Causality and Acausality

[Kevin Solway]

You seem to have missed my point. If the location of a supposed cause was so far away from the supposed effect that it would require a speed greater than that of light to arrive at the effect in time, then it cannot actually be a cause of that effect:

Actually I was dealing specifically with that point.

I was saying that those causes "within the distance" determined by the speed of light, are themselves caused by things beyond that distance, so the causative chain is not limited by the speed of light.

I'm simply hypothesising and suggesting possibilities.

I don't see the point to hypothesizing acausality. It's like hypothesizing that there is a God who created us, or that there is life after death. There is no evidence for such things, for a start.

I think David is suggesting that acausality is like the "God of the gaps", and it becomes smaller and smaller the more we know, and ever disappearing into non-existence.

It clearly hasn't disappeared into non-existence though

As I say, it will get smaller and smaller the more we know — infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing.

in the scenario that I'm suggesting the possibility of, it stops at "particles and anti-particles appear acausally out of the void" and "particles disappear acausally".

As soon as we find out that this "void" of which you are speaking isn't really a void, your idea about particles appearing out of a void will be destroyed, and you will then need to seek acausality elsewhere.

The past state of the Universe is always a sufficient cause for whatever happens, even though this can't be proven scientifically.

It can be proven in no way

I've already proven, purely logically, that nothing can happen can ever happen without causes — because if anything did, the whole Universe would be thrown into chaos.

Nothing can defeat this argument, and that is a logical certainty.

[guest_of_logic]

You seem to have missed my point. If the location of a supposed cause was so far away from the supposed effect that it would require a speed greater than that of light to arrive at the effect in time, then it cannot actually be a cause of that effect:

Actually I was dealing specifically with that point.

I was saying that those causes "within the distance" determined by the speed of light, are themselves caused by things beyond that distance, so the causative chain is not limited by the speed of light.

I don't follow your reasoning, and I strongly suspect that it's flawed. My point is that it plainly and simply couldn't get there in time to be a cause. How are you positing that this lack of time be overcome?

guest_of_logic: I'm simply hypothesising and suggesting possibilities.

Kevin: I don't see the point to hypothesizing acausality. It's like hypothesizing that there is a God who created us, or that there is life after death. There is no evidence for such things, for a start.

Actually, current scientific thinking (quantum mechanics) as I understand it holds that the universe is non-deterministic, which is the possibility that I'm presenting to you, so there's plenty of evidence for it.

Kevin: I think David is suggesting that acausality is like the "God of the gaps", and it becomes smaller and smaller the more we know, and ever disappearing into non-existence.

guest_of_logic: It clearly hasn't disappeared into non-existence though

Kevin: As I say, it will get smaller and smaller the more we know — infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing.

Well if it never disappears then it exists. In another thread a short while ago you disagreed with Ryan when he asserted that if 99% of matter is empty, and if 99% of that 1% remainder is empty, and if 99% of that 1% remainder is empty, on and on to infinity, then ultimately everything is empty. Here you seem to be changing your argument to agree with Ryan's reasoning: if it keeps on dwindling and dwindling then it equates to nothing. Try for a little consistency, please.

guest_of_logic: in the scenario that I'm suggesting the possibility of, it stops at "particles and anti-particles appear acausally out of the void" and "particles disappear acausally".

Kevin: As soon as we find out that this "void" of which you are speaking isn't really a void, your idea about particles appearing out of a void will be destroyed, and you will then need to seek acausality elsewhere.

If you don't like "void", then let's not even specify where they come from - let's just say that they appear acausally. Great, now I don't need to seek causality elsewhere.

Kevin: The past state of the Universe is always a sufficient cause for whatever happens, even though this can't be proven scientifically.

guest_of_logic: It can be proven in no way

Kevin: I've already proven, purely logically, that nothing can happen can ever happen without causes — because if anything did, the whole Universe would be thrown into chaos.

You haven't proven it, you've asserted and argued it.

Nothing can defeat this argument, and that is a logical certainty.

I've presented an alternative scenario where limited acausal events occur, and you have failed to prove the impossibility of such a scenario, so as far as I'm concerned your argument is defeated.

[Kevin Solway]

My point is that it plainly and simply couldn't get there in time to be a cause. How are you positing that this lack of time be overcome?

Causes can be both direct and indirect. Only the direct causes are limited by the speed of light (if indeed that proves to be a limitation).

I don't see the point to hypothesizing acausality. It's like hypothesizing that there is a God who created us, or that there is life after death. There is no evidence for such things, for a start.

Actually, current scientific thinking (quantum mechanics) as I understand it holds that the universe is non-deterministic, which is the possibility that I'm presenting to you, so there's plenty of evidence for it.

Non-determinism in science doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether things have causes or not.

As I say, it will get smaller and smaller the more we know — infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing.

Well if it never disappears then it exists.

Only your hypothesis will exist — a hypothesis without any evidence.

In another thread a short while ago you disagreed with Ryan when he asserted that if 99% of matter is empty, and if 99% of that 1% remainder is empty, and if 99% of that 1% remainder is empty, on and on to infinity, then ultimately everything is empty. Here you seem to be changing your argument to agree with Ryan's reasoning: if it keeps on dwindling and dwindling then it equates to nothing. Try for a little consistency, please.

Several points, firstly, that which currently appears to us to be empty space, is probably not empty space, but has potentiality — and that's not nothing.

Secondly, there is no evidence that everything is 99% (for argument's sake) empty. For example, take a neutrino for example. What evidence is there that a neutrino is 99% empty space? There is none. Therefore this idea of "empty space" is a fantasy, like a creator God, or acausality.

Thirdly, "empty space" is a matter of definition only. If we say that wherever there is a thing, there is no empty space, then where there is a city, there is no empty space. It's purely a matter of definition.

If you don't like "void", then let's not even specify where they come from - let's just say that they appear acausally. Great, now I don't need to seek causality elsewhere.

What you are postulating is no different to what Christians do when they postulate that a God created the Universe out of nothing.

I've presented an alternative scenario where limited acausal events occur, and you have failed to prove the impossibility of such a scenario, so as far as I'm concerned your argument is defeated.

I've logically proven that there is no such thing as a "limited acausal event", because what you're talking about is a caused, uncaused event — which is a contradiction in terms.

An event is either causal, or it is acausal. It must be one or the other.

If you say that something is "partly acausal", then it's the part that's acausal that is the acausal event, and it is that part which is impossible.

[guest_of_logic]

Causes can be both direct and indirect. Only the direct causes are limited by the speed of light (if indeed that proves to be a limitation).

Please provide some examples of indirect causes that are not limited by the speed of light.

Kevin: I don't see the point to hypothesizing acausality. It's like hypothesizing that there is a God who created us, or that there is life after death. There is no evidence for such things, for a start.

guest_of_logic: Actually, current scientific thinking (quantum mechanics) as I understand it holds that the universe is non-deterministic, which is the possibility that I'm presenting to you, so there's plenty of evidence for it.

Kevin: Non-determinism in science doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether things have causes or not.

Why, then, did you write the following in your post of Wed Aug 13: '"Non-deterministic" can mean uncaused'?

And what does science have to do with it? Non-determinism is non-determinism, whether it's science that models it or not.

Kevin: As I say, it will get smaller and smaller the more we know — infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing.

guest_of_logic: Well if it never disappears then it exists.

Kevin: Only your hypothesis will exist — a hypothesis without any evidence.

You're weaselling and failing to acknowledge the implication of what you wrote - let me say it again for you, this time in slightly different words: if it [acausality] gets "infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing" then it still exists.

As for "a hypothesis without any evidence" - let me quote brokenhead from earlier in this thread:

Space itself cannot be empty. Rather, it is a chaotic process of particles coming into existence and then annihilating one another. Such processes have been studied at length and in depth by those who run experiments with the various particle accelerators around the world. The very appearance of such particles in what was once thought to be "empty" space is purely probabalistic. Since they arise where there had been no particle, science cannot say they were caused. You, however, seem prepared to make that statement. It is not verifiable by any means. It is therefore incorrect to claim that there is some verification for it, such as the "evidence" of these words you are reading.

In other words, your claim that "all things are caused" is just as much "a hypothesis without any evidence" as my suggestion that non-determinism is a viable possibility.

guest_of_logic: In another thread a short while ago you disagreed with Ryan when he asserted that if 99% of matter is empty, and if 99% of that 1% remainder is empty, and if 99% of that 1% remainder is empty, on and on to infinity, then ultimately everything is empty. Here you seem to be changing your argument to agree with Ryan's reasoning: if it keeps on dwindling and dwindling then it equates to nothing. Try for a little consistency, please.

Kevin: Several points, [all related to emptiness.]

Kevin, your views on emptiness are irrelevant to the point that I was making. I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of your arguments across two separate threads.

guest_of_logic: If you don't like "void", then let's not even specify where they come from - let's just say that they appear acausally. Great, now I don't need to seek causality elsewhere.

Kevin: What you are postulating is no different to what Christians do when they postulate that a God created the Universe out of nothing.

Or what QRS do when they postulate that time does not have a beginning.

I've logically proven that there is no such thing as a "limited acausal event", because what you're talking about is a caused, uncaused event — which is a contradiction in terms.

Please read the discussion between David and I regarding our differing understandings of "cause". Therein lies the answer to your "contradiction in terms".

If you say that something is "partly acausal", then it's the part that's acausal that is the acausal event, and it is that part which is impossible.

Acausal events occur in a universe of form, structure and order. It's perfectly reasonable to postulate that there are laws (order) governing when, where and how they can occur.

[Ataraxia]

Several points, firstly, that which currently appears to us to be empty space, is probably not empty space, but has potentiality — and that's not nothing.

<snip >
What you are postulating is no different to what Christians do when they postulate that a God created the Universe out of nothing.

Avicenna seems to make the same argument here:

Argument from possibility
The medieval philosopher Avicenna argued as follows:

Prior to a thing's coming into actual existence, its existence must have been 'possible.' Were its existence necessary, the thing would already have existed, and were its existence impossible, the thing would never exist. The possibility of the thing must therefore in some sense have its own existence. Possibility cannot exist in itself, but must reside within a subject. If an already existent matter must precede everything coming into existence, clearly nothing, including matter, can come into existence ex nihilo, that is, from absolute nothingness. An absolute beginning of the existence of matter is therefore impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_eternity

[Kevin Solway]

Causes can be both direct and indirect. Only the direct causes are limited by the speed of light (if indeed that proves to be a limitation).

Please provide some examples of indirect causes that are not limited by the speed of light.

If the speed of light is a limitation, then all things are limited by it, and all communications are limited by it.

Let's say that thing A is caused by thing B, which is a certain distance away. But thing B is caused by thing C, which is further away, and thing C is caused by thing D, which is even further away, etc. Chaining the causes like this gets around the limitation, since the limitation only applies to adjacent things ("direct" causes). Thing A can be said to be caused by thing Z, even though they are a vast distance apart.

Non-determinism in science doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether things have causes or not.

Why, then, did you write the following in your post of Wed Aug 13: '"Non-deterministic" can mean uncaused'?

It can do, but when the term is used in science, it doesn't. In science, it doesn't have anything to do with whether things have causes or not.

By contrast, in philosophy it might be used to mean "acausal", depending on the context.

And what does science have to do with it?

You were saying that science provides evidence of acausality. But it actually doesn't. There is no evidence, anywhere, for acausality.

if it [acausality] gets "infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing" then it still exists.

Using that argument, then the Christian God also exists, and the tooth fairy, etc. The more evidence we have diminishes the space in which they might exist, but doesn't totally eliminate their existence.

You quoted brokenhead,

"Since they arise where there had been no particle, science cannot say they were caused."

Science cannot definitively say that there was no "particle", or whatever else, there. Science does not know what is there, so it cannot say that anything is acausal. Science can only say that something has no apparent cause.

In other words, your claim that "all things are caused" is just as much "a hypothesis without any evidence" as my suggestion that non-determinism is a viable possibility.

My claim that all things are caused is a not a scientific hypothesis, but a purely logical fact, like 1 + 1 = 2. It's not something that can be verified by science.

[brokenhead]

My claim that all things are caused is a not a scientific hypothesis, but a purely logical fact, like 1 + 1 = 2. It's not something that can be verified by science.

Is a logical fact the same thing as a postulation? Let's take instead the "logical fact" that 1 + 2 = 3. Since you are using symbols, you must define what the "+" and the "=" mean. Otherwise, it would not be obvious that 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. It only seems obvious because of the way we are accustomed to using these expressions.

For instance, in traditional "multiplication," we have a x b = b x a. In other words, we assign a number value to the first expression, and have to postulate that the number value we assign to the second is always the same. There are algebras wherein this is not the case, for example when a and b stand for transformations instead of real numbers. A simple case is one where a and b stand for rotations in space, and the rotations are carried out from right to left, that is a x b means first you perform rotation b and then you perform rotation a. In general a x b ≠ b x a.

In other words, 1 + 1 = 2 is only a logical fact because we have defined it to be so. It is a mental construct. If you had two rocks on the ground in front of you, there is no a priori connection between them. There might be an evident connection if they were identical in every respect, but they cannot be. To go from having two rocks before you to having one group of two rocks, or a pair of rocks, is not in any way a logical fact but a definition. Once you abstract them to the concept of numbers you have not rocks but concepts shorn of any empirical connection. Any relation between them at this point is a symbolical one which must first be defined as it is also abstract and only then is it a logical fact that 1 + 1 = 2. So if 1 + 1 = 2 can not, or need not, be verified by science, it must be at least tacitly agreed upon.

[maestro]

Any relation between them at this point is a symbolical one which must first be defined as it is also abstract and only then is it a logical fact that 1 + 1 = 2. So if 1 + 1 = 2 can not, or need not, be verified by science, it must be at least tacitly agreed upon.

Just as causality is a tacit assumption, this being the beginning of the whole argument.

[brokenhead]

Any relation between them at this point is a symbolical one which must first be defined as it is also abstract and only then is it a logical fact that 1 + 1 = 2. So if 1 + 1 = 2 can not, or need not, be verified by science, it must be at least tacitly agreed upon.

Just as causality is a tacit assumption, this being the beginning of the whole argument.

Yes. Which is not to say I reject causality out of hand, which I often think is the assumption Kevin and David make every time anyone questions their assertion that it logically must hold everywhere and everywhen. Just as Newtonian physics has not been abandoned by contemporary science, I do not think for a second there is any intellectual value or validity to abandoning the concept of causality. Rather, it's that I don't want to be married to it when merely living with it seems to do just fine.

Let me extend that analogy if I may. I think that I actually take the concept of causality more seriously than many of its proponents at GF. It's almost as if I were telling it "I have too much respect for you to be married to you."

I think that while it may be true that everything has it's causes, not only is it the case that we can rarely, if ever, know all of a thing's causes, but there are instances where we can know none of a thing's causes. There is a subtle difference at play between acknowledging causality and being tied to it as a philosophical cornerstone. I do not know what the future holds; I cannot allow it to become a millstone tied around my neck in the event the levees don't hold.

I do not know the way the mind works under every condition. I only know how mine works under the conditions that it has faced so far. If a thing happens and I know none of its causes, does my mind report to me that it happenes, or am I completely unaware of it? Or is it possible for causality to become so fundamentally held that when no causes for a thing whatsoever, even hypothetical or incorrects ones, present themselves to me that I physically cannot witness or see the thing? Can the cognitive dissonance produced by believing all things are caused on the one hand, and the utter inability to know or guess any of a particular thing's causes on the other hand, effectively make the subconscious conclude the thing did not happen or does not exist? In such a case, the conscious mind would not be aware of a thing right in front of it.

This is what I do not want to happen to myself. I think I have a right to experience the things I encounter in my life. I have no way of knowing objectively whether my experiences are opening my "doors of perception," or closing them. My guess is that the latter is the natural progression. This means that information which I encounter is lost to me. Since most of that lost information is useless - it has to be because most information in general is useless - this is a desirable thing. The doors of perception arise for a reason. But I want to be able to open or close those doors as I see fit. I may have need of some of the flow of information which naturally gets lost. I need to be in control at least to an extent of what information I receive. I'm not sure having the notion "all things are caused" as philosophical underpinning is consistent with having that control.

[Kevin Solway]

In other words, 1 + 1 = 2 is only a logical fact because we have defined it to be so.

I'm not talking about the symbols "1 + 1= 2", but the truth which they point to.

The symbols are indeed defined to mean certain things, but the truth which they point to is not.

While we may choose to agree on the definition of certain symbols, the reality itself, which the symbols point to, is not subject to being "agreed upon".

[Kevin Solway]

Let me extend that analogy if I may. I think that I actually take the concept of causality more seriously than many of its proponents at GF. It's almost as if I were telling it "I have too much respect for you to be married to you."

Your mistaken conception of cause and effect is like a security blanket that you are holding on to, to give you comfort.

Or is it possible for causality to become so fundamentally held that when no causes for a thing whatsoever, even hypothetical or incorrects ones, present themselves to me that I physically cannot witness or see the thing?

If a thing is known to exist (ie, it is observed, or experienced), then we already know some of the causes of the thing, because our mind, and our perceptions, are always contributing causes of a thing.

[guest_of_logic]

Please provide some examples of indirect causes that are not limited by the speed of light.

If the speed of light is a limitation, then all things are limited by it, and all communications are limited by it.

Let's say that thing A is caused by thing B, which is a certain distance away. But thing B is caused by thing C, which is further away, and thing C is caused by thing D, which is even further away, etc. Chaining the causes like this gets around the limitation, since the limitation only applies to adjacent things ("direct" causes). Thing A can be said to be caused by thing Z, even though they are a vast distance apart.

I really don't see how this gets around the limiting speed of light. The limitation does not apply only to "adjacent" things - the speed limit applies no matter how far apart the things are. If thing A is caused by thing Z, even through a chain of causes, then there must be sufficient time for cause Z to propagate through to effect A given that the propagation cannot travel faster than light.

Kevin: Non-determinism in science doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether things have causes or not.

guest_of_logic: Why, then, did you write the following in your post of Wed Aug 13: '"Non-deterministic" can mean uncaused'?

Kevin: It can do, but when the term is used in science, it doesn't. In science, it doesn't have anything to do with whether things have causes or not.

Well then what do you think that it means in science?

How can a non-deterministic event have a cause?

guest_of_logic: And what does science have to do with it?

Kevin: You were saying that science provides evidence of acausality. But it actually doesn't. There is no evidence, anywhere, for acausality.

It provides evidence of non-determinism. We only then need to establish that non-determinism implies acausality, which seems pretty straightforward to me: if an event is non-deterministic, then there is nothing determining it - in other words, it has no determining cause, in other words it has no cause, in other words it is acausal.

guest_of_logic: if it [acausality] gets "infinitesimally small — without ever disappearing" then it still exists.

Kevin: Using that argument, then the Christian God also exists, and the tooth fairy, etc. The more evidence we have diminishes the space in which they might exist, but doesn't totally eliminate their existence.

You're predicting that the space in which acausality might exist is going to continue to get smaller and smaller, but that's pure opinion. You are no physicist, so you can't really predict with any credibility.

My claim that all things are caused is a not a scientific hypothesis, but a purely logical fact, like 1 + 1 = 2.

Give me a break. You've already acknowledged that there is a certain space in which acausality might exist. If that space exists, then causality can't be a logical fact, can it? If it were a logical fact, then that space wouldn't exist.

[Kevin Solway]

I really don't see how this gets around the limiting speed of light.

It takes the speed of light out of the equation completely.

If thing A is caused by thing Z, even through a chain of causes, then there must be sufficient time for cause Z to propagate through to effect A given that the propagation cannot travel faster than light.

The propagation only need to happen from B to A. Once we have established that B is a cause of A, then we can ask what is the cause of B. Whatever is a cause of B is necessarily also a cause of A, regardless of the speed of light.

Kevin: Non-determinism in science doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether things have causes or not.

Well then what do you think that it means in science?

In science it means "cannot be determined".

How can a non-deterministic event have a cause?

Just because something cannot be determined doesn't mean it is without causes.

You were saying that science provides evidence of acausality. But it actually doesn't. There is no evidence, anywhere, for acausality.

It provides evidence of non-determinism.

That's right, and that has nothing to do with whether a thing has causes or not.

You're predicting that the space in which acausality might exist is going to continue to get smaller and smaller, but that's pure opinion. You are no physicist, so you can't really predict with any credibility.

The more causes we know, the less causes we don't know. This is a logical necessity.

My claim that all things are caused is a not a scientific hypothesis, but a purely logical fact, like 1 + 1 = 2.

You've already acknowledged that there is a certain space in which acausality might exist.

No. There's a certain space where you think it might exist. I know with certainty that it cannot exist anywhere - otherwise the whole Universe would be thrown into total chaos.

[brokenhead]

Your mistaken conception of cause and effect is like a security blanket that you are holding on to, to give you comfort.

It's your blanket. How come when I hold on to causality it is "mistaken," but when you do, it is not? Never mind, I know. It's your blankie and you want it back.

Or is it possible for causality to become so fundamentally held that when no causes for a thing whatsoever, even hypothetical or incorrects ones, present themselves to me that I physically cannot witness or see the thing?

If a thing is known to exist (ie, it is observed, or experienced), then we already know some of the causes of the thing, because our mind, and our perceptions, are always contributing causes of a thing.

That was my question, though. Could a putative acausal thing be prevented from being known to exist by a deeply held belief in causality, since our mind and our perceptions are always contributing causes of any thing, whether external causes exist or not? If what exists in our minds is always a contributing, and only a contributing, cause for a thing, any thing, might not the mind's rigorous insistence on causality keep us from perceiving the thing in the first place? If we posit an external existence to causality - that is, while we cannot ever know the thing-in-itself "out there" we assert that it is always caused, might that assertion itself actually prevent us from ever perceiving any acausal thing? That is, what if the sole cause of a thing is our internal contribution, and that contribution is the belief that all things must have causes? If we believe that all things must have causes, then that is an internal cause - our contribution, as you say - for every thing that has an objective reality, whether or not that thing also has an objective cause. It might not be that it has one and we just cannot determine it; it might actually not have one, yet we can still say that it has a cause, which would consist of our own assertion that it - like everything else must have an external cause. This would be logically inconsistent, however, but the inconsistency lies within the mind only, and the mind resolves it by concluding that the thing does not exist. It may never make it to our consciousness because we insist that it cannot be possible. The thing-in-itself being uncaused out there never registers in here because we believe first of all, in here, that a thing must have a cause out there?

I am trying to demonstrate that a class of things out there may exist which cannot be perceived but may be perceived if we if we do not insist on causality.

[Kevin Solway]

If a thing is known to exist (ie, it is observed, or experienced), then we already know some of the causes of the thing, because our mind, and our perceptions, are always contributing causes of a thing.

That was my question, though. Could a putative acausal thing . . . .

An "acausal thing" is a contradiction in terms.

If it is a "thing", then it exists, and if it exists then it is to some extent caused by our mind and perceptions, and is therefore not "acausal".

So an "acausal thing" is like a "square circle" - which is to say, it's not anything at all.

If what exists in our minds is always a contributing, and only a contributing, cause for a thing, any thing, might not the mind's rigorous insistence on causality keep us from perceiving the thing in the first place?

If a thing were acausal, it would by definition be impossible to perceive, since perceptions are always a cause of anything perceived.

There would be no evidence of such a thing, of any kind, anywhere in the Universe, and nor could there ever be.

I am trying to demonstrate that a class of things out there may exist which cannot be perceived but may be perceived if we if we do not insist on causality.

Perceptions are causal, so it's impossible to perceive without causality. For example, you can't perceive anything without senses.

[brokenhead]

If the conscious part of our mind does not perceive it, that does not imply that the thing does not exist out there. It may still have an objective reality.

Since there's no possible way you could ever know of its existence, there's no real point thinking about it.

An example would be light with wave lengths outside of the narrow visible-light spectrum. Yet that light is a thing that exists, and we know it exists by deduction alone.

We can do scientific experiments to demonstrate the existence of those other wavelengths, so it's not just deduction.

Now let me postulate the existence of an acausal thing. There is no empirical proof that such a thing cannot exist.

Nor is there any empirical proof that square circles cannot exist. Nevertheless, they cannot.

It is merely an assertion that everything has a cause . . .

That is your contention.

You say it is a logical necessity in that its negation would result in chaos, but that chaos would result cannot be demonstrated in an empirical way, and it cannot be proven in a logical way.

It can indeed be proven in a logical way. If a thing is acausal, then "anything goes" as far as it is concerned, which would result in chaos. Any restrictions on it whatsoever would be causes, which would destroy its acausality.

You do not believe that an acausal thing can exist and you have never perceived one.

Nor have I ever perceived a square circle, and for the same reason.

Perceptions are causal, so it's impossible to perceive without causality. For example, you can't perceive anything without senses.

You perceive thoughts, and thoughts do not necessarily involve the senses.

The mind itself is a sense.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: If thing A is caused by thing Z, even through a chain of causes, then there must be sufficient time for cause Z to propagate through to effect A given that the propagation cannot travel faster than light.

Kevin: The propagation only need to happen from B to A. Once we have established that B is a cause of A, then we can ask what is the cause of B. Whatever is a cause of B is necessarily also a cause of A, regardless of the speed of light.

Yes, whatever is a cause of B is also a cause of A, but the causes of B also were limited by the speed of light in reaching it from C, D, ... Z.

Kevin: Non-determinism in science doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether things have causes or not.

guest_of_logic: Well then what do you think that it means in science?

Kevin: In science it means "cannot be determined".

Not according to Wikipedia. In the article on Indeterminism (a word which Wikipedia uses in the same way that I use the word "non-determinism"), it states:

Indeterminism is the philosophical belief contradictory to determinism: that there are events which do not correspond with determinism (and therefore are uncaused in some sense).

For instance:

1. No event is caused at all
2. Some events are not caused at all
3. Some events are partially caused
4. All events are partially caused.

and then it goes on to explain that "the advent of quantum mechanics ... [introduced the claim] that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter behave indeterministically, in accordance with such properties as the uncertainty principle. ... Experiments confirmed the correctness of quantum mechanics, with a test of the Bell's theorem by Alain Aspect being particularly important because it showed that determinism and locality cannot both be true."

Note also that this article uses the term "partially caused", which supports my independent use of a similar term. You have disparaged this term, but that's because you (plural) have a different understanding of "cause", as David and I have been discussing.

Kevin: You were saying that science provides evidence of acausality. But it actually doesn't. There is no evidence, anywhere, for acausality.

guest_of_logic: It provides evidence of non-determinism.

Kevin: That's right, and that has nothing to do with whether a thing has causes or not.

Nonsense. See above. Science provides evidence of both non-determinism and acausality, because the former implies the latter.

[Ataraxia]

Kevin:
If a thing were acausal, it would by definition be impossible to perceive, since perceptions are always a cause of anything perceived.

There would be no evidence of such a thing, of any kind, anywhere in the Universe, and nor could there ever be.

Hmmm, thats a really good argument.

It really comes down to the question of whether one believes(or not) in the existence of the objective 'thing-in-itself' ,as Brokenhead points out in the following post.

If a things existence is non inherent ,then acausality can't be a reality.

[brokenhead]

It really comes down to the question of whether one believes(or not) in the existence of the objective 'thing-in-itself' ,as Brokenhead points out in the following post.

If a things existence is non inherent ,then acausality can't be a reality.

Kevin seems to think a thing can have an inherent existence. He says that our perception of a thing is always a contributory cause of the thing. That implies that anything we perceive can have other contributory causes. I take it these would lie in the realm of objective or thing-in-itself reality, meaning we grant a thing can have an inherent existence. What I'm questioning in this thread is the contrapositive: does a thing with an inherent existence, assuming we agree that it can have an inherent existence, mean that it must have one of these external causes? It already has a cause if we perceive it, so thus we need not call it "acausal" which seems not to compute with Kevin. Might not our perception of a thing be its only contributory cause and yet it still have an external, inherent reality? It seems to me that mandating external causes as well for a thing with an inherent existence is not logically justified, especially since if a thing does have external causes, we can never know all of them in principle. If you cannot know all of them, then you certainly cannot count all of them. If there was a thing none of whose causes except the one we contribute were known to us, it seems to be unnecessary and unreasonable to insist that it must have some nonetheless.

Maybe it is the term "acausal" that has to be rethought or even rejected if it cannot refer to any thing. But since A=A, if we keep "causality" then we must keep "acausality" to give it meaning. To me this implies that there must exist at least one thing with inherent reality that has no external cause, if we concede inherent reality to everything else, i.e. caused things. Kevin likes to call this the Totality, which is fine, but then he calls it "God" as well. That is troublesome to me. I believe Kevin only grants uncaused status to the Totality out of what he believes is logical necessity. But then this logic means that the Totality would be the only "thing" that is uncaused whose every possible, conceivable part is caused.

This is the blind spot of his philosophy, its navel, if you will. And what a big, ugly, protruding "outie" it is. This is avoided if you concede a God who has created the Totality but who is not identical with it, one who is infinite and eternal.

[Kevin Solway]

Yes, whatever is a cause of B is also a cause of A, but the causes of B also were limited by the speed of light in reaching it from C, D, ... Z.

That's right, but we can still know that 'Z', is a cause of A, no matter how far away it is, provided we have enough steps inbetween.

In science it means "cannot be determined".

"Indeterminism is the philosophical belief contradictory to determinism"

"Philosophical". Did you see that part?

In philosophy, indeterminism can indeed concern the lack of causes. But in science, it doesn't. Words have different meanings when used in different contexts, and this is such a case.

Science cannot prove a negative. It can only offer tentative guesses.

People naturally get confused with the philosophical usage of the term and the scientific one, mostly because people don't know anything about philosophy, and very little about science.

Note also that this article uses the term "partially caused", which supports my independent use of a similar term. You have disparaged this term, but that's because you (plural) have a different understanding of "cause", as David and I have been discussing.

I'm not interested in the scientific use of the term cause, since science is at best only tentative guesswork.

Science cannot possibly prove the absence of causes, for the same reason that it can't prove, say, the absence of an invisible bacterium at the bottom of the ocean.

Of special note, too, is that with the Copenhagen interpretation, acausality is an assumption.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: Yes, whatever is a cause of B is also a cause of A, but the causes of B also were limited by the speed of light in reaching it from C, D, ... Z.

Kevin: That's right, but we can still know that 'Z', is a cause of A, no matter how far away it is, provided we have enough steps inbetween.

Right, but the propagation of cause Z to effect A is still limited by the speed of light, regardless that there are intermediate effects and causes along the way. You haven't explained how to get around that limitation.

In science it means "cannot be determined".

"Indeterminism is the philosophical belief contradictory to determinism"

"Philosophical". Did you see that part?

In philosophy, indeterminism can indeed concern the lack of causes. But in science, it doesn't. Words have different meanings when used in different contexts, and this is such a case.

What you've just done is called "selective quoting", and it's dishonest and it actually irritates me quite a bit. Taken in context, with the full quote that I provided (and with the full article) it's plain that the same definition of indeterminism is being used throughout, including for science.

Science cannot prove a negative. It can only offer tentative guesses.

Right, and in this case, neither can philosophy, which is the entire point of this debate.

guest_of_logic: Note also that this article uses the term "partially caused", which supports my independent use of a similar term. You have disparaged this term, but that's because you (plural) have a different understanding of "cause", as David and I have been discussing.

Kevin: I'm not interested in the scientific use of the term cause, since science is at best only tentative guesswork.

What you need to understand is that science and philosophy are linked, as in the case of indeterminism, or of cosmology, and that they often share terms and definitions. It is sometimes said that science is a branch of philosophy - a view that I'm partial to. It makes sense if you conceive of philosophy as rational investigation into the nature of reality.

Science cannot possibly prove the absence of causes, for the same reason that it can't prove, say, the absence of an invisible bacterium at the bottom of the ocean.

That's right, which I why I have never said that science has proved absence of causes, I've used instead a word with less rigorous requirements: evidence.

Of special note, too, is that with the Copenhagen interpretation, acausality is an assumption.

I don't know enough about the Copenhagen interpretation to know whether that's strictly true or not; I do know that there are competing interpretations which do not entail non-determinism.

[Kevin Solway]

Right, but the propagation of cause Z to effect A is still limited by the speed of light, regardless that there are intermediate effects and causes along the way. You haven't explained how to get around that limitation.

I'm only explaining how distance, and the speed of light, is not a problem, providing we tackle it in small steps.

Taken in context, with the full quote that I provided (and with the full article) it's plain that the same definition of indeterminism is being used throughout, including for science.

The person who wrote that Wikipedia article doesn't really understand what they are talking about.

It's clear to me that the author is a person from a science background, trying to write something that sounds philosophical and authorative, and failing.

Science cannot prove a negative. It can only offer tentative guesses.

Right, and in this case, neither can philosophy, which is the entire point of this debate.

Nope. Philosophy doesn't have the same limitations that science does.

It is sometimes said that science is a branch of philosophy

Not by real philosophers its not.

Western philosophy went into decline with the arrival of people like Quine, who tried to turn philosophy over to science, and tried to convince people that philosophy and science were part of the same enterprise.

A view that I'm partial to. It makes sense if you conceive of philosophy as rational investigation into the nature of reality.

Science is not about "reality", as such. It's about practical truths we can use for day to day living. Science can function perfectly well, and very usefully, without having any interest in reality.

Philosophy, by contrast, is interested in ultimate and absolute reality. It's sphere is not that of tentative guesses.

Science can be aided by philosophy, and, ideally, every scientist should also be a philosopher, but philosophy is never aided by science, because it is of a higher sphere.

[Ataraxia]

It really comes down to the question of whether one believes(or not) in the existence of the objective 'thing-in-itself' ,as Brokenhead points out in the following post.

If a things existence is non inherent ,then acausality can't be a reality.

Kevin seems to think a thing can have an inherent existence. He says that our perception of a thing is always a contributory cause of the thing. That implies that anything we perceive can have other contributory causes. I take it these would lie in the realm of objective or thing-in-itself reality, meaning we grant a thing can have an inherent existence.

Kev et al have gone to great pains to explain that they don't believe a thing can have inherent existence.It's the foundation of their philosophy.Dan just made a vid on it even. http://www.theabsolute.net/tv/?p=128

What I'm questioning in this thread is the contrapositive: does a thing with an inherent existence, assuming we agree that it can have an inherent existence, mean that it must have one of these external causes? It already has a cause if we perceive it, so thus we need not call it "acausal" which seems not to compute with Kevin. Might not our perception of a thing be its only contributory cause and yet it still have an external, inherent reality? It seems to me that mandating external causes as well for a thing with an inherent existence is not logically justified, especially since if a thing does have external causes, we can never know all of them in principle. If you cannot know all of them, then you certainly cannot count all of them. If there was a thing none of whose causes except the one we contribute were known to us, it seems to be unnecessary and unreasonable to insist that it must have some nonetheless.

Kevins argument, as I understand it, is that for any 'thing' you can name we can say with confidence that we know at minimum one cause(our perception),thus it can't be said to be acausal,we've already named a cause.

Furthermore they argue from dependent arising/conditionality that because it is logical to assume that the conditions where right for a thing to arise(because it did) then those conditions can be considered causes,even if we cannot always percieve them as direct causes.It didn't originally make sense to me,now it does.

Maybe it is the term "acausal" that has to be rethought or even rejected if it cannot refer to any thing. But since A=A, if we keep "causality" then we must keep "acausality" to give it meaning. To me this implies that there must exist at least one thing with inherent reality that has no external cause, if we concede inherent reality to everything else, i.e. caused things. Kevin likes to call this the Totality, which is fine, but then he calls it "God" as well. That is troublesome to me. I believe Kevin only grants uncaused status to the Totality out of what he believes is logical necessity. But then this logic means that the Totality would be the only "thing" that is uncaused whose every possible, conceivable part is caused.

This is the blind spot of his philosophy, its navel, if you will. And what a big, ugly, protruding "outie" it is. This is avoided if you concede a God who has created the Totality but who is not identical with it, one who is infinite and eternal.

It's the eternal philosophical problem though--which a creator-God doesn't solve--what created God?

Kevin posits God(nature/everything) has always existed;I agree with that position and held that to be true even before I started coming to this forum.It seems a priori self evident to me.I can't see how it could be any other way.

I came to the conclusion after pondering on Aquinas '5 proofs of God',they weren't logical proofs at all.The 'ex causa 'argument ironically caused me to believe that the opposite must be true.

[Kevin Solway]

I came to the conclusion after pondering on Aquinas '5 proofs of God',they weren't logical proofs at all.The 'ex causa 'argument ironically caused me to believe that the opposite must be true.

As a matter of interest, Dan has just put a new video out:

30 proofs for the existence of God

[brokenhead]

Kev et al have gone to great pains to explain that they don't believe a thing can have inherent existence.

Yes, but then why does he say our perception of a thing is a "contributory" cause of the thing? If a thing lacks an inherent existence, that is, there is never a thing-in-itself, how can there be other contributory causes than our perception for a thing? That is certainly what is implied if our pereptions only contribute to a thing's causes, unless you also specify that our pereption is the sole contributor.

Kevins argument, as I understand it, is that for any 'thing' you can name we can say with confidence that we know at minimum one cause(our perception),thus it can't be said to be acausal,we've already named a cause

Well, yes, but if you go on to read my post, I am conceding this point, because while it is important, it is purely semantic if you look at it another way, i.e., the way I then propose. My argument is as follows:

1. Our perception is always a contributory cause for a thing.
2. Unless you say it is the sole contributing cause, you are admitting others which are not our perception, and are therefore external. If a thing has objective causes, it must also have an objective, thing-in-itself existence. This is what we have been calling an inherent existence.

Ataraxia, so far so good?

3. Suppose our contribution (perception) to a thing's causes were the sole contribution. The thing would have inherent existence (existence apart from our perception) and not be acausal. And yet it would have no external cause(s). Everyone should be happy. We have done away with acausality.

All I am trying to point out is that it is not logically necessary for a thing to have an external cause in order for it to have an external existence.

Think about what Kevin et al have said. They have said we cannot know anything of a thing's inherent existence. This would include whether or not it has one, so it goes without saying that if it does have one, we cannot know whether or not anything objective or possessing an inherent existence caused it.

It's the eternal philosophical problem though--which a creator-God doesn't solve--what created God?

This "problem" is one for people with a strong penchant for autistic mind loops. It is not a logical necessity by any means. The Creator-God was created by his "Father" who created nothing else besides Creator sons and their authority to sustain Creation (Holy Spirit) in his name. He, she, it has no antecedent and no equal in this regard.

Kevin posits God(nature/everything) has always existed;I agree with that position and held that to be true even before I started coming to this forum.It seems a priori self evident to me.I can't see how it could be any other way.

No offense, but it is even lazier than postulating an uncaused First Source and Center. "Nature/Everything" is not the same one moment to the next. It cannot , therefore, have existed forever. Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in the Universe, even as mass/energy remains unchanged. This implies that originally, mass/energy came into being all at once in an extremely highly ordered state, and has been becoming more disordered ever since. Kelly seems to agree with Julian Barbour that time is our perception of things changing in this way, and that it doesn't have an inherent existence. I think Einstein's equations give time equal footing with the 3 spatial dimensions in that they are interwoven into a continuum of 4 dimensions which ALL HAD A BEGINNING. This beginning is now estimated to have occurred some 15 billion years ago. If time indeed had a beginning along with space as we know it, the Universe is not infinite in a temporal sense, that is, it is not eternal.

An analogy might help here. The earth's circumference is about 25,000 miles. Therefore if you pick a spot on earth, you can never be futher away from it than about 12,500 miles and still be on the earth. This is due to the earth's topographical shape - it is a spheroid. The space-time continuum has its own topography which says there is no point that is further away in the past than about 15 billion years.

The figure of 15 billion years is not agreed on by all cosmologists. It depends on the solution to Einstein's equations one accepts. But the increase in entropy gives time an arrow and appears to forbid cyclical histories.