistics that would allow us to assign a probability value to it. We know that all probabilities must lie between 0 and 1. But we cannot progress beyond that. You could tell us what you believe, of course, but there is no science or logic that would allow you - justifiably - to place a numerical value on that probability. When I realised that, it was quite a discovery for me. Maybe it's obvious to others, but I was pretty stunned when I found out.
So I acknowledge the possibility of anything that's even slightly credible, until evidence shows me otherwise.
I can't quite see how it could/would have been useful if it did not offer some degree of accuracy, can you?
Cause and effect are roles occupied by events, so you're right, of course. But cause and effect are a pair that go together in our vocabulary, even our everyday vocabulary, so "causeless effect" is probably the easiest way to communicate what is meant.
Quoting I like sushi
Can you point me to any topic of philosophical discussion where we "comprehend" the issues? :wink: OK, comprehension is a matter of degree, but I think the reason we discuss such things is to enhance (or create) our comprehension, yes? So we will necessarily be discussing things we don't properly understand. That's our lot in life, I think.
It just reminds me of what Kant talked of in his rare use of analogy about ships sailing the ocean in search of a continent they may not actually exist. The problem you pose is more of a linguistic one as far as I can see. Once dealt with in linguistic comprehension then it may be useful to apply it further ... or maybe not.
I guess we’ve all got our own little ridiculous niches to niche into. We can but hope they turn out not to be completely ridiculous.
I suggest that "to believe" means to accept or treat something as true as a psychological attitude, an attitude that influences our future behavior (including our mental behavior). As you note, we have no choice but to make guesses (i.e. form beliefs in this psychological sense), so why not make the best guesses possible?
1. Some large stone is at rest, and at the very same time one person on one side of the stone pushes the stone with the same force in the direction of another person who at the same time pushes the stone in their direction with the same force. The stone does not move. Is this an example of a cause with no effect?
Ok, let us reverse “the movie” and watch the stone move the two people while at rest. Would this be a “causeless effect” or do we want to say the rock caused the people to move?
Why not indeed? :up: :smile:
No, I'd say it's evidence that the concept in question is useful. Use includes some degree of accuracy, of course, but evidence for causation? I suppose it is evidence, but it's not very strong evidence; in scientific terms, not very strong at all. If you - and maybe only you, in all the universe - believe something to be true, then your belief constitutes evidence, but that would be the weakest evidence I could imagine, and it wouldn't be what a scientist would find to be acceptable/useful. :chin:
No. Only conclusive evidence constitutes proof. Quantity (of evidence) does not equal 'conclusive', as you must know well.
Given that I cannot place a number on the probability of it being correct, or not being correct, my answer to your question is: I don't know. No, I really don't know. Like everyone else, I will continue to use unjustified guesswork in my everyday life. But in a philosophy forum, a little more consideration seems appropriate.
Everyone should make the best guesses or "preferences" possible...especially in what you refer to as "every day life."
But even in grander schemes...that is a good idea.
Obviously, I prefer that people call their guesses and preferences...guesses and/or preferences.
Some people say, "I 'believe in' democracy."
I just think it would be better to state that thought in a variation of "preference." "I prefer to live in country where democracy and freedom prevail...rather than in one where dictatorship is boss" just sounds better to me.
"I 'believe' aliens from other planets live among us" does not sound as good to my ear as, "It is my guess that aliens from other planets live among us"...or "it is my opinion (estimate) that..."
Why isnt a quantity of evidence not equal to conclusive evidence? You keep avoiding the question. What would proof of causation look like if it doesnt look like what is happening right here right now - us communicating. What is communication if not a causal process? Can you reply to a post before I post it and before you read it? Is not your reply the effect of my post and you reading it?
Fine- call them opinions. There are still 2 important considerations that need consideration; how strongly you hold this opinion (which is a psychological state), and how strongly supported is your opinion (ideally, this entails an attempt to be objective). It seems more reasonable to have strong opinions when the support is stronger.
What I'm trying to get at is that some opinions are "better" than others - i.e. it is more reasonable to hold them. Further, it is more reasonable and rational (and more productive) to strive to hold opinions that are well supported.
In set theory it is claimed that the set of all sets does not exist. 'Proof’:
1. Let S be the set of all sets, then |S| < |2^S| but 2^S is a subset of S, because every set in 2^S is in S.
2. Therefore |S|>=|2^S|
3. A contradiction, therefore the set of all sets does not exist.
(using || to indicate cardinality above)
How do you respond to this proof?
How can a set contain contain itself and not contain itself at the same time? Surely that is a logical contradiction?
on paper, yes, but it may be the case that something existent can both contain itself and not contain itself at the same time, in which case, it would not matter if it’s a contradiction or not.
I absolutely agree that some opinions (and some guesses or estimates) ARE better than others. But why not just call them opinions or guesses or estimates.
The point is that when we come to the "I 'believe' (in) God" kind of thing...we actually introduce a factor of, "We must all respect the 'beliefs' of others"...AND INSTALL IT INTO LAWS we must all follow.
The "belief" in these cases are blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Everyone has a right to his/her guesses...but to change the word "guess" into "belief" and afford it a status above the guess status it deserves...does a disservice to humanity.
And, not incidentally, is often the cause of wars and killing and terrorist activities.
So...I fight against it.
It seems a rather lonely fight on this site, but an enjoyable one nonetheless.
Sorry my fight causes so much consternation for so many.
It is not absurd to do so.
But what is absurd is to arbitrarily describe something (like existence and the universe) as an effect...just for the purposes of supposing a cause...
...and then calling that "cause" GOD...
...and giving the GOD characteristics like being offended if I spank the monkey.
Don't ya think?
Anything “known” is “known” because it isn’t fully encapsulated. What is “known” is “known” due to gaps in understanding (by appropriation of any sort).
Do we? Mostly we make these 'decisions' unconsciously. We give them little or no conscious attention. So we don't really know if we're trying to make our best guess or not, do we? :wink:
Quoting Relativist
Refrain from making choices? No. We'd be paralysed. But to bear in mind - consciously - that we're working in uncertain territory, with no proof that our beliefs have use or value? That is useful. Especially in everyday life. So often people become confused, or make mistakes, because their certainty ain't as certain, or as justified, as they believe. :wink:
I'm referring to conscious decision making, of course, and we are also free to re-think many of our unconscious decisions. My fundamental point is that there are tools of reasoning available to us IN ADDITION to deduction and numerical probability, that - when applied correctly- lead to better (more reasonable, more rational) decisions than otherwise. You seem to be evading this, and merely stressing that these other tools do not lead to certainty. I agree that we tend to feel more certain than we're warranted, but that doesn't imply we should be abandon all tools of critical reasoning other than deduction and probability.
Because when we use non-standard terminology, it impedes discussion. I don't have a degree in philosophy, but I've read a bit of epistemology and based on my limited knowledge - "belief" is a general, but core, term. The qualified term "categorical belief" entails treating the belief as a certainty. But epistemology also deals with "degree of certainty" also termed "epistemic probability." There's also a matter of justifying beliefs, and of belief formulation. This toolbag of terms and processes seems adequate to address the (valid!) issues you raise, and if everyone uses them we will at least understand each other better. I'm not saying it's intrinsically better than the terminology you prefer, but its problematic for everyone to use different terminology - you need to attach a lexicon in order to be understood.
When someone says "I believe in God", I can ask them what degree of certainty they have, how they formulated that belief (with attached level of certainty), and their continued justification. The issue of "respecting" others' beliefs would be a complicated, but interesting, discussion - so I'll defer responding to that for now.
This sounds very similar to arguments I've made elsewhere: I often run into theists who proclaim they "know" the nature of reality, and they justify this solely on their proclaiming some particular metaphysics to be the factual basis of reality (Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics seems popular). It's nonsense, of course, because it's entirely guesswork.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you wanted an answer to that. I thought it was clear of itself. Conclusive evidence is evidence that, taken together, logically justifies reaching a conclusion. No mere amount (quantity) of (lesser) evidence can do this.
The blackest of black-and-white examples is where our conclusions can be deduced from the evidence. Provided the evidence is gathered and understood without error, the conclusion is guaranteed, and thereby justified.
The farther we drift away from the deduction scenario, the less well-founded (justified) our conclusions are. I don't think this is a secret? :chin:
It's usually me that argues for using the best tool for the job, and that logic and science are often not the best - or only! - tools available. :up: I haven't been evading this, it's just that I'm focussing on certainty: unjustified certainty. If we are building our theories on axioms and assumptions - and we are, because we have no choice - we need to be aware, I think, that this is what we're doing. Our world, in practice, is uncertain. That's my point. :smile:
Quantum Fluctuations
Virtual particles appear out of the void and disappear shortly afterwards (according to QM). These quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy; no net new matter is created permanently, so they cannot have been the source of the universe’s matter/energy.
If permanent matter was created naturally, infinite time would result in infinite matter density so this is clearly not possible; mass producing natural processes imply a start of time.
Everything Has Existed ‘Forever’ in Time
In this model, particle collisions could be regarded as forming an infinite regress - which is impossible. In this model, nothing has a temporal starting point so nothing can logically exist.
A Cyclic Universe
Could the universe have created itself? Considering the two dominant theories of time:
If it were a presentist universe, the past and future do not exist, so it is impossible that the universe could be in a temporal cyclic (of causing itself).
If it were a (future real) eternalist universe, one can imagine the universe as an eternal circle of time; uncreated it just exists ‘’always’. It would form a causal loop with the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang. We would all live identical lives over and over again (Eternal Return). This possibility gains theoretical support from the Closed Timeline Curve; a class of solutions in general relativity that result in causal loops in spacetime.
But one needs to account for the fact that we can differentiate ‘now’ from ‘past’ and ‘future’ - there must be something different about ‘now’. This is sometimes conceptualised as a moving spotlight - we can imagine the eternal circle of time and a spotlight rotating about it; where the light falls is ‘now’. So what causes the spotlight to start rotating? - Even these types of eternalist models appear to need a timeless first cause to start time in motion initially.
Also the universe is expanding ever faster and faster - it does not appear (currently) to be in a cycle of Big Bang / Big Crunch required for a cyclic universe. And finally, the universe exhibits signs of fine-tuning for life - which requires a timeless first cause to causally precede the universe.
Multiple First Causes
Time is a created singleton; it could only be created by one cause. Two causes of time would have to work as cooperative agents; implying we can regard them logically as one logical cause.
So In summary, I think that time/causality absolutely requires a first cause. As far as causeless effects go, only quantum fluctuations qualify (arguably - it could be said they are caused by a field in space) and they are micro rather than macro phenomena (the cause of universe is a macro question).
Could the first cause be classified as a causeless effect? Not really I think - it is timeless so beyond causality.
Here is the pdf:
http://public-library.uk/ebooks/55/76.pdf
Take a look see at Letters 23-25 if you don’t fancy the whole thing. It’s a really nice read. Schiller isn’t afraid of being a little vague here and there which adds to the writing - I read this as part of my interest in art and morality. He does touch on the difficulties of causation and science in the letters I’ve mentioned. There is something of a Taoist feel to some of what he says throughout this work.
You overlook one possibility: that there is an initial state.
A few years ago, Sean Carroll hypothesized that there is a ground state of the "quantum system of reality." He believes in the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, so he sees quantum fluctuations as merely being eigenstates of the ground state. Some quantum fluctuations result in universes, and each universe is a space-time, causally and temporally separated from one another. Time passes in each universe, but all originate in that initial point of time that is that ground state.
1. Quantum fluctuations do not produce matter; they respect the conservation of energy
2. If they did produce matter, we'd be at infinite matter density by now
3. If Eternal Inflation is natural and time is infinite, there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation instances simultaneously. There is only one instance; an unnatural singleton. If eternal inflation theory is actually happening then the whole process of eternal inflation was initiated by an intelligent first cause.
4. An intelligent first cause would want a multiverse teeming with life (=design objective).
I think an infinite 'space' into which expansion, and the like, could take place, would rather change your assertions. An infinite space could hold infinite matter without overflowing. No, I don't think this is fertile speculation, worthy of further thought. I merely offer possibilities that you seem to have glossed over. :smile:
Space cannot have been expanding forever - if we trace back in time, there must have been a time when it was not expanding. So that is suggestive of either a start of time (leading to a first cause) or that space is in a cycle of expansion and contraction (leading to infinite matter density).
That's an antiquated understanding. What is conserved is mass-energy: energy and mass are interchangeable. According to Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the building blocks of matter and energy are the quantum fields. e.g. an up-quark is a "ripple" in an up-quark field- a ripple that persists if the energy is a quantum of energy. Fluctuations that are not at the quantum level are referred to as virtual particles: i.e., these are fluctuations in a quantum field that interact with other fields. Carroll's hypothesis entails the quantum fields existing in a ground state ( "zero energy"), but such a state is a superposition of eigenstates with different energy levels (+ and -) that add to zero. The "fluctuation" refers to the uncertainty of a hypothetical measurement: a measurement would entangle with one eigenstate of the superposition; the wave's energy amplitude equals the quantum uncertainty.
Nope. The energy amplitude is limited by the quantum uncertainty, which is (in principle) a calculable finite number.
The theory of eternal inflation refers to FUTURE eternal. Under Carroll's hypothesis, time is an aspect of thermodynamics: each distinct universe has its own, independent arrow of time. The direction of its arrow is a result of its starting energy being positive or negative. This means the total energy of the multiverse always adds to zero. It also means the individual universes are causally isolated from one another.
That's a curious assertion, because the same reasoning leads to the expectation that THIS universe should be teeming with life.
I'm still a little unclear where exactly does the matter/energy come from in Carroll's hypothesis? Or is it that it always existed?
Quoting Relativist
We don't see time running at different rates depending on the rate of entropy increase so I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not cause time; time and causality cause the 2nd law. As cause and effects multiply with time so entropy increases.
If each universe has its own time; what passes for time/causality as far as the multiverse goes? I would of thought some overarching time/causality would have to apply to allow the birth of new universes?
Quoting Relativist
I believe it is. We have a sample size of one saying it is. The onerous nature of interstellar travel means we are not overrun by aliens.
Quantum fields are the fundamental basis of all that exists, and the assumption is that these simply exist by brute fact. In the ground state, time is non-existent. This means there is no time at which the ground state didn't exist - because time passes only as spacetime emerges from the ground state. This emergence is an aspect of thermodynamics: a high energy eigenstate (of the ground state) has low entropy, and time is associated with the thermodynamic gradient of decaying from low to high entropy.
Quoting Devans99
On the contrary, time does run at different rates. I expect you're aware that a hypothetical spaceship traveling close to the speed of light will experience a slower rate of time. The entropy of a melting ice cube on the spaceship will be a function of the rate at which time runs on that spaceship.
Quoting Devans99
There is no multiverse time. This is consistent with special relativity: even within a universe, time is relative to a reference frame. Between universes there is no reference frame.
Carroll's hypothesis does not preclude child universes (nor grandchild universes...), but it provides an overarching landscape for everything.
Quoting Devans99
That's more or less reasonable. I've argued elsewhere that if God exists, there's a much greater liklihood of life elsewhere in the universe than if there is no God. Unfortunately, a single sample doesn't provide enough data to point in either direction. That said, theists have more reason than atheists for fearing alien invasions!
Fields are a property of space, which is part of spacetime, which was created 14 billion years ago. There would be no fluctuation of these fields and thus no particles if there is no time - if something exists for 0 seconds it does not exist - space requires time as a prerequisite. So before the start of time there can be no quantum fluctuations.
Quoting Relativist
Surely the birth of a new universe must involve causality of some form?
Which is the reason several of us have taken exception to the assertion that the universe is an effect...which requires a cause.
If one calls the universe "the Creation"...that gratuitously implies a Creator.
If one calls the universe "an effect"...that gratuitously implies a cause.
Yes, yes, OK. :smile: So the question should properly be: can/do spontaneous events occur, or can/do events occur spontaneously? :chin:
Effect implies cause. Definitively, for something to exist it must have a cause. It would be unhelpful to describe examples of causality as I believe it's unnecessary, instead I would ask that you or others try to imagine something that you know to exist but that which does not have a cause. Beware not to conflate cause with meaning, as the two are certainly distinguishable. Cause is simply A hits B, B becomes sore and A feels guilty, assuming psychopathy is absent.
Patterns are the study of cause and effect.
Imagine it's 100 or so years ago, before Einstein released his findings concerning relativity and the like. And imagine you, saying "I would ask that you or others try to imagine how Newton's Laws could possibly not be adhered-to." Now, we know that those laws don't work at velocities approaching the speed of light, but then we didn't. And we couldn't even imagine how things could be different.
Not being able to imagine a spontaneous event does not mean there are none. [Or that there are.]
True, until such an event can be evidenced then I'll maintain that regardless of whether or not we're aware of the cause, it exists.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
True but likewise, being able to imagine a spontaneous event does not mean that there are. Both spontaneous and determined, premeditated events have a cause and I think the only difference is, as implied in their literal definitions, we're only consciously aware of the latter. Would an effect be causeless because I was too cognitively inept to see it? Perhaps only to me.
I think the answer to the question "Are causeless effects possible"? can simply be written as no as a grammatical truth. How do you find something that will not be found? If it were possible for me to rationalise an effect without a cause then would I not have done it? Like Isaac, none of this is to say that in the future I will not come across a causeless effect, perhaps then I can relinquish the burden of responsibility.
Don't you think it's a little bit, er, tawdry to imply that I offered only half of the picture, when I already said what you said? I took the trouble to make a balanced statement, and you implied that I'm arguing for the existence of spontaneous events? Look:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting earthlycohort
So spontaneous (i.e. causeless) events have a cause?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting earthlycohort
No, of course not. No-one is arguing this. A causeless event is not an event whose cause we are unable to see or detect, it's an event that has no cause. And it may be that there is no such thing. That's what we're considering, isn't it?
I started this topic to consider one scientific axiom - causation - not because it isn't true, or that I think it isn't true, but just to remind ourselves that it is nothing more than a guess, and to wonder what the consequences might be if it turned out not to be the universal truth we hold it to be?
Edited to add: perhaps most interesting of all: if causation is so obviously and self-evidently true, why can't we prove it?
If it means through methods other than straightforward causality, sure. Something can happen in acausal way. But it's still not the same as for no reason at all because there probabilistic laws behind acausality.
It was intended to describe an event which has no preceding event that caused it to happen. Must every event have a cause then, do you think?
Quoting luckswallowsall
Are you saying that events that have no cause are nonetheless caused by something? That's how I read your words, perhaps wrongly? :chin:
Everything has an explanation ... so every event needs a cause in the widest possible sense. But people usually use the term "cause" to mean something specific. People think of causality as determinism.
Even if the universe is acausal then that just means that events are determined by probabilistic laws that can't be predicted. So even then the supposedly acausal probabilistic laws are causal in a wide sense. They're just not causal in the narrow sense that people usually mean when they talk of causality. Which is why it's described as acausal.
Why "must" every event have an explanation? I can't argue that this is false, as there is no justification for that position (that I know of). But I also wonder what is your justification for saying that this is true? Is there such a justification?
Your final sentence seems to say that even events which don't seem to have a cause/explanation actually do have one, but it's too complicated for us to predict, so it might look like there's no explanation. In short, you are supporting the position that there are no causeless events, nor can there be. Is this right?
if so far it seems that the world has explanations then it's more parsimonious to assume that that's the way the world works until there's evidence of something without an explanation.
And the problem is that you can't have evidence of a world without explanations because that would require an explanation.
And what's more likely, that sometimes there isn't an explanation or that sometimes we can't find one? I think the latter is clearly more parsimonious again.
We have a world that makes sense and we can often make sense of it but sometimes can't. After all, sometimes it seems that there wasn't an explanation and then we later discover that there was all along and we just failed to find it previously.
It's the same reason that monism is more likely than dualism. If there's no evidence of two kinds of ultimate substances then why assume it? Assume there's one kind of thing unless there's any evidence to the contrary. And if there can't ever be any evidence to the contrary then stick with one because it's more parsimonious.
"Your final sentence seems to say that even events which don't seem to have a cause/explanation actually do have one"
Well, I'm just saying that even an acausal explanation is a cause in a wider sense. It's just acausal in a scientific sense. If X happens *because of* Y then why is the cause in a wider sense even if Y is a probabilistic cause rather than a stereotypical clockwork-style "deterministic" one.
" but it's too complicated for us to predict, so it might look like there's no explanation. In short, you are supporting the position that there are no causeless events, nor can there be. Is this right?"
That is another possibility. And it is actually the view that I hold. That determinism is actually true and what seems to be acausal from the perspective of science is just down to a failure in our understanding. Acausality is really pseudo-acausality just like rolling some dice is pseudo-randomness (because it's really down to physics rather than actual randomness).
I think it's far more likely that scientists are unable to find causes once we get down to the quantum level than it is the case that there actually are no causes.
And, again, I'm using "cause" in a wide sense. Because scientists like to redefine stuff so that their models can help them make sense of their experiments and theories about what they observe.
In the scientific sense I'm sure it is indeed the case that the quantum world is acausal. But here we're talking philosophy. Scientific indeterminism is perfectly compatible with philosophical determinism. Philosophical determinism says that there is only one actually possible future ... and scientific indeterminism just deals with observations and what is unable to be predicted.
Plus, there are arguments against scientific realism:
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuNFBDrKaIA[/video]
Yes, so it is, so that's what we do. :smile: But the point here is to wonder if our axioms (assumptions) are valid, and what would it be like if they weren't? Hence I wonder if causality is always true, and what if it isn't? Just wondering, you understand. I definitely do not assert that causality is wrong (or right). :up:
Quoting luckswallowsall
It would? Why? It seems possible that there are (or could be) things that do not have or require an explanation, they just are. An explanation might tell you why things are what they are. Like those headphones you hire in an exhibition, that explain what you're seeing. Do we really think the world has built-in explanations, put there just for us? Couldn't the world just be what it is, and do what it does, without providing an explanation for curious humans? Put that way, it seems mad to expect an explanation, doesn't it? :joke: :gasp: :wink:
This bothers me. To say something is likely indicates that we have some idea of how likely it is. I.e. what the probability is of it happening or being, or whatever. Is there a way - a proper statistical way - of even estimating that probability, or is that just something we claim to bolster our own beliefs, as people often do in everyday conversation? All the way through your post, you advise the application of Occam's Razor. Fair enough. But it is just a rule of thumb, nothing more. And in this topic, we are trying to go beyond our simple everyday assumptions, to examine them more closely. So we set parsimony aside, if only temporarily. :smile:
We can't put a precise probability on the existence of God but that doesn't stop God from being highly improbable.
Parsimony, lack of parsimony, evidence, lack of evidence, etc—none of these things give us exact probabilities ... but they certainly give us good reason to believe that something can be very far away from 50% ... in either direction.
Setting parsimony aside would be really silly because it's one of the basic principles of deciding how likely a belief is to be true when there is no direct evidence either way. When you can't prove a negative parsimony is *extremely* important. Again, God is the perfect example.
On the contrary. Occam's Razor is not a "principle", nor is it a law or a rule. It's just a heuristic; a rule of thumb; a way of guessing that seems to deliver better-than-random results. We use it when there is no better tool to hand. In the case where there is no evidence, such as the existence of God, the Razor leads us into a logical fallacy. In this case "argument from ignorance".
Quoting luckswallowsall
To the first part of the sentence: agreed. :up: To the second part, which directly contradicts the (correct and accurate) first part, I offer this: please suggest any valid statistical method, technique or theory that would allow you to make even the vaguest estimate of the probability of God's existence, bearing in mind that there is no evidence at all. In saying that God's existence is "highly improbable", you go beyond the evidence, in defiance of logic and reasoning.
Causeless can be exist and not be exist.
Its Impossible and Possible at the same time.
Let's say we are going to create something out of nothing and that thing is suddenly popped and exist like its nothing, It is said Causeless because that thing is suddenly exist without any cause. But its also considered 'Cause' because hey, we wanted to do it right?
The terminology of cause and effect seems to me to beg the question.
Instead, let us ask if it is possible for any physical entity or event to exist spontaneously and in isolation from all other physical entities and events. Haven’t physicists determined that certain virtual particles emerge spontaneously from the quantum background (empty space)?
Yes, this topic recognises that causality is a dogma that is created solely by definition, and wonders whether the creation of this axiom is actually justified? :chin:
A causeless event does not describe something being created from nothing, it refers only to something happening spontaneously.
No, this isn't about existence, or creation, it's about causality. So, as you suggest, let's ask if it is possible for any event to happen spontaneously, and definitely not "in isolation from all other events". If an event is causeless, if there is such a thing, it can still happen in the context of, and in association with, all the other events happening in the universe. :chin: I don't think "causeless" means "unconnected"; I think it means 'without a cause'. :up:
Hume thought it meant our inability to experience any necessary connections between or among empirical entities or events. Are you saying he was wrong?
Couldn't agree more. As for QM, it is debated as to whether it is truly probabilistic or just seems to be that way. Is it our observation that determines the state/vector of a particle with wave/particle duality or does our observation merely observe the state/vector it was always on.
If it is the former, then I would say that all effects still have causes, however some effects can locate their causes as being in front of them in time. It's not as simple as a past cause creates a future effect.
Here is an example of what I mean, what caused the piano to be invented? The effect is the piano being invented, the cause came from the conceptualisation of a future with Pianos. The issue I have with determinism is that it implies with enough time an astute and intelligent person could have predicted the invention of the piano, while I believe the piano itself was predictable, the details, composition, first note played, first song played and first song made would never be predictable.
As for why I say this, because of the quantum theory of mind. If everything supervenes QM, and the quantum theory of mind is correct then this might be a direct contest to the idea that all mental properties supervenes physical properties. Whether or not this means that what we think of as mental properties aren't really mental but also physical I don't know. It does raise some interesting questions about quantum accomodation within philosophy. Will Philosophers fall behind if they keep dismissing all QM arguments as woo? Or should it be the duty of philosophers to gain an understanding of QM in order to reduce the amount of woo? Quantum accomodare friends. It's a thing.
I don't know if my thinkings on this are a bunch of woo, however the danger posed to philosophy by Quantum accomodated arguments cannot be overlooked, as how do you determine if a QM theory is woo without attempting to develop a working understanding of QM? Without a working understanding of QM how could you ever know if a Qauntum accomodated philosophy is true in either the traditional or pragmatic sense?
If the effect precedes its 'cause', this isn't "causality" (as we define, and understand, it), is it? It is more a redefinition of our existing term to avoid admitting that causality doesn't work in such a case, isn't it? :chin:
Well I mean, it should still be called causality because the instrument still has a cause. However some of the properties of the instrument and the details can only come from abstractions about the future. While they can be predicted to be anything within certain probabilities "The instrument will be made from materials found on earth" they cannot be predicted exactly.
Some aspects of the instrument will still be caused by the past, for example the person has a past which makes them predisposed to inventing instruments and being interested in music, they also know of instruments invented in the past which enables them to know what it is in the first place.
So I guess the best way to phrase this question, can Events be the Cause of themselves? Was the Piano creation event determined by an imaginary view of itself in the future?
So as much as I wanted there to be a credible argument against determinism I dont think this is it, just that the concept is perhaps softer than people think. However if you think this means causality doesnt work in this case at all feel free to expand on that line of thinking and justify it for us.
I don't dispute what you describe, and I too find it very interesting. :up: My point is only that I think it misleading to use the term "causality" to describe something very different from the general definition of causality, where the effect chronologically precedes its own cause. As long as we retain and use the old term, the more we obscure the difference between this new circumstance and the 'traditional' ones. :chin:
Again, it's the terms that bother me. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not being a vocabulary-nazi here. I'm not insisting on the creation of a new term whenever we discover something a bit different. But I am observing that if we re-use old terms to describe new things, we tell ourselves that 'they're the same, really'. Don't we? :wink: And we tell ourselves in a way that isn't obvious, unless we pause and think more carefully.
Maybe my point is without use or value, I'm not sure. But this is an interesting subject, and it is worth discussing further, IMO. :up:
Quoting Mark Dennis
Please do!
Coming up with terms in philosophy is pretty fair game and one thing you’ll find is that some of the concepts we already know are interpreted differently by different philosophers. For example: Kants definition of The Sublime is much different than the understanding of the word we likely both grew up with. Kants Sublime is a phenomenological observation of the feeling one gets when watching something grand, natural and dangerous but viewed from a safe distance. So Kants Sublime is the feeling of awe and mild fear when watching a storm.
However the general definition of just sublime can be attributed to a good meal.
- No-one has ever observed directly a virtual particle, they theoretical concepts only indeed the theory says they will be unobservable
- They are better regarded as fluctuations in quantum fields rather than actual particles
- Effects attributed to virtual particles like the Casimir effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) have other plausible effects
- Virtual particles are supposed to pop up out of the void in particle/anti-particle pairs, last for a few fractions of a second, then (neatly and suspiciously) annihilate leaving no trace.
- Conservation of energy is respected. No new net matter/energy is created.
They might be real, but its pretty clear they can have no impact on the real, macro world so would have no impact on macro causality.
The only claim for a macro, causal effect from VPs I'm aware of is that they are sometimes claimed as the source of a 'something from nothing' event that started the universe - VPs popped up out of nothing, formed a critical mass that somehow started cosmic inflation off and then disappeared (respecting conservation of energy) but leaving cosmic inflation behind. If this was a naturally occurring event then with infinite time, we'd have infinite instance cosmic inflation ripping the universe asunder - which is clearly not the case.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf
Basically its just a name for terms in a Dyson series when represented pictorially in a Feynman Diagram. They are no more a particle in the classical or quantum sense than squiggles on some paper are.
In QM particles are emitted and absorbed without cause all the time:
http://www.physics.usu.edu/torre/3700_Spring_2015/What_is_a_photon.pdf
Of course science is only provisional - a cause may be found one day - but in principle it certainly is possible and in the current theory it is like that. Note according to the QM you likely learned at school electrons in a hydrogen atom is in a stationary state. But because electrons are charged they are coupled to the quantum EM field that modern physics thinks permeates everywhere. That means the electron is not quite stationary and will, according to the theory, change state and emit a photon unpredictably according to the math of the Fermi Golden Rule (the coupling to the EM Field is viewed as a perturbation):
http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~yuanzs/teaching/Fermi-Golden-Rule-No-II.pdf
So yes in principle you can have effects without cause (ie when a photon will be emitted) but we know the cause of it being emitted in the first place. So its a bit nuanced - I will let those better than me at philosophy discuss that one.
Thanks
Bill
Agreed, and there are other strong arguments opposing what I said; arguments that I would often have deployed myself. I said what I did because we're kicking out at sacred cows here. If it should be that there are causeless effects, or 'reverse causality', it would be too easy to unconsciously deny such a thing by pretending that causality remains valid because we continue to use the same term. Perhaps I was focussing too closely on this aim? :wink:
Quoting Devans99
Yes, in another discussion, we might be observing that we humans have no sensory/perceptual access to that which is. In the same way, we can't see much that is smaller than a grain of salt, so the very existence of such things can only be inferred. And when the particles are non-physical, and maybe "virtual" too, things don't get any easier. But does this address the question of whether conventional causality applies universally? I'm not sure. :chin:
’On the other hand, the usual form of QM does not say anything about actual deterministic causes that lie behind the probabilistic quantum phenomena. This fact is often used to claim that QM implies that nature is fundamentally random. Of course, if the usual form of QM is really the ultimate truth, then it is true that nature is fundamentally random. But who says that the usual form of QM really is the ultimate truth? (A serious scientist will never claim that for any current theory.) A priori, one cannot exclude the existence of some hidden variables (not described by the usual form of QM) that provide a deterministic cause for all seemingly random quantum phenomena. Indeed, from the experience with classical pseudorandom phenomena, the existence of such deterministic hidden variables seems a very natural hypothesis’
’Most experts familiar with the Bohmian interpretation agree that the observable predictions of this interpretation are consistent with those of the standard interpretation, but they often prefer the standard interpretation because the standard interpretation seems simpler to them.’
’There is only agreement that if hidden variables (that is, objective physical properties existing even when they are not measured) exist, then they must be nonlocal. Some experts consider this a proof that they do not exist, whereas other experts consider this a proof that QM is nonlocal.’
We have never been able find a mechanism in maths that produces truly random behaviour and maths seems to mirror reality rather closely. Lacking randomness, all that is left is causality - we know of no other mechanism that the universe could use to as it goes about its business. So as a determinist, I think I have reason to remain hopeful.
’The calculational tool represented by Feynman diagrams suggests an often abused pic- ture according to which “real particles interact by exchanging virtual particles”. Many physicists, especially nonexperts, take this picture literally, as something that really and objectively happens in nature. In fact, I have never seen a popular text on particle physics in which this picture was not presented as something that really happens. Therefore, this picture of quantum interactions as processes in which virtual particles exchange is one of the most abused myths, not only in quantum physics, but in physics in general. Indeed, there is a consensus among experts for foundations of QFT that such a picture should not be taken literally. The fundamental principles of quantum theory do not even contain a notion of a “virtual” state. The notion of a “virtual particle” originates only from a specific mathematical method of calculation, called perturbative expansion.’
’Having in mind all these foundational problems with the concept of particle in QFT, it is still impossible to clearly and definitely answer the question whether the world is made of particles or fields.’
[i]’To conclude, the claim that the fundamental principles of quantum theory are today
completely understood, so that it only remains to apply these principles to various practical physical problems – is also a myth. Instead, quantum theory is a theory which is not yet completely understood at the most fundamental level and is open to further fundamental research.’[/i]
This is very much my understanding - QM is an abstract set of statistical models that gives partial predictions of reality - they do not tell us about the actual nature of reality - and QM is not a finished article. QM does not tell us that reality is particles, waves, fields, strings or anything else. It just puts indistinct boundaries around the nature of reality in the form of statistical predictions and certain experimentally observed behaviours.
So I doubt that the current version of QM proves existence of causeless effects - it seems it is not a precise enough description of reality to make any such claim. And even if such causeless effects are established through further research, their applicability to the macro world and macro questions (like the cause of the universe) would seem questionable.
I agree with this. But what you say applies to any and all scientific theories concerning 'reality'. After all, our theories serve only to map 'reality', not to define it. So I think it's fair to complement what you say with this: there is no scientific theory that accounts for, explains or justifies conventional causality: effects that are caused. Just as QM cannot justify or explain it, or any alternate form of causality.
[And BTW, QM is science's most successful theory to date, by far, despite its non-intuitive flavour.]
- The micro world may truly never be fully understood (due to its micro nature), so we might never get an answer to the OP question.
- Performing an experiment that demonstrates causality holds universally is obviously not possible.
- The performing of an experiment that rules out causality holding universally? I am not sure that is possible either. There is always a get out of saying some non-local cause is responsible for the supposed causeless effect (or appealing to a hidden underlying deterministic reality)
- Retrocausality does not count as causeless effects IMO. But there are possible instances of it like the famous quantum eraser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Physics)
“
If it should be that there are causeless effects, or 'reverse causality', it would be too easy to unconsciously deny such a thing by pretending that causality remains valid because we continue to use the same term. Perhaps I was focussing too closely on this aim?” In case it wasn’t clear by my previous message I do think this is a good observation and I was agreeing with it. I am merely stating that if it happened in the past then it is still a cause.
I think new terminology would be best to described this reverse causality perspective and I feel you are right that causality shouldn’t be used in the term. I’ve already made up a few terms in phenomenology, usually so long as you stick to something Latin/Greek/Germanic in origin and it makes some logical sense why you used that word when you explain the definition. For example: Geopiphone is the feeling of awe and smallness one gets when realising they are a long way from their place of birth and are travelling or living somewhere else yet are aware that they could still be home within two days. (So this is a relatively new experience for humans only made possible by affordable flight.)
Another example: Quantum Accomodarre, Which is the practice of re-evaluating key problems in philosophy coupled with a working understanding of QM and is the key concept of Quantum Philosophy (See Roland Omnés and Michael Lockwood).
So, back in a moment I have to do some quick research on something.
—Anton Zeilinger
- The micro world may truly never be fully understood (due to its micro nature), so we might never get an answer to the OP question.
- Performing an experiment that demonstrates causality holds universally is obviously not possible.
- The performing of an experiment that rules out causality holding universally? I am not sure that is possible either. There is always a get out of saying some non-local cause is responsible for the supposed causeless effect (or appealing to a hidden underlying deterministic reality)
- Retrocausality does not count as causeless effects IMO. But there are possible instances of it like the famous quantum eraser”
I’ve changed my mind about you. While I still stand by my comments made to yourself during our previous engagement just in relation to the fallacious argument in that particular instance (let it be said I was never disagreeing or agreeing with you just pointing out the flaws in your argument before.) I also observe that some of your other arguments are a lot stronger and more reasoned out and I commend anyone these days who makes an effort to quantum accommodate their application of philosophy.
I completely agree that retrocausality is not the same as saying effects/events have no cause, however it does throw a wrench into being able to accurately predetermine anything.
Retrocausation would seem quite a disturbing concept for philosophy: many ideas and principles would be effected. Not as disruptive as causeless effects, but still disruptive. Still, QM suggests seemingly unnaturalistic non-local interactions are possible - so I guess we need to keep an open mind as to what is possible.
Yes! And so perhaps it is worth considering, as my OP requests, whether the axiom of causality is universally applicable? After all, axioms are accepted without discussion or dispute, just as dogma must be, in some religious contexts. Maybe it's worthwhile questioning any or all axioms, to the extent that this is possible? [N.B. I ask that we consider, not attack, these axioms.]
He claims to have shown to several sigma. It seems to make some sense that cause and effect can't go on forever.
We base all our physical axioms on common experience (or should do, as you might know, I have a beef with the axiom of infinity). Our common experience (as the human race) is limited when compared to the total size of this (and any other) reality. Causality appears to hold as far as we can see with our telescopes, but that might only be a tiny fraction of the totality of existence.
Causality seems to me to be in the same class as an axiom like 'the whole is greater than the parts' (which incidentally disagrees with the maths of infinity) - it is an axiom that I base my understanding of the world on. But its not necessarily right - here I think we are entering the realm of epistemology - how can we ever be sure of anything? We can say that contradictions are not possible like square circles but even that depends on the law of noncontradiction which is not provable. Epistemology is a big subject which I only have a passing acquaintance with.
That's an axiom? I thought it was just a saying; folklore? :chin:
Personally, I have none. Science and mathematics have axioms. It's an impressive-sounding synonym for "guess", to avoid directly admitting to guesswork. Axioms are things scientists hope are true, and believe are true, but for which there is no proof, or even supporting evidence. They are accepted without challenge or doubt. Exactly like (religious) dogma: axioms are things you must accept if what follows is to make sense.
I have many beliefs. One or two might even be correct. But I don't call them axioms. Where appropriate, I call them "guesses". :wink: :up:
So do you build on your 'guesses' with the tools of logic to arrive at (provisional) conclusions?
That's what I do with my 'axioms'. Possibly this is partly a syntactic difference? What I call axioms, you call guesses?
Science then takes things a step further by testing the axioms and the provisional conclusions against reality. Obviously that can be achieved for some philosophical questions (maybe not all). We test cause and effect in our everyday activities for example.
I guess we could introduce a level of confidence for the axioms/guesses. That way we could derive a level of confidence for any derived conclusions.
So for example, I'm pretty sure that the law of non-contradiction should hold in all possible worlds. So I might assign 95% certainty to that.
I'm pretty sure cause and effect hold in time-based worlds, so maybe 90% for that.
Then if I arrive at a conclusion that uses the above two axioms, the combined level of confidence would be 95% * 90% = 85.5%.
No, it doesn't. That's the purpose of axioms. They are accepted as being true without inquiry or investigation. Axioms are not tested, by science or by anything else. That's what axioms are, and it's what they are for.
For example, Einstein used for SR two axioms:
1. Speed of light is constant
2. Laws of physics are the same everywhere/when
Both of these axioms have be the subject of very intensive testing by science. The first for example has been derived as 299,792,458 m/s from multiple different experimental approaches.
Sciences axioms are tested wherever possible... that is the scientific method.
No, it doesn't. I suggest you check this out for yourself, since you won't take my word for it. Just as a dividend is something quite specific in arithmetic, so axiom has a specific meaning for science and scientists. This is so whether you believe it or not, or whether you think it should be so. Sorry, but that's how it is.
[i]'An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axí?ma (??????) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]
The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]'
'Axioms play a key role not only in mathematics, but also in other sciences, notably in theoretical physics. In particular, the monumental work of Isaac Newton is essentially based on Euclid's axioms, augmented by a postulate on the non-relation of spacetime and the physics taking place in it at any moment.'
'Regardless, the role of axioms in mathematics and in the above-mentioned sciences is different. In mathematics one neither "proves" nor "disproves" an axiom for a set of theorems; the point is simply that in the conceptual realm identified by the axioms, the theorems logically follow. In contrast, in physics a comparison with experiments always makes sense, since a falsified physical theory needs modification.'[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
In general, to create a theory, you start with some axioms/postulates/premises as Einstein did and then make deductions from those axioms.
Or you do as Newton did and create axioms from observation - his 3 laws of motions are axiomatic - they are assumed to be true - but they are tested assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_sixth_problem
So the axiomatic method is not used formally and consistently across physics.
So I can see your side of the argument.