Causality and Acausality

[guest_of_logic]

Kevin: If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic.

guest_of_logic: Such is your assertion

Kevin: Rather, I have proven conclusively that this is the case.

You have made arguments, but they are conclusive proof only in your own mind (or, who knows, perhaps in the minds of other readers, but certainly not in mine). Notably, you have not refuted the argument that I have put to you: that "uncaused" events occur within the universe of form, and hence are by necessity restricted, and that it's conceivable that the universe applies greater restrictions than you are imagining to such events.

So why don't we simplify your argument to that of proposing "constrained acausality"?

Because it's not a simplification, it's a rewording, and it has no benefit over the original. I don't have a major problem with it, but I prefer "constrained randomness".

Likewise, as far as I can tell, when you use the word "determined" I think you are meaning "caused", so we can simplify your "non-deterministically random" (which is commonly understood to mean several different, and unrelated things) to mean "acausally random".

You're intent on slipping your "acausal" in everywhere, and have been since you titled this thread. I'm not playing the rephrasing game. I've chosen my phrasing and I'm sticking with it.

So, we have "constrained acausality" and "acausal randomness". Does that make sense?

It depends on whether you mean the same thing by those phrases as I mean by the original phrases. I prefer the original phrases, so I won't be adopting these new terms.

Whatever it is about randomness that is acausal, then with regard to it, "anything goes", since that's what "acausal" means. If such a thing exists, then everything becomes chaotic.

There you go again, with your "acausal equates to anything goes". Do I have to keep on reminding you that the universe contains structure and order, and that acausal events fit into this structure and order, and that the universe might be configured such that only certain acausal events can occur within this structure and order? Who are you to decide that acausal events necessarily result in absolutely anything at all? It's for the universe to decide what type of acausal events are possible, not you. It's not a logical question, it's an empirical one.

[David Quinn]

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I mean by "random". To me, it's one of those words like "exist", which has a meaning that is difficult to convey except through intuition. I would like to trust that you already understand intuitively what I mean by it, but you're making it difficult for me, so let me try to elaborate: random in the sense that I intend it means that one out of various options comes to be the case, with the ultimately chosen option occurring non-deterministically; it is not known which it is until the choice is actually, in the instant, made - and it is not determined by anything in the past or by any other causal means, and any one of the choices is equally (unless there is a probability distribution) likely to occur, but the mechanism by which one actually does occur can in no sense be broken down further than to say that it was "random". Yes, there may be some sense of intuition required, but I'm sure that you're capable of it. Not all things can be expressed in words.

In other words, it "just happens".

So the question posed by guest and maestro is: Why can't things just happen?

Which then raises other questions, such as:

If things can just happen, what stops them from happening all the time?

Why does a thing which can just happen have to rely on causal circumstances before it can happen, as outlined by guest's "restrictive randomness" scenario?

Why should one thing just happen, while another thing has to rely on being caused?

Is there really two different types of "things" in the world?

The best that you've done is to postulate that it is equivalent to acausality, and that the existence of acausality leads to chaos due to the fact that "anything goes". I've explained that this is not the case, because not just "anything" could go, for the reason that acausal events are at least constrained by both identity (A=A) and by logic (no square circles) - and that given these restraints, there is nothing to stop us from imagining that the universe imposes even more restraints, such as restricting acausal events to occur in only such situations as I have given examples of, like a nucleus decaying in one of five possible ways - or not decaying - in any given instant.

This is just a case of re-introducing causality through the back door. Obviously, you can see the madness of believing in pure acausality, and to resolve it, you have to bring "restrictions" into the picture to make it more plausible. What you don't seem to understand, however, is that this process of reintroducing restrictions can't be halted arbitrarily, not until the end is naturally reached and we are back in full causality once more.

Indeed, the way you are couching the matter now - namely, that the causal circumstances have to be in place before the action takes place, makes it indistinguishable from causality.

There you go again, with your "acausal equates to anything goes". Do I have to keep on reminding you that the universe contains structure and order, and that acausal events fit into this structure and order, and that the universe might be configured such that only certain acausal events can occur within this structure and order? Who are you to decide that acausal events necessarily result in absolutely anything at all?

Logic decides it. It is in the very meaning of an "acausal event" that nothing at all can regulate it.

I've been repeating it from the start, and I'll repeat his words again here, because maestro nailed it perfectly. Non-deterministic randomness "is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process." In other words, it's not just that we as finite, conscious beings cannot determine it, but that it simply is not determined: it's random. Get it yet, or are you determined to keep clinging to your determinism?

I still haven't discerned any meaning in maestro's statement. At best, it is an hypothesis, a stated assertion of one possible way the universe could be, but with no supporting reasoning to explain why.

It is a bit like saying, "2+2 could equal 5", and leaving it at that. And then someone else saying, "Do you get it yet, or are you determined to cling to 2+2=4? Your 2+2=4 is simply an article of faith."

You can play weak semantic games regarding causality all that you like, but the real question is whether or not the universe is deterministic. That's been the issue from the start. You can call randomness (or, as you choose it, "lack") a cause if you like, but that's beside the point: the real point is whether or not one state of the universe determines the next, such that the future is fixed by the present and past. My argument is not that the future is deterministic, nor that it is non-deterministic, but simply that we can't know either way and that therefore your philosophy of determinism is an article of faith: in this I agree 100% with maestro's entry into this thread.

You can only keep up such a position by remaining vague in your own mind about what causality and acausality really mean - just as a person can only continue to believe that "2+2 could equal 5" by not being clear in his own mind about what these terms mean.

Acausality, like God, is one of those things which can give the impression that it could exist, but only when we squint. It disappears the moment we open our eyes and begin chasing it.

Okay, good. So we both agree that everything is necessarily governed by logical causation.

I wouldn't have added "causation" to it. I would have stuck with "logic", or, rather, "the rules of the universe". But whatever floats your boat, really.

The fact that certain forms can't come into being is an effect of logical reality.

guest_of_logic: All that I'm really trying to do here is to point out that "acausal" is a less useful concept, but that it's possible that - given the right empirical framework in the universe - it would result in something like the scenario that I'm proposing for non-deterministic random events, given that restrictions are unavoidable anyway.

David: In other words, if the causal circumstances are ripe, then a particular "selection" will occur ....?

Sure, but that doesn't make it deterministic (if, indeed, you even want to ascribe "causality" to "randomness", which, as I've explained elsewhere, is a matter of preference). In fact it's non-deterministic, the possibility of which is the entire point of this debate.

Again, I can't see the difference between the two. Causal circumstances are set up and an action naturally occurs as a result. This is causality in a nutshell.

-

[Ataraxia]

'Constrained randomness' must be a contradiction in terms.

Kevins arguments make utter sense,I think I'm having a Road to Damascus moment ; the decent into madness begins :(

[Dan Rowden]

Well, Mr R of QRS, as one with access to Absolute Truth (tm), I would rather hope that you would explain it to me.

Shall I point out the issue you have with smugness? It may not actually be intentional, but it's there. Now, to the point at hand - in watching this discussion unfold it occurred to me that you do not, in fact, have a clear idea of what constitutes a "cause". Yet, armed with this not insubstantial ignorance you've argued your head off whilst seeing fit to declare David's and Kevin's arguments false. I don't get that. There's something wrong here. I don't see how a person can coherently argue the issue of causality/acausality if they don't know what they mean by "cause". And it's no good asking me to tell you what it means - you're the one mounting all these arguments. You need to sort it out in your mind so your own point of view has a proper basis. If you do, your arguments will have a decent core and grounding. At present you're just flailing around with ad hoc points of debate. You may simply enjoy the debate, I don't know. But to me it would be an incredible waste of effort to build an entire edifice only to realise one has built it on proverbial sand.

[Dan Rowden]

Notably, you have not refuted the argument that I have put to you: that "uncaused" events occur within the universe of form, and hence are by necessity restricted, and that it's conceivable that the universe applies greater restrictions than you are imagining to such events.

The Universe cannot constrain or restrict the acausal. Acausality cannot exist in some small pocket of existence somewhere (actually, it can't even exist because existence is causality). The acausal, by definition, stands outside or apart from the causal. It cannot be effected in any way whatsoever by it, and therefore cannot be constrained or restricted by it. I mean, crikey, is this not blindingly obvious?

More than this, the acausal can't be anything at all because existence is causation. Arguing for acausal events is the same as arguing for creation ex nihilo. One cannot lucidly argue with anyone who wants to adopt an idea like that.

[guest_of_logic]

[a description of "random"]

In other words, it "just happens".

I don't really have an argument with that, if that's how you prefer to think about it, except to reiterate that it "just happens" within constraints.

So the question posed by guest and maestro is: Why can't things just happen?

Not just, why can't they, but also, isn't it possible that they actually are (remembering the constraints)?

If things can just happen, what stops them from happening all the time?

The structure, order and rules of the universe: these things would determine exactly which sort of acausal events are permitted to occur. There is a law of gravity; why do you find it so hard to believe that there might likewise be a law regulating acausal events?

Why does a thing which can just happen have to rely on causal circumstances before it can happen, as outlined by guest's "restrictive randomness" scenario?

More to the point, why couldn't it? You're the one with the fixed outlook (determinism) - it's up to you to prove that the scenario that I'm suggesting is impossible. Clearly, acausality as you and Kevin envisage it - anything goes, anywhere, anytime - is not the case, because we don't live in such a chaotic universe. That doesn't mean that restricted acausal events can't and don't occur.

Why should one thing just happen, while another thing has to rely on being caused?

More to the point, why shouldn't it? Again, I remind you that the incumbency is on you to prove impossibility, given that you believe in the absolute truth of determinism.

Is there really two different types of "things" in the world?

I'd use the word "events" rather than "things", but given that rewording, here's my response:

Maybe. Who knows? Quantum mechanics, as far as I know (which is only a very little) seems to suggest that there are. You are the one who believes that there definitively are not, so prove it. Otherwise, as maestro and I have pointed out, your position is one of faith.

guest_of_logic: The best that you've done is to postulate that it is equivalent to acausality, and that the existence of acausality leads to chaos due to the fact that "anything goes". I've explained that this is not the case, because not just "anything" could go, for the reason that acausal events are at least constrained by both identity (A=A) and by logic (no square circles) - and that given these restraints, there is nothing to stop us from imagining that the universe imposes even more restraints, such as restricting acausal events to occur in only such situations as I have given examples of, like a nucleus decaying in one of five possible ways - or not decaying - in any given instant.

David: This is just a case of re-introducing causality through the back door. Obviously, you can see the madness of believing in pure acausality, and to resolve it, you have to bring "restrictions" into the picture to make it more plausible. What you don't seem to understand, however, is that this process of reintroducing restrictions can't be halted arbitrarily, not until the end is naturally reached and we are back in full causality once more.

So you assert. Demonstrate it.

Indeed, the way you are couching the matter now - namely, that the causal circumstances have to be in place before the action takes place, makes it indistinguishable from causality.

No, it doesn't. The scenario that I'm suggesting is non-deterministic; your scenario is deterministic.

guest_of_logic: There you go again, with your "acausal equates to anything goes". Do I have to keep on reminding you that the universe contains structure and order, and that acausal events fit into this structure and order, and that the universe might be configured such that only certain acausal events can occur within this structure and order? Who are you to decide that acausal events necessarily result in absolutely anything at all?

David: Logic decides it. It is in the very meaning of an "acausal event" that nothing at all can regulate it.

No, it's not. The meaning of "acausal event " is simply "an event that lacks a cause" - "cause" in the traditional sense of "the most significant and unique reason for an event occurring", rather than in the sense of your understanding of cause as "anything upon which an event or thing depends". This meaning implies nothing about whether or not that event can be regulated. It is purely your assertion that acausality cannot be regulated.

It seems that we are talking about two different phenomena. One is your phenomenon: "unrestricted acausality", in which absolutely anything can occur absolutely anywhere, absolutely any time (and which plainly doesn't exist, given the order in our universe). The other is what I'm suggesting: "restricted acausality", in which certain acausal (in the sense of non-determinististic) events occur, but not others. You have failed to convince me that my proposal is flawed.

guest_of_logic: I've been repeating it from the start, and I'll repeat his words again here, because maestro nailed it perfectly. Non-deterministic randomness "is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process." In other words, it's not just that we as finite, conscious beings cannot determine it, but that it simply is not determined: it's random. Get it yet, or are you determined to keep clinging to your determinism?

David: I still haven't discerned any meaning in maestro's statement. At best, it is an hypothesis, a stated assertion of one possible way the universe could be, but with no supporting reasoning to explain why.

It is, indeed, an hypothesis, and one that I am not claiming to be necessarily true, merely possibly true. You, on the other hand, believe that determinism is necessarily true. It's therefore up to you to disprove the hypothesis.

It is a bit like saying, "2+2 could equal 5", and leaving it at that. And then someone else saying, "Do you get it yet, or are you determined to cling to 2+2=4? Your 2+2=4 is simply an article of faith."

Here you imply that the hypothesis is on its face wrong, just as saying that 2+2 could equal 5 would be wrong on its face. Great, so go ahead and explain why.

guest_of_logic: All that I'm really trying to do here is to point out that "acausal" is a less useful concept, but that it's possible that - given the right empirical framework in the universe - it would result in something like the scenario that I'm proposing for non-deterministic random events, given that restrictions are unavoidable anyway.

David: In other words, if the causal circumstances are ripe, then a particular "selection" will occur ....?

guest_of_logic: Sure, but that doesn't make it deterministic (if, indeed, you even want to ascribe "causality" to "randomness", which, as I've explained elsewhere, is a matter of preference). In fact it's non-deterministic, the possibility of which is the entire point of this debate.

David: Again, I can't see the difference between the two. Causal circumstances are set up and an action naturally occurs as a result. This is causality in a nutshell.

Don't be obtuse: determinism and non-determinism are distinct. You hold dogmatically to the one, I suggest the possibility of the other.

'Constrained randomness' must be a contradiction in terms.

Certainly not. Consider even Kevin's definition of randomness, being merely unpredictability. At the very least, the roll of a dice is constrained not to result in the appearance of a homicidal mushroom-munching dwarf. Why, under my definition of randomness (being non-deterministic), should constraints be any less operable?

Shall I point out the issue you have with smugness?

Shall I point out that I'm talking to a man who believes that he knows everything that is worth knowing philosophically? If that attitude doesn't deserve the odd bit of ribbing, then I don't know what does.

in watching this discussion unfold it occurred to me that you do not, in fact, have a clear idea of what constitutes a "cause".

Your assertion, being unbacked, is as it stands somewhat worthless. What leads you to that belief?

And it's no good asking me to tell you what it means

I was simply deflecting your question, which came out of the blue and which I didn't care to answer in that context.

Now that you have revealed your hand, and hence, the context for your question - that I do not 'have a clear idea of what constitutes a "cause"' - I am more willing to answer. In one sense, your question is completely trivial: a cause is "that which produces an effect". I mean, can it get any simpler than that?

But wait, there's more: there is the difference between the traditional understanding of "a cause" and the QRS understanding of such, as I outlined above in my response to David. The traditional understanding is that a cause is "the most significant and unique reason(s) for an event occurring", whereas the QRS understanding is that a cause is "anything upon which an event or thing depends". QRS-causes incorporate things that traditionally might be described as "requirements", "conditions" or "dependencies".

You may simply enjoy the debate

I do enjoy the debate, for multiple reasons - here's a main one: I enjoy that the spirit of competitiveness leads the debate's participants to outline the strongest arguments for and against the topic. Debates, when engaged in honestly and by relatively equally skillful combatants, can help to illuminate the truth to the audience, as well as to the participants, because the strongest, most rational and most truthful ideas become most readily visible. They're also generally good for stimulating new ways of looking at things, and they force one to clarify one's position in one's own mind. Ideally, it doesn't matter who wins and who loses, so long as each participant contributes to the best of his/her ability such that the truth becomes apparent. In reality, I prefer to have the stronger arguments, but then, I don't claim to be egoless.

The Universe cannot constrain or restrict the acausal. Acausality cannot exist in some small pocket of existence somewhere (actually, it can't even exist because existence is causality). The acausal, by definition, stands outside or apart from the causal. It cannot be effected in any way whatsoever by it, and therefore cannot be constrained or restricted by it. I mean, crikey, is this not blindingly obvious?

No, it's not blindingly obvious, and your statement "by definition" is false. The acausal, by definition, simply means "lacking in a cause", and here the typical sense of "cause" is intended, rather than the QRS sense of the word, as I have contrasted the two understandings above. In other words, acausal does not mean "completely lacking in requirements, conditions or dependencies", it simply means that the (primary) unique and significant reason(s) for the event occurring is/are missing - in other words that it is lacking sufficient explanation for its appearance, not that it is completely lacking in reasons. In other words, this definition does not preclude the acausal event from being constrained or restricted in some way by what QRS would refer to as causes but which typically would be referred to as requirements, conditions or dependencies.

To take the example that I have been using of an atomic nucleus decaying: the "cause" (typical definition) of the decay is missing, beyond that "it was a probabilistically random occurrence", but other "causes" (QRS definition) are nevertheless present: those causes being such things as that the nucleus is comprised of multiple small particles which can separate.

More than this, the acausal can't be anything at all because existence is causation. Arguing for acausal events is the same as arguing for creation ex nihilo. One cannot lucidly argue with anyone who wants to adopt an idea like that.

I'm actually reasonably sympathetic to your argument here, but only to a point. I frequently get forwarded messages on Facebook that read something like "Forward this message on to all of your friends and you will be shown who looks at your profile most frequently." I generally mutter something to myself like "You're a tool for believing that and for forwarding that message on to me, and furthermore you've embarrassed yourself by advertising your narcissistic desire to know who looks at your profile most." I then delete the message without further ado. No doubt you have the same attitude towards me for my suggestion that non-deterministic randomness (yes, yes, I know that you all prefer "acausality", so please perform the requisite substitution) is a reasonable possibility as I have to the people who believe in the magic of forward-Facebook-message-to-receive-viewing-statistics.

This point needs to be made, though: until I try the experiment for myself, I can't be 100% certain that some maverick Facebook coder has not inserted some cheeky code to do exactly what the chain message advertises. This further point needs to be made: there is no corresponding experiment that can be performed to either prove or disprove acausality. It all comes down to belief. Yes, it's an unintuitive proposition, it doesn't fit with our experience, it seems "magical", however, it seems to me that your philosophy implies the existence of acausality anyway. Here's why:

You believe that creation ex nihilo is absurd: in other words you believe that something cannot come out of nothing. Now there is very definitely "something" in the universe - let's for convenience call that something "energy". By your arguments, then, energy cannot have sprung out of nothing, and furthermore, you believe that the universe has no beginning, therefore energy must have always existed. Therefore, energy has no cause. Therefore, by the definition of acausality ("lacking in a cause"), the existence of energy is acausal.

Try as I might, I can't escape acausality in a philosophical sense. I've just explained how your philosophy entails it, and it's even more obvious how the Big Bang theory entails it: the Big Bang itself is typically said to have no cause. I'm confident (not 100% certain, but confident) that you can pick any model of the universe and I'll be able to show you how it entails acausality.

[just a warning that I'm currently seriously lacking in posting motivation, so I don't guarantee that I'll respond further in this thread, but if I do, it will probably be significantly delayed]

[Kevin Solway]

Determinism and non-determinism are distinct. You hold dogmatically to the one, I suggest the possibility of the other.

You are confusing matters unnecessarily.

Determinism and non-determinism have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, but you are talking about them as though one was the opposite of the other.

"Determinism" means "caused", whereas "non-determinism" means "we cannot determine". These are two entirely different things.

You would be better off talking about "causal" versus "acausal".

But then you won't be able to talk about "restrictions", because these are causes.

[guest_of_logic]

Determinism and non-determinism have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, but you are talking about them as though one was the opposite of the other.

"Determinism" means "caused", whereas "non-determinism" means "we cannot determine". These are two entirely different things.

Your definitions are horribly inadequate.

My preferred definition of "determinism" from dictionary.com, is "The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." Since you prefer to slip the word "cause" in there, then you might prefer this particular definition, also from dictionary.com: "the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes." Note: not just your "caused", but "sufficient causes" (my emphasis).

"Non-determinism" isn't listed in dictionary.com, but we can easily create a definition by editing the definitions for "determinism" to add a negation. Working with the first definition only, "non-determinism" is "The philosophical doctrine that not every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." In other words, not only can we not determine, but in actual fact, prior states of affairs do not even determine.

How can you hope to construct cogent arguments with such a poor understanding of the basic terms?

You would be better off talking about "causal" versus "acausal".

Look, I know that you're heavily in favour of those words, but again: offer declined. I'll use "determinism" and "non-determinism" as and when appropriate, and I'll use "causal" and "acausal" as and when appropriate. I'm not going to drop the former two just because you don't understand them.

But then you won't be able to talk about "restrictions", because these are causes.

You didn't even read my post fully, did you? If you did, then your comprehension is sorely lacking, or perhaps you're just deliberately ignoring my points. Here, let me copy in here the relevant part for you:

[to David] The meaning of "acausal event" is simply "an event that lacks a cause" - "cause" in the traditional sense of "the most significant and unique reason for an event occurring", rather than in the sense of your understanding of cause as "anything upon which an event or thing depends". This meaning implies nothing about whether or not that event can be regulated. It is purely your assertion that acausality cannot be regulated.

[brokenhead]

The other is what I'm suggesting: "restricted acausality", in which certain acausal (in the sense of non-determinististic) events occur, but not others. You have failed to convince me that my proposal is flawed.

Your concept of restrictions is puzzling - I can see why David and Kevin are objecting. Permit me to think out loud for a bit and see if I'm getting your argument.

Let's take an example. But first, pardon me if this example or one like it had already been given. I have read this exchange, but not completely all the way back to the beginning. It didn't seem necessary to understand the respective positions.

Many particle physicists and cosmologists believe that there is no such thing as "empty space." The belief is that fundamental paricles "appear" out of the "vacuum" and immediately annihilate each other. This constant appearance and disappearance of particles stems directly from QM fluctuations. That is, to be consistent with the uncertainty principle, this activity must occur. However, this is not the same as saying the appearance of these particles is caused. We actually specifically can not make that claim, due to our inherent uncertainty. Therefore, what we may have here is an acausal appearance of matter.

What guest is saying is that such a thing is also restricted. For instance, the matter that appears in this manner takes on certain types. It does not - or cannot - take the form of an elephant or a house.

David and Kevin are arguing that since everything is caused, such virtual particles must also be caused, even if we are not able to determine the cause. This may ineed be the case, although it seems to be a faith-based conclusion. But they are arguing this incorrectly by referring to the restrictions that guest is mentioning. Here's why:

A restriction is a reason, or cause, why something does not occur, or cannot. The restriction might be of the type: "Virtual particles can occur, but cannot take on living forms." This could be a fundamental Law of Nature. This would prevent chaos from ensuing due to acausal activity. But note that the restriction says absolutely nothing about any possible cause of the appearance itself of any virtual particles - it gives no hint to any possible cause, does not mention that a cause exists, or even that one is necessary in the first place. It makes no prediction of when a particle will materialize, nor what kind, or how often. It is a restriction only. In itself, it does not even modify the QM formalism which mandates the existence of these virtual particles. Rather it merely addresses a stated objection by an observer who says, what if elephants suddenly appear, thereby creating chaos?

We can even be more consistent and do away with restrictions altogether. This way, we can postulate acausal activity without the contentious existence of restrictions. Remember the dictum, "physical probabilities are engineering certainties." We can say the QM predicts the appearance and subsequent annihilation of virtual particles without addressing or postulating - or even requiring - underlying physical causes. The phenomenon is thus merely a statistical fluctuation on paper, yet one that is observed in nature. (This is true with all QM predictions.)

Why then do we not observe the chaos David and Kevin are so sure would ensue? Well, we do observe a kind of chaos, as this dance of creation and annihilation is chaotic and nondetermined - indeed, nondeterminable. We need not postulate restrictions of any kind. We may merely say that the sudden appearance of a rhinoceros is permitted by the QM formalism - that is, it is not expressly prohibited - yet it's probability is so close to zero, that we never witness the sudden appearance of any large anmimals, or anything at all of relatively greater complexity.

It seems to me that we then have what can as easily be interpreted as an acausal universe as a causal one, at least at the subatomic scale. There seems to be no de facto reason why the universe must be causal at every scale, even if it appears to be so on the scale of humans.

[Kevin Solway]

"Determinism" means "caused", whereas "non-determinism" means "we cannot determine". These are two entirely different things.

Your definitions are horribly inadequate.

"Non-determinism" isn't listed in dictionary.com, but we can easily create a definition by editing the definitions for "determinism" to add a negation.

People often use the term "indeterminism", but they don't use it to mean the opposite of determinism. Rather, they use it to mean "we cannot determine".

But you are wanting to use it to mean "acausal" (I suppose), in the sense of being without determining antecedent states of affairs. That's fine, but it does make it confusing, since we'll have to remember to apply this special definition of indeterminism just for your posts.

[to David] The meaning of "acausal event" is simply "an event that lacks a cause" - "cause" in the traditional sense of "the most significant and unique reason for an event occurring"

What is always the most significant and unique reason for any event occurring? It's the past state of the Universe, is it not? It is the conditions under which the event occurred. Since there is always a past state of the Universe, there is always a cause.

It is purely your assertion that acausality cannot be regulated.

It's not only an assertion, but it is a purely logical fact. An acausal event, if such a thing were possible, would have something about it that had no cause whatsoever — no restrictions at all. And this is impossible. If, on the other hand, there is nothing about an acausal event that has no cause, then it's not really acausal.

[guest_of_logic]

Great post, brokenhead - thanks for that. You've almost convinced me that restrictions don't need to exist, but for one issue: the fact that under your scenario, particles and anti-particles, and only particles and anti-particles, get acausally created, seems to be a restriction of sorts - in the sense that hitherto-unknown particles don't acausally appear - even though these particles and anti-particles can combine in number of ways to create any macro-level object. I suppose that one could argue that it's no more of a restriction than nature's existing "restriction" that matter be comprised solely out of these particles anyway, so I suppose that whether it technically constitutes a restriction is arguable. I'm perfectly happy to see you argue the negative.

[brokenhead]

What is always the most significant and unique reason for any event occurring? It's the past state of the Universe, is it not? It is the conditions under which the event occurred. Since there is always a past state of the Universe, there is always a cause.

But Kevin, what you have written here is not correct.

Let me return for a moment to the spontaneous creation and annihilation of virtual particles. You are identifying the past state of the Universe as a cause for every event. This is an assertion. It is the thing in question. In the case of virtual particles, their appearance is predicted as a local random fluctuation. As the state of the Universe is never the same from one moment to the next, we would have to conclude that the appearance and subsequent self annihilation of a pair of virtual particles would be a one-time event. It is not observed to be so in cloud chambers. We can observe the same two species appear and interact. We cannot even claim that these are different virtual particles each time they appear. As they appear ex nihilo, we can say nothing about the state of the "nothing" which spawns them. Regardless of the state of the Univese into which they appear, they will proceed to annihilate.

To identify the state of the Universe as a cause, let alone the cause, is merely speculative. Keep in mind, that such pairs of virtual particles are constantly doing their existential dance always and everywhere, seemingly unaffected by the state of the Universe from one moment to the next.

[guest_of_logic]

People often use the term "indeterminism", but they don't use it to mean the opposite of determinism. Rather, they use it to mean "we cannot determine".

Oh, yes, I see - looking at the definitions of "indeterminism" on dictionary.com, I see that one definition is "Unpredictability", which seems to be the definition that you're going by.

But you are wanting to use it to mean "acausal" (I suppose), in the sense of being without determining antecedent states of affairs.

Yes, I've been calling it "non-determinism" although I see that it seems to be vaguely possible to use "indeterminism" too - another definition of that word on dictionary.com is "The doctrine that there are some events, particularly some human actions or decisions, which have no cause." It's not quite a strong enough definition, though, so I prefer to stick with the term "non-determinism" and the definition that I've given it.

That's fine, but it does make it confusing, since we'll have to remember to apply this special definition of indeterminism just for your posts.

As I wrote above, let's not use the word "indeterminism", because I think that "non-determinism" is a better fit, at least the way that I've defined it.

What is always the most significant and unique reason for any event occurring? It's the past state of the Universe, is it not?

That's exactly the question that maestro and I are answering with "maybe, but maybe not", and which brokenhead is answering with "not according to quantum mechanics".

An acausal event, if such a thing were possible, would have something about it that had no cause whatsoever — no restrictions at all. And this is impossible.

Why is it impossible? Simply because you find the idea absurd? How many times have certain people branded certain other people's ideas absurd, only to find that those ideas were valid after all? It happens frequently in science and technology. Famous last words: "That will never work!" and "That's just plain impossible!"

[Kevin Solway]

This constant appearance and disappearance of particles stems directly from QM fluctuations. That is, to be consistent with the uncertainty principle, this activity must occur. However, this is not the same as saying the appearance of these particles is caused.

If this activity must occur, then it's definitely not even remotely suggesting that their appearance is uncaused.

We actually specifically can not make that claim, due to our inherent uncertainty.

Our uncertainty is not about whether events are caused or not. That's not what the uncertainty principle is about. This shows that you have no understanding of the science.

What guest is saying is that such a thing is also restricted.

Yes, that's the impression I'm getting, and his argument is equally spurious, and for the same reason.

For instance, the matter that appears in this manner takes on certain types. It does not - or cannot - take the form of an elephant or a house.

Exactly. There are causes in operation which restrict what is happening.

David and Kevin are arguing that since everything is caused, such virtual particles must also be caused, even if we are not able to determine the cause. This may ineed be the case, although it seems to be a faith-based conclusion.

When I throw a dice, I do not know what the result will be. But that doesn't mean that we should assume that there is no cause. That's ridiculous.

A restriction is a reason, or cause, why something does not occur, or cannot.

That's exactly the same as a reason why it does occur.

For example, let's say I'm trying to keep cool, but since I'm standing in front of a heater, it is preventing me from keeping cool. The heater is restricting how cool I am able to get.

. . . the contentious existence of restrictions.

Your inability to face up to reality is stunning.

We need not postulate restrictions of any kind.

Yep, this is totally in line with your religion. Do away with the idea of causes completely. Halt all investigation into evolution, and cease all scientific activity. Never again seek to understand the causes of anything. Your motivation is all too clear.

It seems to me that we then have what can as easily be interpreted as an acausal universe as a causal one, at least at the subatomic scale. There seems to be no de facto reason why the universe must be causal at every scale, even if it appears to be so on the scale of humans.

It doesn't matter what the scale is, if anything whatsoever is acausal, it won't be restricted to any scale — by definition — and the whole Universe would become totally chaotic.

[Kevin Solway]

they appear ex nihilo

That's not science, that's only your wishful thinking.

Regardless of the state of the Universe into which they appear, they will proceed to annihilate.

You don't know what the state of the Universe is, so this is only your wishful thinking in action again.

An acausal event, if such a thing were possible, would have something about it that had no cause whatsoever — no restrictions at all. And this is impossible.

Why is it impossible?

Because it would throw the whole Universe into total chaos. There wouldn't be anything restricting it to any scale. This is a purely logical certainty.

[brokenhead]

If this activity must occur, then it's definitely not even remotely suggesting that their appearance is uncaused.

You are missing the statistical nature of QM predictions, Kevin. You just do not get it. Pay attention. The formalism says nothing about causes. It says that an occurence that is extremely unlikely eventually must occur in time.

Our uncertainty is not about whether events are caused or not. That's not what the uncertainty principle is about. This shows that you have no understanding of the science.

You resort to ad hominem all the time. Yet it is your lack of exposure to these ideas that causes you to make erroneous statements and draw ignorant conclusions. I understand the science very well - I worked at a cyclotron and studied this material in grad school.

Let me correct you once again, since you are clearly very weak on this material. We specifically cannot claim that a pair of virtual particles is caused because their appearance is a statistical fluctuation. The uncertainty principle governs what we can know about a quantum mechanical system, and what we cannot. It therefore governs - that is, limits - what we can say about a QM system. That is, it prevents us from claiming causality holds 100% of the time. Time and energy are complementary precisely like position and momentum. For short periods of time, the conservation laws of mass-energy are violated. From Wikipedia:

Complementarity and Uncertainty dictate that all properties and actions in the physical world are therefore non-deterministic to some degree.

So before you try to correct me, get your facts straight and try to read what I have written. I am saying that QM formalism does not address causality; it does not say whether virtual pairs are caused or not. It makes no statement anout causality, because it asserts that none can be made. Read this last sentence and try to comprehend what the quote from Wikipedia is saying. Do not argue that determinism and causality are not the same thing. That is not the point. The point is what claims we can make about causality and what we cannot. The one you make, that everything must be caused, is a claim that cannot be verified at the subatomic level.

Therefore, I will repeat my quote as it is completely correct, despite your misreading and/or misunderstanding of it:

We actually specifically can not make that claim [that QM events are caused], due to our inherent uncertainty.

Your inability to face up to reality is stunning.

I'm trying to clarify for you what reality is and what it is not. Once you grasp what it is and what it isn't, you will understand that maintaining that everything has a cause is a claim that we cannot make. You are the one who will not face up to reality when it contradicts your limited philosophy.

We need not postulate restrictions of any kind.

Yep, this is totally in line with your religion. Do away with the idea of causes completely. Halt all investigation into evolution, and cease all scientific activity. Never again seek to understand the causes of anything. Your motivation is all too clear.

Your irrational fears are showing. I did not appeal to religion in the slightest. And when I do, you demonstrate a moron's understanding of it.

Did I say anything about doing away with causes? You sound foolishly frightened. This discussion is not about evolution, which you also show a lack of insight into. My motivation is the truth. Your motivation is to appear sagelike and never concede that you may have been mistaken or may have something to learn.

It seems to me that we then have what can as easily be interpreted as an acausal universe as a causal one, at least at the subatomic scale. There seems to be no de facto reason why the universe must be causal at every scale, even if it appears to be so on the scale of humans.

It doesn't matter what the scale is, if anything whatsoever is acausal, it won't be restricted to any scale — by definition — and the whole Universe would become totally chaotic.

By what definition? Specifically? Your lack of comprehension of even the basic advances in science make your reasoning antiquated.

I have just described a subatomic process - the creation and annihilation of virtual pairs - as a process that is constantly occurring everywhere. It is chaotic only in that we cannot predict when and what pairs are created. It is confined to the subatomic realm. It does not make our macro world any more or less chaotic. In fact, if scale did not matter - which it most certainly does, as you would know if you had ever even seen the Schroedinger equation - then we would not be able to make statements about causality in the macro realm or astronomical realm, either. Specifically, it is not size but quantity of mass that determines scale.

You are fearfully missing the point: We cannot say whether such particle activity is causal or acausal. It is rather nondeterministic. The chaos that you fear so much and are so certain would engulf us is a feature of scale. You have to realize that the science of physics is very heavily scale-oriented. This is a realization that is barely 100 years old.

I suggest you bring you understanding of science and Nature into the 20th Century, and then later on you can join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

[guest_of_logic]

An acausal event, if such a thing were possible, would have something about it that had no cause whatsoever — no restrictions at all. And this is impossible.

guest of logic: Why is it impossible?

Kevin Solway: Because it would throw the whole Universe into total chaos. There wouldn't be anything restricting it to any scale. This is a purely logical certainty.

Oh, now I see what you're trying to argue - I didn't read your words carefully enough the first time. Yes, there would be something about an acausal event that had no cause whatsoever, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that the event as an entirety had no restrictions. For a start, it would be restricted to forms of energy/matter that the laws of physics permit: the creation of certain particles, for example.

But brokenhead is arguing more eloquently and knowledgeably than I can hope to, so kindly pay your attention to him.

[brokenhead]

they appear ex nihilo

That's not science, that's only your wishful thinking.

I have no stake in it, other than knowing the truth. The truth is, such pairs do appear ex nihilo. You may want to call it something else. "Out of the void" will do just as nicely.

Regardless of the state of the Universe into which they appear, they will proceed to annihilate.

You don't know what the state of the Universe is, so this is only your wishful thinking in action again.

Once again, you are the one speaking in terms of wishes. It makes you sound superstitious, and your position suspect.

It is exactly my point that I do not know the state of the Universe. You do not, either. No one does. We can only say the state is different from one moment to the next. Surely you agree with this?

And yet, such virtual pairs are constantly being created and annihilating one another. They do it at moment T0, and at moment T1, and at moments...tN, TN+1...

Their creation and annihilation therefore does not seem to depend on the state of the Universe, since the process is ongoing. This is exactly what my point was. Thank you for substantiating it.

Because it would throw the whole Universe into total chaos. There wouldn't be anything restricting it to any scale. This is a purely logical certainty.

You keep saying this. Yet if you knew anything about particle physics - which it is clear you do not - you would know that scale is determined by the mass of something. QM is believed to hold at every scale, but its effects are unimaginably tiny with macroscopic objects. Therefore, any "chaos" would not be noticeable.

This business of the Universe being thrown into total chaos as a purely logical certainty is anal-retentive, Kevin. It is an irrational fear that keeps you from probing more deeply into the nature of reality. You and David always try to counter my positions by claiming they stem from religion, which they do not, except when we are talking about religion. My entire reasoning for rejecting all established faiths is to clear the way for fearless inquiry into the nature of things wherever that may lead. Meanwhile, you two "rationalists" seem to be stuck on your preconceptions and unable to align your worldview with reality as it is being discovered.

[David Quinn]

I am saying that QM formalism does not address causality; it does not say whether virtual pairs are caused or not. It makes no statement anout causality, because it asserts that none can be made.

In other words, QM provides us with no reasons to think that quantum events aren't caused.

The question is, then, why do people keep refering to QM as an argument against causality?

This does not compute.

We specifically cannot claim that a pair of virtual particles is caused because their appearance is a statistical fluctuation.

That 10% of the male population is gay is a "statistical fluctuation". Yet it doesn't constitute evidence that gays and straights arise without cause.

Statistical evidence, whether it be in QM or elsewhere, doesn't have the power to question causality.

-

[Kevin Solway]

. . . the statistical nature of QM predictions . . .

The result of a dice throw has a statistical nature, but that doesn't mean that anything is happening without causes.

The formalism says nothing about causes.

That's what I've been telling you all along. So why do you use it to try to support your claim for acausality?

From Wikipedia:

Complementarity and Uncertainty dictate that all properties and actions in the physical world are therefore non-deterministic to some degree.

In science, "non-deterministic" doesn't mean "without causes." It means "cannot be determined". How many times have I made that point already?

The point is what claims we can make about causality and what we cannot. The one you make, that everything must be caused, is a claim that cannot be verified at the subatomic level.

It cannot be verified by science, but I'm not seeking to use science to verify it.

It doesn't matter what the scale is, if anything whatsoever is acausal, it won't be restricted to any scale — by definition — and the whole Universe would become totally chaotic.

By what definition? Specifically?

Acausal: without causes

Specifically, it is not size but quantity of mass that determines scale.

In that case mass would be a cause.

Their creation and annihilation therefore does not seem to depend on the state of the Universe

It doesn't "seem" that way at all.

[David Quinn]

If things can just happen, what stops them from happening all the time?

The structure, order and rules of the universe: these things would determine exactly which sort of acausal events are permitted to occur. There is a law of gravity; why do you find it so hard to believe that there might likewise be a law regulating acausal events?

Because regulating is necessarily a causal process. The regulating law shapes behaviour.

For me, an acausal event is one that is entirely without cause. "Acausal" = "no cause".

So as soon as causal factors, such as regulating laws, come into the picture, the entire basis for acausality goes out the window.

But you mentioned later in your post that your conception of "cause" differs from mine, which might account for our differences in this issue. So let's look at that:

It is in the very meaning of an "acausal event" that nothing at all can regulate it.

No, it's not. The meaning of "acausal event " is simply "an event that lacks a cause" - "cause" in the traditional sense of "the most significant and unique reason for an event occurring", rather than in the sense of your understanding of cause as "anything upon which an event or thing depends". This meaning implies nothing about whether or not that event can be regulated. It is purely your assertion that acausality cannot be regulated.

I confess that I can't wrap my mind around the idea of confining the definition of "cause" to "the most significant and unique reason for an event occurring". I realize it is a common definition of cause, but nevertheless it doesn't hold up when you analyze it.

For example, consider a law which regulates behaviour - say, a quantum law which regulates that an electron always possesses the same size, mass and charge. Clearly, if this law was absent, then electrons, as we know them, would be impossible. Instead, there would be countless different varieties of electrons, each with their own size, mass and charge. Some of them would be as big as galaxies.

This means that the law or force which governs the dimensions and characteristics of electrons is absolutely necessary for the regular production of electrons as we currently know them. Given this, shouldn't this law or force be considered as the "the most significant and unique reason" for the production of these electrons? And if not, why not?

To my mind, there is really no such thing as a "most significant and unique reason for an event occurring". All the millions of causal factors which come together to produce a thing are as important as each other. None really stand out, apart from whatever we want to emphasize for practical purposes.

To use another example, many people would regard their own parents as the ""the most significant and unique reason" for their coming into existence. Yet that is an illusion. Our parents are just a small part of the mix of the unique and necessary conglomeration of causes which led to our existence. Our genetic make-up which has been created via evolutionary forces is just as important as well. The existence of oxygen, food, molecules, sunlight, etc, are also equally important. The existence of time and space is just as important. Without any of these things, our coming into being would have been impossible. They have all played their part in creating our existence, along with our parents as well.

So really, the only "most significant and unique reason for an event occurring" is the entire matrix of causes which have played a role in fashioning the event. That is to say, the whole of Nature and Her past.

Indeed, the way you are couching the matter now - namely, that the causal circumstances have to be in place before the action takes place, makes it indistinguishable from causality.

No, it doesn't. The scenario that I'm suggesting is non-deterministic; your scenario is deterministic.

Again, I just can't wrap my mind around what you are arguing for, no matter how closely I try to zero in on the matter. I can't make any sense of the idea of little pockets of acausality suddenly appearing in the midst of the general flow of causality.

I try to picture it in my mind: Causality is happening, things are being produced naturally through the coming together of circumstances, all is chugging along nicely until suddenly, arbitrarily, for no apparent reason at all, a particular set of causal circumstances opens the door for acausality to take place. The door then instantly shuts and normal transmission is resumed once more.

What is it about that one particular set circumstances which allows it to open this door, while most other sets of circumstances can't?

Let's consider a concrete example - a bubble forming at the edge of a receding wave on a beach. First, all the usual causal process take place - the wave, composed of water molecules made possible by the creation of particular elements fashioned during the Big Bang and inside stars, is pushed onto the beach under wind and gravitational forces. It then recedes, again under gravitational forces, leaving a trail a bubbles remaining precariously on the newly-wet sand.

Now, according to the "acausality is possible" argument pushed by Guest and Maestro, the circumstances are somehow suddenly set up for an acausal act to take place. Each bubble "decides" when it will burst and disappear, independently of any causal consideration. The presence of wind, the thinness, strength and tension of the bubble film, the energy of the sunlight, the possible presence of creatures that could step on them, etc - all these factors either take a backseat to the suddenly-materialized acausal selection possibility, or they have to compete with it on some sort of equal basis.

The wind and the sunlight might be on verge of bursting the bubble, but perhaps the bubble doesn't "want" to burst just yet. Perhaps a kind of tug-of-war takes place between causality and acausality. But then, that very war would necessarily be a causal one.

I'm sorry, but it all sounds very convoluted to me, and entirely unnecessary.

guest_of_logic: The best that you've done is to postulate that it is equivalent to acausality, and that the existence of acausality leads to chaos due to the fact that "anything goes". I've explained that this is not the case, because not just "anything" could go, for the reason that acausal events are at least constrained by both identity (A=A) and by logic (no square circles) - and that given these restraints, there is nothing to stop us from imagining that the universe imposes even more restraints, such as restricting acausal events to occur in only such situations as I have given examples of, like a nucleus decaying in one of five possible ways - or not decaying - in any given instant.

David: This is just a case of re-introducing causality through the back door. Obviously, you can see the madness of believing in pure acausality, and to resolve it, you have to bring "restrictions" into the picture to make it more plausible. What you don't seem to understand, however, is that this process of reintroducing restrictions can't be halted arbitrarily, not until the end is naturally reached and we are back in full causality once more.

So you assert. Demonstrate it.

You can see the madness of believing in pure acausality and so you take steps to make it seem more plausible by introducing "restrictions". Not just a few restrictions, but countless restrictions so severe that it allows only the narrowest expression of acausality in certain select circumstances. That is to say, you want to make acausal acts seem almost indistinguishable from causal ones, otherwise you run the risk of appearing insane. But by wanting to make acausality seem almost indistinguishable from causality, you are in effect affirming that accepting causality is the default sane position.

-

[guest_of_logic]

For me, an acausal event is one that is entirely without cause. "Acausal" = "no cause".

So as soon as causal factors, such as regulating laws, come into the picture, the entire basis for acausality goes out the window.

But you mentioned later in your post that your conception of "cause" differs from mine, which might account for our differences in this issue. So let's look at that:

Technically, I mentioned that the traditional conception of "cause" differs from yours, although since I typically communicate with people who have that conception, I suppose that it's reasonable to say that it's mine too - at least for purposes of clear communication. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for your own conception.

And yes, this is the reason that we disagree on the issue of regulations. For you, a cause is any contributing factor whatsoever, so to say that something is acausal is to say that it has no contributing factors whatsoever - something like an inherently existing thing I suppose - whereas traditionally to say that something is acausal is merely to say that it lacks sufficient contributing factors to explain its existence.

To my mind, there is really no such thing as a "most significant and unique reason for an event occurring". All the millions of causal factors which come together to produce a thing are as important as each other. None really stand out, apart from whatever we want to emphasize for practical purposes.

That's fair enough and I don't really have any argument with it. I agree that the conventional definition relies on practicality - what to choose as the most significant and unique reason is somewhat subjective.

I want to add though that I don't hold that every preceding thing in the universe can be said to be a cause of any other subsequent thing - for a start, such restrictions as the speed of light prevent this from being the case - so of necessity there are some things that are more significant than others. In other words...

So really, the only "most significant and unique reason for an event occurring" is the entire matrix of causes which have played a role in fashioning the event. That is to say, the whole of Nature and Her past.

...I don't entirely agree with the above quote of yours.

Let's consider a concrete example - a bubble forming at the edge of a receding wave on a beach. First, all the usual causal process take place - the wave, composed of water molecules made possible by the creation of particular elements fashioned during the Big Bang and inside stars, is pushed onto the beach under wind and gravitational forces. It then recedes, again under gravitational forces, leaving a trail a bubbles remaining precariously on the newly-wet sand.

Now, according to the "acausality is possible" argument pushed by Guest and Maestro, the circumstances are somehow suddenly set up for an acausal act to take place. Each bubble "decides" when it will burst and disappear, independently of any causal consideration. The presence of wind, the thinness, strength and tension of the bubble film, the energy of the sunlight, the possible presence of creatures that could step on them, etc - all these factors either take a backseat to the suddenly-materialized acausal selection possibility, or they have to compete with it on some sort of equal basis.

The wind and the sunlight might be on verge of bursting the bubble, but perhaps the bubble doesn't "want" to burst just yet. Perhaps a kind of tug-of-war takes place between causality and acausality. But then, that very war would necessarily be a causal one.

I'm sorry, but it all sounds very convoluted to me, and entirely unnecessary.

You've chosen a difficult example because it's a macro-level scenario. It's a lot easier to contemplate if you break it down into micro-level acausal events, which are a lot more discrete. Take brokenhead's claim that quantum physics describes that particles and anti-particles can come into existence acausally. Now imagine that at a certain point on the surface of the bubble, a significant number of particles come into existence acausally, so as to disrupt the bubble enough that it bursts. And if you object that such particles would be more likely to hold the bubble together, then let's hypothesise that as well as particles appearing acausally, they can also disappear acausally, and that at a particular point on the bubble sufficient particles simultaneously disappear so as to cause the bubble to burst.

guest_of_logic: The best that you've done is to postulate that it is equivalent to acausality, and that the existence of acausality leads to chaos due to the fact that "anything goes". I've explained that this is not the case, because not just "anything" could go, for the reason that acausal events are at least constrained by both identity (A=A) and by logic (no square circles) - and that given these restraints, there is nothing to stop us from imagining that the universe imposes even more restraints, such as restricting acausal events to occur in only such situations as I have given examples of, like a nucleus decaying in one of five possible ways - or not decaying - in any given instant.

David: This is just a case of re-introducing causality through the back door. Obviously, you can see the madness of believing in pure acausality, and to resolve it, you have to bring "restrictions" into the picture to make it more plausible. What you don't seem to understand, however, is that this process of reintroducing restrictions can't be halted arbitrarily, not until the end is naturally reached and we are back in full causality once more.

guest_of_logic: So you assert. Demonstrate it.

David: You can see the madness of believing in pure acausality and so you take steps to make it seem more plausible by introducing "restrictions". Not just a few restrictions, but countless restrictions so severe that it allows only the narrowest expression of acausality in certain select circumstances. That is to say, you want to make acausal acts seem almost indistinguishable from causal ones, otherwise you run the risk of appearing insane. But by wanting to make acausality seem almost indistinguishable from causality, you are in effect affirming that accepting causality is the default sane position.

That's not a demonstration of your original assertion, though. Your original assertion was that we would eventually be "back in full causality", whereas now you admit that "it allows ... the narrowest expression of acausality".

I do, however, affirm that causality is the default sane position, in case that matters to you.

[Kevin Solway]

[to David] . . . such restrictions as the speed of light prevent this from being the case - so of necessity there are some things that are more significant than others. In other words...

Some things are closer, so their effect is more direct, but that doesn't make them more significant. For example, things which are close are in turn caused by things that are far away. So we can't really say that a cause that is physically close is more significant, when it is dependent for its very existence on yet further causes.

Take brokenhead's claim that quantum physics describes that particles and anti-particles can come into existence acausally. Now imagine that at a certain point on the surface of the bubble, a significant number of particles come into existence acausally, so as to disrupt the bubble enough that it bursts. And if you object that such particles would be more likely to hold the bubble together, then let's hypothesise that as well as particles appearing acausally, they can also disappear acausally, and that at a particular point on the bubble sufficient particles simultaneously disappear so as to cause the bubble to burst.

Here you are just assuming acausality, so it's not really saying anything.

. . . now you admit that "it allows ... the narrowest expression of acausality".

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.

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

[Jason]

I want to add though that I don't hold that every preceding thing in the universe can be said to be a cause of any other subsequent thing - for a start, such restrictions as the speed of light prevent this from being the case

It's possible to consider this in a sort of inverse way. The speed of light could be said to cause "darkness" in areas that are of sufficient time/distance away from a light source, for example.

[guest_of_logic]

[to David] . . . such restrictions as the speed of light prevent this from being the case - so of necessity there are some things that are more significant than others. In other words...

Some things are closer, so their effect is more direct, but that doesn't make them more significant. For example, things which are close are in turn caused by things that are far away. So we can't really say that a cause that is physically close is more significant, when it is dependent for its very existence on yet further causes.

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: it could not have reached it in time to have affected it (going by the current scientific understanding that the speed of light cannot be broken, which understanding I have no idea as to the truth of - I am not a scientist except in the loosest of senses).

guest_of_logic: Take brokenhead's claim that quantum physics describes that particles and anti-particles can come into existence acausally. Now imagine that at a certain point on the surface of the bubble, a significant number of particles come into existence acausally, so as to disrupt the bubble enough that it bursts. And if you object that such particles would be more likely to hold the bubble together, then let's hypothesise that as well as particles appearing acausally, they can also disappear acausally, and that at a particular point on the bubble sufficient particles simultaneously disappear so as to cause the bubble to burst.

Kevin: Here you are just assuming acausality, so it's not really saying anything.

Actually I'm making no assumptions, I'm simply hypothesising and suggesting possibilities. You, on the other hand, are not merely assuming determinism, you're declaring it as absolute truth - therefore it is up to you to prove that my scenario is impossible, which you have thus far failed to do.

guest_of_logic: . . . now you admit that "it allows ... the narrowest expression of acausality".

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.

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

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, and yet you dogmatically assert it as truth. You're as faith-soaked as the nearest fundamentalist Christian. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but you're definitely a man of faith.

The speed of light could be said to cause "darkness" in areas that are of sufficient time/distance away from a light source, for example.

Sure, just like we could say that lack of food causes lack of life. It doesn't alter my point, although it is an interesting aside.