Causality and Acausality

[guest_of_logic]

Thanks guest_of_logic, you have perfectly well understood what I was talking about, which seems to have escaped Quinn and Solway completely.

Quinn and Solway are men of faith, invested in their perspective. It's their duty to God (the Totality) to wear blinkers.

[guest_of_logic]

Causality is an article of faith is it not?

Indeed it is.

Not at all.

OK then, how do you like this rephrasing?:

"That completely deterministic causality is the sole underpinning of the universe is an article of faith."

maestro: How do you establish that the past fully fixes the future?

David: What else could fix the future?

guest_of_logic: For a start there's the problem that we can never know definitively that the past and future actually existed and will exist, respectively. For all we know, the past is but a false memory and the future is but a vain dream, and there is only this single moment.

David: In which case, the issue becomes non-existent. Neither maestro's views nor mine are refuted by this.

However, it still remains the case that, logically, the only possible cause of the future is the past.

This is not the same as saying, however, that the future is fully determined (in other words "This is not the same as saying that a past state of the universe fully determines what the future state of the universe will be").

guest_of_logic: Alternatively: for all we know, in each successive moment we inhabit an entirely, distinct, and causally-unrelated-to-the-previous-moment new universe of memories and physical configuration - in one moment you are writing a post in to GF, with memories of having grown up in Australia and becoming a male sage; in the next moment you are a woman of an alien species on a shopping spree on another planet, with memories of being literally put together by your community of parents, and the universe has an entirely different topography to that of the previous moment.

David: Even all that would be causally-created. At the very least, the present reality would depend on the previous reality not hindering or undermining its coming into existence, so right away there is a causal relationship between them.

Again, this is not the same as saying that the future is fully determined. In other words, what I'm pointing out to you is that determinism is not a matter of necessity, which you seem to believe that it is.

Maestro hasn't demonstrated how random events, or creativity for that matter, are at odds with a causal universe. Until he does, his pointing to them has no meaning.

Oh, but he very much has. What, about "It is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process. The outcome cannot be known until it is revealed", do you fail to understand?

David: If by random you mean, "springing into existence out of nothing", then there is the further problem of improbability. What are the odds that a completely uncaused event can throw up a configuration that is even remotely meaningful to one's personal situation in life?

guest_of_logic: What if it were not "completely uncaused", but were rather random within a set of (meaningful) parameters?

David: What does that mean exactly? What does it mean to say that something is partially caused? Does it mean that those areas where causality isn't happening, non-causality reigns?

It's like saying that the die roll results in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, at random, rather than in any number of possible events such as the die exploding, the die disappearing, someone hiding the die, the die causing your house to catch on fire, the die causing a purple smurf to eat your television, etc. In other words, only a restricted set of outcomes are possible, rather than any outcome whatsoever.

"Constraining random events" sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

I don't have a solution for your paucity of imagination beyond encouraging you to expand your mind to possibilities.

Rather like "caused uncaused events".

It's not a contradiction. Think about it.

[David Quinn]

OK then, how do you like this rephrasing?:

"That completely deterministic causality is the sole underpinning of the universe is an article of faith."

Perhaps we need to define exactly what we mean by "determinism" and "indeterminism". It could be that we are talking at cross-purposes here. What is your exact conception of "completely deterministic causality"?

Maestro hasn't demonstrated how random events, or creativity for that matter, are at odds with a causal universe. Until he does, his pointing to them has no meaning.

Oh, but he very much has. What, about "It is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process. The outcome cannot be known until it is revealed", do you fail to understand?

It doesn't really say anything. It can equally be said that an outcome cannot be known until it is causally created.

When a dice is rolled, the outcome is not known until it is revealed. Yet the outcome is fully determined by things like: how the dice was held in the hand, how hard it was thrown, how the dice landed, how hard and elastic the table and dice are, the amount of friction between dice and table, etc, etc.

David: If by random you mean, "springing into existence out of nothing", then there is the further problem of improbability. What are the odds that a completely uncaused event can throw up a configuration that is even remotely meaningful to one's personal situation in life?

guest_of_logic: What if it were not "completely uncaused", but were rather random within a set of (meaningful) parameters?

David: What does that mean exactly? What does it mean to say that something is partially caused? Does it mean that those areas where causality isn't happening, non-causality reigns?

It's like saying that the die roll results in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, at random, rather than in any number of possible events such as the die exploding, the die disappearing, someone hiding the die, the die causing your house to catch on fire, the die causing a purple smurf to eat your television, etc. In other words, only a restricted set of outcomes are possible, rather than any outcome whatsoever.

The range of parameters here is only made possible by the causal circumstances - e.g. the cube-structure of the dice and our ignorance of how a throw will eventuate. So your example here only confirms the reality that the dice-throwing is fully causal.

It is evident that we are operating under different conceptions of causality. I hope you can see how mine isn't at odds with the reality of random parameters.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin, you start off by saying that maestro's explanation can be easily refuted, and then completely and utterly fail to do so

Did I not clearly explain that since we cannot know the current state of the system it follows that we cannot say that it does not fully determine the future state of the system?

This alone completely refutes maestro's assertion.

The very point that maestro and I are making is that these things are impossible to know, which is why they are a matter of faith.

Are you now saying that maestro's claim (that "the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process.") is only a matter of faith?

You seemed to be agreeing with it before.

[Kevin Solway]

If I throw a "one", I'd like to know exactly what part of that throw was "acausal", or wasn't caused.

[guest_of_logic]

Perhaps we need to define exactly what we mean by "determinism" and "indeterminism". It could be that we are talking at cross-purposes here. What is your exact conception of "completely deterministic causality"?

To me it means that one state of the universe completely determines the subsequent state of the universe, such that the universe in its entirety (the Totality as you like to label it) is something akin to a brick, in the sense that a brick is completely fixed.

Maestro hasn't demonstrated how random events, or creativity for that matter, are at odds with a causal universe. Until he does, his pointing to them has no meaning.

Oh, but he very much has. What, about "It is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process. The outcome cannot be known until it is revealed", do you fail to understand?

It doesn't really say anything. It can equally be said that an outcome cannot be known until it is causally created.

Yes, that could equally be said, but only one of the two is truth, and we cannot know which. Therefore your stance that causality rules supreme is pure faith. Therefore it is you who "doesn't really say anything".

David: If by random you mean, "springing into existence out of nothing", then there is the further problem of improbability. What are the odds that a completely uncaused event can throw up a configuration that is even remotely meaningful to one's personal situation in life?

guest_of_logic: What if it were not "completely uncaused", but were rather random within a set of (meaningful) parameters?

David: What does that mean exactly? What does it mean to say that something is partially caused? Does it mean that those areas where causality isn't happening, non-causality reigns?

guest_of_logic: It's like saying that the die roll results in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, at random, rather than in any number of possible events such as the die exploding, the die disappearing, someone hiding the die, the die causing your house to catch on fire, the die causing a purple smurf to eat your television, etc. In other words, only a restricted set of outcomes are possible, rather than any outcome whatsoever.

David: The range of parameters here is only made possible by the causal circumstances - e.g. the cube-structure of the dice and our ignorance of how a throw will eventuate. So your example here only confirms the reality that the dice-throwing is fully causal.

It was merely a crude example: more sophisticated examples would involve things further removed from the obvious universe of causes, more in the realm of "coming into effect from apparent nothingness". In other words, the die would appear out of nowhere, with one of its sides definitively up. Whichever side was up would have no correlation to anything that had occurred previously in the physical world, because until its appearance, the die would not have existed in the physical world.

It is evident that we are operating under different conceptions of causality. I hope you can see how mine isn't at odds with the reality of random parameters.

It seems to me that it is. True randomness conflicts with true determinism, and it's my understanding that you subscribe to true determinism.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: Kevin, you start off by saying that maestro's explanation can be easily refuted, and then completely and utterly fail to do so

Kevin: Did I not clearly explain that since we cannot know the current state of the system it follows that we cannot say that it does not fully determine the future state of the system?

And did I not clearly explain that "It's got nothing to do with what anyone knows, but with what is true"?

Whether or not you know that state fully, it's possible that the future state of the system is not determined by the current state of the system.

This alone completely refutes maestro's assertion.

Uh, yeah, dream on.

guest_of_logic: The very point that maestro and I are making is that these things are impossible to know, which is why they are a matter of faith.

Kevin: Are you now saying that maestro's claim (that "the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process.") is only a matter of faith?

No, I'm saying that it's one out of at least two possibilities (you hold to the other possibility).

You seemed to be agreeing with it before.

I wasn't agreeing with it, I was simply agreeing that it was a possibility. Since you hold firmly to the faith that another possibility (determinism) is necessarily true, it is up to you to disprove it as a possibility.

[Kevin Solway]

True randomness conflicts with true determinism, and it's my understanding that you subscribe to true determinism.

Not when you understand "random" to mean "unpredictable", in which case "truly random" means "truly unpredictable".

Things can be unpredictable yet fully caused.

On the other hand, if by "true randomness" you mean uncaused, then obviously this would conflict with determinism (causation) — by definition. But nothing has ever been demonstrated to be uncaused, and nothing can ever be demonstrated to be uncaused, because we cannot know the current state of the system — and so I think the question has no value from a practical point of view. [More below]

Did I not clearly explain that since we cannot know the current state of the system it follows that we cannot say that it does not fully determine the future state of the system?

And did I not clearly explain that "It's got nothing to do with what anyone knows, but with what is true"?

Ok, then David's simple argument is as good as any. If there were anything that was acausal, no order in the Universe would be possible.

Elephants would be popping into existence in the quantum realm, for example. You might throw a six-sided dice and get a seven.

Even if you tried to restrict the acausality to some tiny and hidden corner of the Universe, or on a different scale or dimension, its chaos would still impact on the rest of the Universe, destroying order in the whole Universe.

[Kevin Solway]

From a scientific point of view, the belief in acausality is actually worse than the belief in a teapot in the sky which created the world, because we may one day find evidence that there is a teapot in the sky which created us, but we can never find evidence of acausality.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: True randomness conflicts with true determinism, and it's my understanding that you subscribe to true determinism.

Kevin: Not when you understand "random" to mean "unpredictable", in which case "truly random" means "truly unpredictable".

Things can be unpredictable yet fully caused.

It's strange that you bring this up because I've already explained that this is not what I understood maestro to mean by random, and hence, by implication, that it is not what I mean by "random".

On the other hand, if by "true randomness" you mean uncaused, then obviously this would conflict with determinism (causation) — by definition. But nothing has ever been demonstrated to be uncaused, and nothing can ever be demonstrated to be uncaused, because we cannot know the current state of the system — and so I think the question has no value from a practical point of view.

Just because we cannot demonstrate something, does not mean that it is false. From a practical point of view the correct stance is to say "Perhaps this is true, or perhaps it is not." Instead, what you say is, "This is definitively false", without any justification.

Kevin: Did I not clearly explain that since we cannot know the current state of the system it follows that we cannot say that it does not fully determine the future state of the system?

guest_of_logic: And did I not clearly explain that "It's got nothing to do with what anyone knows, but with what is true"?

Kevin: Ok, then David's simple argument is as good as any. If there were anything that was acausal, no order in the Universe would be possible.

I've already countered that, but you must be too dishonest (or lazy) to admit that, let alone to attempt to rebutt my argument. Let me remind you what I argued: that the outcomes of true randomness might be constrained.

From a scientific point of view, the belief in acausality is actually worse than the belief in a teapot in the sky which created the world, because we may one day find evidence that there is a teapot in the sky which created us, but we can never find evidence of acausality.

Likewise we can never find ultimate proof of causality: for all that we know, minute random variations are occurring in each "determined" event, but so small that we cannot detect them with our current measuring instruments.

[brokenhead]

Since you can never know the present state of the system, you can't know that it is not sufficient to determine the outcome of an event.

Then how could you ever know that it is?

[Kevin Solway]

Because if things happened without cause there would be no order.

[brokenhead]

Because if things happened without cause there would be no order.

But overall, things tend inexorably toward greater disorder.

[Kevin Solway]

Let me remind you what I argued: that the outcomes of true randomness might be constrained.

And I explained that they can't be constrained. If there is any acausality anywhere in the Universe, then the whole Universe becomes chaotic.

The most obvious reason there can't be any constrained acausal events is the purely logical one which David pointed out previously. It doesn't make any sense to say that there is a caused (constrained) uncaused thing. It is simply a contradiction in terms and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

The second reason is a consequence of cause and effect itself. If there are acausal (uncaused) events happening anywhere in the Universe then these will be having an effect on causal events, and the effect will be chaotic. And it doesn't matter what scale the acausal events are happening on.

For example, let's say that the result of a dice throw was acausal. In other words, the dice throw was "caused to be acausal". One time you threw a dice you might get an elephant, another time you would get a seven, another time it would disappear altogether, or it might always show a "one", no matter how you threw it. But let's say the dice was further "constrained" (caused) so that it always produced a number between one and six. If the result was truly acausal, then you might always throw a one, no matter how you threw the dice. This would have a chaotic effect on Las Vegas.

But let's constrain (cause) it even further, so that over a great many throws, each number from 1 to 6 gets thrown an equal number of times. Now this is essentially the same as fully causal behaviour. Once you "constrain" (cause) something to the nth degree, it is no different to fully causal behaviour. Acausality is in fact the same as "the God of the Gaps", and the more constraints we make, the less of a gap there is.

[Kevin Solway]

Because if things happened without cause there would be no order.

But overall, things tend inexorably toward greater disorder.

We have no reason to say that. If an infinite number of "universes" are continually coming into existence, and then going out of existence, then we can't say that things are tending toward disorder.

[brokenhead]

Because if things happened without cause there would be no order.

But overall, things tend inexorably toward greater disorder.

We have no reason to say that. If an infinite number of "universes" are continually coming into existence, and then going out of existence, then we can't say that things are tending toward disorder.

We have no reason to say that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If an infinite number of "universes" are continually coming into... and then going out of existence..." Is this a conditional you accept as true? Certainly the most common understanding of the term "universe" is the "world in which we experience our experiences." In such a universe, "our" universe, things tend toward greater disorder.

[Kevin Solway]

We have no reason to say that.

I said "If". We certainly have a reason to say "If".

Is this a conditional you accept as true?

No, it is only a possibility that I find likely.

In such a universe, "our" universe, things tend toward greater disorder.

"Our" universe gets bigger and bigger the more we know about it. We know very little about our universe. If tomorrow we discover that our "universe" is in fact a computer simulation, then we will be saying that it is very ordered.

[brokenhead]

"Our" universe gets bigger and bigger the more we know about it. We know very little about our universe. If tomorrow we discover that our "universe" is in fact a computer simulation, then we will be saying that it is very ordered.

If our tomorrow our universe were discovered to be as you have just described it, wouldn't we be speaking of Progammer instead of progammer? This scenario is not much more likely than the Bozo the Clown scenario, is it? As long as you are willing to entertain such suppositions, why can't Bozo be a vast, fiendishly nerdy Super Programmer? Is that what we should be discussing?

[guest_of_logic]

Kevin,

I am quickly growing weary of debating with you. Your arguments are weak, and you fail to adequately consider your opponent's (my) point of view. Please don't be surprised if I stop responding to you beyond the odd jeer. For now I will do you the courtesy of a full reply.

guest_of_logic: Let me remind you what I argued: that the outcomes of true randomness might be constrained.

Kevin: And I explained that they can't be constrained.

If you did (and I don't remember it), then it was a false explanation. There is no reason why, in theory, a "roll" of a die (which die hitherto did not exist) could not be constrained within one of six possibilities.

If there is any acausality anywhere in the Universe, then the whole Universe becomes chaotic.

Rubbish. If random outcomes are constrained to within a set, then chaos is avoided.

The most obvious reason there can't be any constrained acausal events is the purely logical one which David pointed out previously. It doesn't make any sense to say that there is a caused (constrained) uncaused thing. It is simply a contradiction in terms and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

Caused is not equal to constrained. Constrained simply means that there are certain limits on (random) behaviour. Caused (in the sense that you intend it) means that behaviour is fully predetermined. There is no contradiction.

The second reason is a consequence of cause and effect itself. If there are acausal (uncaused) events happening anywhere in the Universe then these will be having an effect on causal events, and the effect will be chaotic. And it doesn't matter what scale the acausal events are happening on.

Rubbish, again. If the acausal events are constrained within the realm of what might reasonably be predicted for causal events, then the effect is indistinguishable (to the non-omniscient observer) from causal processes.

For example, let's say that the result of a dice throw was acausal. In other words, the dice throw was "caused to be acausal". One time you threw a dice you might get an elephant, another time you would get a seven, another time it would disappear altogether, or it might always show a "one", no matter how you threw it.

This is really beyond the pale. I've already rejected this state of affairs in my post to David, where I remarked that the cast of the die would be constrained to one of the results 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The fact that you reassert to the contrary shows your blatant disregard for the norms of debate. It's pathetic practice.

But let's say the dice was further "constrained" (caused) so that it always produced a number between one and six.

Or rather, let's remember that that's exactly what I have proposed.

If the result was truly acausal, then you might always throw a one, no matter how you threw the dice. This would have a chaotic effect on Las Vegas.

What a load of rubbish. Why should it be always one? I've proposed that it would be, at utter random, a number (inclusively) between 1 and 6. Why can you not accept and work with that? Why do you have to restrict it even further?

But let's constrain (cause) it even further, so that over a great many throws, each number from 1 to 6 gets thrown an equal number of times.

This is not constrained "even further", it is constrained even less. Six alternatives (1 to 6) are more than one alternative (1). You can't even reason to this degree. Utterly hopeless.

Now this is essentially the same as fully causal behaviour. Once you "constrain" (cause) something to the nth degree, it is no different to fully causal behaviour. Acausality is in fact the same as "the God of the Gaps", and the more constraints we make, the less of a gap there is.

Again: utter rubbish. Fully causal behaviour means that we can explain why one of the six alternatives occurred based on the prior state of the universe. Constrained random behaviour means that the prior state of the universe is of no help in explaining that.

Truly, Kevin, your reasoning and argumentation is weak.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

But overall, things tend inexorably toward greater disorder.

To my mind, evidence suggests that we could in fact live in a reality that contains an infinite number of universes, and yes, a universe is born, and because of entropy and other laws, it eventually dies out. However, perhaps the order is in the process itself, and there is a certain beauty in how each process or universe is a single finite event in a much larger infinite scale of finite events.

As an outsider, it would be like watching a never-ending fireworks show that spans across the entire sky, as each tiny explosion represents the birth and death of one universe.

And that would be extreme time-lapse photography, where the life of each universe is condensed into a single second.

[Kevin Solway]

If there is any acausality anywhere in the Universe, then the whole Universe becomes chaotic.

Rubbish. If random outcomes are constrained to within a set, then chaos is avoided.

I answered this further down in my post, so you wasted your effort in responding here.

The most obvious reason there can't be any constrained acausal events is the purely logical one which David pointed out previously. It doesn't make any sense to say that there is a caused (constrained) uncaused thing. It is simply a contradiction in terms and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

Caused is not equal to constrained. Constrained simply means that there are certain limits on (random) behaviour. Caused (in the sense that you intend it) means that behaviour is fully predetermined. There is no contradiction.

This is the crux of the matter, because if you can't see that constraints are in fact causes, there's no point in continuing with this discussion.

Let's say that the roll of a dice is "constrained" to a result in the range of 1..6. What do you think is constraining the result to this range? Perhaps that the dice has six sides? These are causes. All constraints are causes.

The second reason is a consequence of cause and effect itself. If there are acausal (uncaused) events happening anywhere in the Universe then these will be having an effect on causal events, and the effect will be chaotic. And it doesn't matter what scale the acausal events are happening on.

Rubbish, again. If the acausal events are constrained within the realm of what might reasonably be predicted for causal events, then the effect is indistinguishable (to the non-omniscient observer) from causal processes.

Listen to yourself . . . "If the acausal events are constrained within the realm of what might reasonably be predicted for causal events. "

Why not just go the whole hog and say that literally everything is acausal, including the very words you are reading, but they have been "constrained" to the nth degree, so that they fit within the realm of what we might expect from causal events?

For example, let's say that the result of a dice throw was acausal. In other words, the dice throw was "caused to be acausal". One time you threw a dice you might get an elephant, another time you would get a seven, another time it would disappear altogether, or it might always show a "one", no matter how you threw it.

This is really beyond the pale. I've already rejected this state of affairs in my post to David, where I remarked that the cast of the die would be constrained to one of the results 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

I am gradually increasing the number of restrictions, to demonstrate what you are doing.

But let's say the dice was further "constrained" (caused) so that it always produced a number between one and six.

Or rather, let's remember that that's exactly what I have proposed.

You proposed that they were "random" (using your definition of the word), whereas I am constraining them only to being between 1 and 6.

If the result was truly acausal, then you might always throw a one, no matter how you threw the dice. This would have a chaotic effect on Las Vegas.

What a load of rubbish. Why should it be always one?

The only constraint was that the result should be between 1 and 6. There was no constraint that said it couldn't always be a 1.

I am continuing to increase the number of restrictions, to make my point. The point being that as you increase the restrictions (causes) there's no room left for acausality.

But let's constrain (cause) it even further, so that over a great many throws, each number from 1 to 6 gets thrown an equal number of times.

This is not constrained "even further", it is constrained even less. Six alternatives (1 to 6) are more than one alternative (1).

You misunderstood the previous constraint. The previous constraint was not that it should always be a 1, but that it should always be a number between 1 and 6.

Fully causal behaviour means that we can explain why one of the six alternatives occurred based on the prior state of the universe.

This statement is patently false. We don't have to be able to "explain" anything for causation to be fully in operation. It is impossible to predict the future, and it is impossible to explain events, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fully causal.

Causes determine things, but this isn't the same as an "explanation", since the latter implies some sort of human input.

Constrained random behaviour means that the prior state of the universe is of no help in explaining that.

As previously explained, "constrained" means caused, so your "constrained random behaviour" actually means "caused acausal behaviour", which is a contradiction in terms.

[David Quinn]

Perhaps we need to define exactly what we mean by "determinism" and "indeterminism". It could be that we are talking at cross-purposes here. What is your exact conception of "completely deterministic causality"?

To me it means that one state of the universe completely determines the subsequent state of the universe, such that the universe in its entirety (the Totality as you like to label it) is something akin to a brick, in the sense that a brick is completely fixed.

The universe is a brick regardless of whether things are caused or not. From the standpoint of the future, the past is fixed and thus brick-like, which means that it is the same for what we currently consider to be the future.

Whatever happens is destined to happen. Even random events are destined to happen.

This is another way of saying that I don't see the distinction between caused events and what you call "random events". You're looking for a type of freedom which isn't there - and which doesn't need to be there because causality, from our perspective as finite beings, is already free.

DQ: Maestro hasn't demonstrated how random events, or creativity for that matter, are at odds with a causal universe. Until he does, his pointing to them has no meaning.

Guest: Oh, but he very much has. What, about "It is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process. The outcome cannot be known until it is revealed", do you fail to understand?

DQ: It doesn't really say anything. It can equally be said that an outcome cannot be known until it is causally created.

Yes, that could equally be said, but only one of the two is truth, and we cannot know which. Therefore your stance that causality rules supreme is pure faith. Therefore it is you who "doesn't really say anything".

I still don't see how our being ignorant of an outcome casts doubt on causality. The fact that an outcome isn't known until revealed only points to our ignorance of what will happen. It says nothing about whether the outcome is caused or not. That is why I said that maestro's statement doesn't really say anything.

David: If by random you mean, "springing into existence out of nothing", then there is the further problem of improbability. What are the odds that a completely uncaused event can throw up a configuration that is even remotely meaningful to one's personal situation in life?

guest_of_logic: What if it were not "completely uncaused", but were rather random within a set of (meaningful) parameters?

David: What does that mean exactly? What does it mean to say that something is partially caused? Does it mean that those areas where causality isn't happening, non-causality reigns?

guest_of_logic: It's like saying that the die roll results in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, at random, rather than in any number of possible events such as the die exploding, the die disappearing, someone hiding the die, the die causing your house to catch on fire, the die causing a purple smurf to eat your television, etc. In other words, only a restricted set of outcomes are possible, rather than any outcome whatsoever.

David: The range of parameters here is only made possible by the causal circumstances - e.g. the cube-structure of the dice and our ignorance of how a throw will eventuate. So your example here only confirms the reality that the dice-throwing is fully causal.

It was merely a crude example: more sophisticated examples would involve things further removed from the obvious universe of causes, more in the realm of "coming into effect from apparent nothingness".

You'd have to give a specific example. At the moment, it sounds like science fiction. You gave the dice example, but now you seem to be abandoning it. Will you be doing the same with the next example?

In other words, the die would appear out of nowhere, with one of its sides definitively up. Whichever side was up would have no correlation to anything that had occurred previously in the physical world, because until its appearance, the die would not have existed in the physical world.

Why would a dice appear in this instance and not something else? Acausality, by definition, has an infinite range of forms to choose from. The chances of a dice appearing in the right context would be infinitely small.

-

[David Quinn]

Fully causal behaviour means that we can explain why one of the six alternatives occurred based on the prior state of the universe.

This statement is patently false. We don't have to be able to "explain" anything for causation to be fully in operation. It is impossible to predict the future, and it is impossible to explain events, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fully causal.

Causes determine things, but this isn't the same as an "explanation", since the latter implies some sort of human input.

Yes, maestro and guest are falsely mixing these two issues together.

-

[Steven Coyle]

A stepping stone between quantum reality and spirit.

For the sage, one deluded thought brings forth a disturbance within the fabric of reality: a quantum disturbance akin to the chaotic unpredictability spoken of in this thread. "Out of nowhere" to the untrained mind. "Acausal." *

The Void (what is looked into in quantum observation) is mind.

The powers given to followers of Tao, are quantum in nature. Which opens the mind to the empirical datum unidenified, so far.

* To solve, one recognizes wave/particle duality, and converts into non-dual light.

[guest_of_logic]

Kevin: The most obvious reason there can't be any constrained acausal events is the purely logical one which David pointed out previously. It doesn't make any sense to say that there is a caused (constrained) uncaused thing. It is simply a contradiction in terms and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

guest_of_logic: Caused is not equal to constrained. Constrained simply means that there are certain limits on (random) behaviour. Caused (in the sense that you intend it) means that behaviour is fully predetermined. There is no contradiction.

Kevin: This is the crux of the matter, because if you can't see that constraints are in fact causes, there's no point in continuing with this discussion.

Great, we've identified the crux. Let's explore it then. Of course I acknowledge that a constraint is in some sense a cause. My point is that the fact that there are some causes operating does not preclude randomness from occurring. Part of the behaviour would be caused, part of it would be random (in the sense of being non-deterministic, not in the sense of being simply unpredictable). What do you find so objectionable about that?

Why not just go the whole hog and say that literally everything is acausal, including the very words you are reading, but they have been "constrained" to the nth degree, so that they fit within the realm of what we might expect from causal events?

Because that would be pretty contorted. It's also not the possibility that I'm suggesting. Please deal with what I'm actually suggesting, rather than posing all sorts of other scenarios.

I am gradually increasing the number of restrictions, to demonstrate what you are doing.

It's got nothing to do with my scenario though: it's completely irrelevant. Deal with my scenario, not a more restricted version of it.

Kevin: But let's say the dice was further "constrained" (caused) so that it always produced a number between one and six.

guest_of_logic: Or rather, let's remember that that's exactly what I have proposed.

Kevin: You proposed that they were "random" (using your definition of the word), whereas I am constraining them only to being between 1 and 6.

So your numbers are completely caused, and are not random like mine are. So you're dealing with a different situation than my example. So what's the point? You can't refute my example by bringing up a different one.

I've snipped the rest of your equally irrevelant examples.

guest_of_logic: Fully causal behaviour means that we can explain why one of the six alternatives occurred based on the prior state of the universe.

Kevin: This statement is patently false. We don't have to be able to "explain" anything for causation to be fully in operation. It is impossible to predict the future, and it is impossible to explain events, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fully causal.

Oh, right, I forgot that way of looking at things. I use "explain" loosely, in the sense that some objective omniscient observer of the universe would see all of the causes in operation (I predict that you will object that such an objective observer is impossible, because the "observer" would necessarily be a part of the universe which it is observing, so please just call my use of "explain" poetic licence, much like you talk about the "will" of God, when you equally hold that God does not possess consciousness).

Here, let me rephrase that sentence to remove the word "explain":

Fully causal behaviour means that one of the six alternatives was determined completely by the prior state of the universe.

guest_of_logic: Constrained random behaviour means that the prior state of the universe is of no help in explaining that.

Kevin: As previously explained, "constrained" means caused, so your "constrained random behaviour" actually means "caused acausal behaviour", which is a contradiction in terms.

You're playing semantic games. Its actual meaning is more like "partly caused and partly random". It's not a contradiction at all.