Comments on the wisdom of the infinite by David Quinn
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:45 pm
Let me start by saying what a great piece of work the short book, available for free download, The Wisdom of the Infinite written by David Quinn is.
As a newbie on the forum I offer my apology in advance if the following has already been discussed. EDIT TO ADD; I just came across the debate between sam and DQ, (so much good stuff on the site to read!) I hope maybe I add a little to that as I am agreeing with Sams point on the conflict between causality and spirituality, but I also offer a solution where both causality and spiriuality co-exist.
I learned a great deal from his refreshing view. The best highlight for me as a physicist/philosopher being the application of causality to Quantum Physics, something I have long felt intuitively, but never seen expressed so simply.
However, like all human works it is short of perfection by seeming necessity SECOND EDIT; having read the Larkin dedate I see DQ claims enlightenment. I would be interested to know the view on degrees of enlightenment; is enlightenment all or nothing (therefore DQ has all, and presumably is beyond error and/or improvement?) or is it by degree, in which case DQ may accept the possibility of error, or the possibility of improvement.
The comments I make below are intended in a spirit of cooperation trying to move our collective understanding towards a clearer version of reality.
Ch1 The Eternal nature of cause and effect
DQ writes ‘It is thus irrational to think of cause and effect as being created in any way. It has always been around. There has never been a time when it was absent.’
Absolutely. Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged, even in the realm of Quantum Physics.
But can we not conceive of timelessness; beyond time? (I do not mean to conceive the nature of it, just the logical possibility of it). To speak in metaphor and use time-references where they can not be used I am talking about ‘before’ the existence of our space-time universe, or ‘after’ the existence of our space-time universe if we apply, say, the ‘big crunch’ model where gravity pulls the universe back into a singularity.
We assume this possibility when we talk about the Big Bang, or any other ‘first cause’ model; what about ‘before’ the Big Bang event – there simply is no space-time; timelessness, Big Bang occurs and time starts, we can call this time t=0 and count on from there.
The principle of cause and effect can only apply in time, effect must by definition follow cause, there needs to be a passage of time, or at least the presence of time, then cause and effect can only have meaning in time, by definition.
While it is true that ‘There has never been a time when it (causality) was absent’ we can and do conceive of timelessness when time was absent by definition, and therefore causality was absent by definition.
DQ would have cause and effect rule without limit, I am suggesting that the reign of cause and effect is unchallenged within space-time and our physical universe, but we must accept that there are limits on the region where cause and effect rules. This is crucial to understand my main point, regarding free will.
First another example of where DQ’s position is different to my own, (actually it is the same example described in different words);
Ch1 Transcending God
DQ writes {for the sake of argument we assume God as creator to be true} ‘After all if the principle of cause and effect did not exist to begin with, then not even Almighty God himself could be the cause of the Universe. He would be utterly powerless and not much of a God, to say the least! This alone demonstrates that the principle cause and effect is more fundamental than God’
This is logically incorrect. The principle of cause and effect can only apply in time, effect must by definition follow cause, there needs to be a passage of time, and since space-time only exists after the creation of the universe, the principle of cause and effect can only be applicable after the beginning of the universe.
The Universe has to originate form beyond time, the ‘formless void’ which by its definition as beyond time – timeless must be beyond change and cause and effect.
If {for the sake of argument we assume God as creator to be true} then the creator must be beyond time, timeless, and therefore by definition such a God must be beyond the reach of cause and effect. It is therefore not true to say such a creator would be less fundamental than cause and effect, nor transcended by cause and effect because being out side time such a being is beyond the reach of cause and effect and in fact transcends cause and effect by merit of transcending time. Such a creator is more fundamental than time and therefore than cause and effect.
This is not to say I am supporting the idea of a ‘first cause’ a Big Bang or other type, on the contrary, there can be no first cause before time, as discussed cause and effect only applies within time. I support the idea of non-causality outside time and firmly only outside time, and causality (by which I mean cause and effect) in time, and firmly only inside time.
These two examples have been introduced to lead to my main point, in this post; free will. I agree with DQ that ‘Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’ But I add that there are limits on this rule which we need to understand, as this has very important implications to us as spiritual aspirants.
Chapter 3 Free will
DQ writes ‘Here lies the essential irony of free will. On one hand, free will, as a process, needs the existence of causality in order for it to function. It needs causality because free will is a concept that refers to the mind willing or causing things to happen. And yet, at the same time, it is the sheer reality of causality which nullifies its existence. Thus the very conditions which are needed to support it are also the very conditions which erode all possibility of it existing. It therefore can not exist’
DQ concludes free will is only an appearance, with practical uses but essentially only an appearance. He later argues against ‘fate’ or what I would call fatalism; the idea that ‘if everything is already set in motion under the law of cause and effect then there is no need for me to take an action of make an effort, as all the future is effectively already determined.’
The latter rejection of fatalism is a perfectly reasonable position for a spiritual seeker, if we accept fatalism it crushes our capacity to change anything or to develop spiritually or ethically by our own efforts, everything is going to be what ever its causes determine regardless of my best efforts to cause any change and even if I make no effort the result will be the same. This situation runs counter to our common sense as spiritual seekers, makes a mockery of the possibility of a contribution to our own spiritual progress, renders impossible self improvement, and therefore DQ rightly rejects it based on ‘common sense’ as a spiritual seeker.
Yet, it is actually contrary to DQ’s own reasoning earlier in the chapter.
Either everything is causal, and fatalism is a logical result, or there must be a loophole in the law of causality. We can not accept a middle ground, simply put; either all is causal, or it is not. We cannot set up our reasoned argument that all is subject to cause and effect, without limit, then but then reject a part of the conclusion because it is clearly counter to our ‘common sense’. This suggests a flaw in one of two places, either faulty reasoning or faulty premise. I will refer to this point as the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’
I suggest this situation is a result of DQ applying causality where it does not reign.
Causality applies to the physical world, fully. But in the mental world it does not apply fully. To prove my point I would need to show just a single example where causality does not apply, obviously, thereby proving it does not apply in all cases. The difficulty in such a proof is that not knowing the cause does not prove there is no cause, so I will have to create a contrived situation where we can use logic to do the task for us. In fact, my argument does not rest totally on the following logical proof being true this will be shown below, after my logical attempt (which is just as well, I never studied logic nor used it much, and I will not be surprised if the following is destroyed with disdain in the forum).
Consider being presented with three random but similar shapes drawn on paper, and being asked to freely pick one, the choice has neither significance nor connotation. Since the shapes are random they have no connection to any previous experience, since they are similar, if one happens by chance to look like an object I recognise, say my pet dog, they all will as they are similar. Since the choice has no relation to the previous events of my life, nor rest of my life there should be no reason to suggest a causal relation.
I know DQ would probably argue that the universe must have created the right conditions for me to have been present in the place to be offered the choice, that there are background conditions such as that I exist etc. However, the existence of me has already been met, and the conditions for me to be offered the choice have likewise been met before I actually consider the choice. While it is true that there are background conditions to me being presented with the choice, each can be related to the situation of me being able to make the choice, not to the decision I reach, not to my actual choice itself and our issue is simply is there a cause and effect relationship with the actual choice itself.
This is a contrived situation, and must be so in order to try counter the fact that we can never really be sure of the presence or otherwise of causal factors, because not knowing them does not prove they are absent.
However, logic can show there are no causes. A cause must be either a physical or mental (including emotion etc.) cause.
There is no future consequences to the choice of picture (the choice has neither significance nor connotation), no previous experience related to the choice (they are random shapes), no current influence on the choice (it’s a free choice) – no mental cause.
Also there are no physical factors related to the choice, it is not a physical event, it is a mental choice, any physical factors relate to me being offered the choice, not the actual making of the choice.
If there is no relation to past, present or future experience, no mental cause and no physical causes, what other could there be?
Therefore logically there are no causes to determine my choice.
We can produce several contrived examples and try use logic to show no causes to the actual choice itself. This proves that to some degree some of our mental reactions are free from cause and effect.
It does not run against the earlier statement ‘Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’
This is not a physical situation, it is a mental one.
This allows us to resolve the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’ outlined above. Therefore, even if logic sharper than my own was to prove the ‘logical proof’ above to be false by showing that in fact we can never remove any possibility of a causal relationship, then the case remains unproven. I still argue that if the case is unproven either way, it can not be proven that causality does apply. Then, because my position resolves a self-contradiction in DQ’s position it is therefore the more reasonable position of the two.
I suggest that the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’ has arisen because DQ has applied causality to a mental situation where it does not fully apply, while still recognizing that it does apply; ‘within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’
This means, we can not exert total free will, but we can exert some degree of free will within our own mental reaction to events. This may seem trivial, due to an artificial distinction, on the part of the reader, between the internal mental realm and external physical things. However I shall attempt to make explicit the mechanism involved without any reference to mentalist philosophy.
Given a certain situation, what happens is not subject to my free will, it follows cause and effect from previous events. But how I react internally to what happens is subject to my free will. My reaction then becomes one of the causes of future events. Therefore the consequences of what happens are determined by cause and effect using my internal reaction to past events as one of the causes for future events. i.e. future events can be determined to some degree by my inner reaction to the situation.
In this model, there is room for total causal relations in the physical world of space-time, but also room for some freewill in our internal reaction, which is a requirement for the spiritual path and self-improvement essential to this path to have any real meaning.
Let us consider an example of applying this theory; DQ’s own example in punishing criminals, the case of the sage Diogenes catching the thief. When the thief pleads ‘it’s my fate to steal’, he is using fatalism to say he has no choice other than stealing. When the sage answers ‘then it is your fate to be beaten’ he is showing that the thief had the freedom to choose not to steal, and when he decided to steal he has set in motion the cause, now he will see the effect.
The thief was conditioned by his environment to be a thief, maybe he has no skill and no work, but he has children to feed, who amongst us can not imagine his situation and sympathise with the poor soul? However he does have the freedom to choose if he is going to steal or take another option, such as work, beg, sell property, salvage or make something to sell, etc.
We may feel overwhelming pressure to act in a certain way, but often (or always) there are alternatives and we make a choice even if that choice is only to bow to the factors pressurizing us towards a certain behaviour.
In the case of the thief, maybe the effect, a blow to the head from Diogenes’ staff, would then in time become the cause to make him fear capture and punishment so much that he selects another choice in the future. Maybe the Sages wise words would trigger his intuition and he would realise he has a choice in the matter.
In this way our mental freedom of control of our own reaction to an event can directly influence the future events. In the example choosing not to steal or choosing to steal is a mental choice with potentially very different physical consequences in the physical world. It clearly shows how in a very real and physical way how our thinking guides our actions which determines our experiences.
The thief can refuse to learn and spiritually progress, facing beating after beating as a result, probably bringing more sever punishments upon himself (almost as if experience were trying to teach him with increasingly sever lessons until he gets the point – but that is beyond today’s topic). Or he can learn the hard way, after enough beatings he finally decides to try another option. Or he can learn the easy way by choosing to try to avoid the stealing which his own experience or reasoning teaches him will probably have undesirable results.
In this context we can see the Sages actions have correct interpretations at several levels;
1. Simple cause and effect (karma) by his own foolish actions (cause) the thief earned his reward, a sharp blow to the head (effect).
2. As part of the hard way of learning, if the Sage did not beat the thief he may be encouraged to steal again, as his experience is that crime does pay, possibly ending up with a more sever punishment.
3. As part of the easy way of learning, if the thief understands the sage he will realise that he is not fated to steal, and may choose to stop, thereby avoiding unnecessary suffering and progressing spiritually, the later being main objective of a Sages actions and words.
Light and Peace
Little Idiot
As a newbie on the forum I offer my apology in advance if the following has already been discussed. EDIT TO ADD; I just came across the debate between sam and DQ, (so much good stuff on the site to read!) I hope maybe I add a little to that as I am agreeing with Sams point on the conflict between causality and spirituality, but I also offer a solution where both causality and spiriuality co-exist.
I learned a great deal from his refreshing view. The best highlight for me as a physicist/philosopher being the application of causality to Quantum Physics, something I have long felt intuitively, but never seen expressed so simply.
However, like all human works it is short of perfection by seeming necessity SECOND EDIT; having read the Larkin dedate I see DQ claims enlightenment. I would be interested to know the view on degrees of enlightenment; is enlightenment all or nothing (therefore DQ has all, and presumably is beyond error and/or improvement?) or is it by degree, in which case DQ may accept the possibility of error, or the possibility of improvement.
The comments I make below are intended in a spirit of cooperation trying to move our collective understanding towards a clearer version of reality.
Ch1 The Eternal nature of cause and effect
DQ writes ‘It is thus irrational to think of cause and effect as being created in any way. It has always been around. There has never been a time when it was absent.’
Absolutely. Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged, even in the realm of Quantum Physics.
But can we not conceive of timelessness; beyond time? (I do not mean to conceive the nature of it, just the logical possibility of it). To speak in metaphor and use time-references where they can not be used I am talking about ‘before’ the existence of our space-time universe, or ‘after’ the existence of our space-time universe if we apply, say, the ‘big crunch’ model where gravity pulls the universe back into a singularity.
We assume this possibility when we talk about the Big Bang, or any other ‘first cause’ model; what about ‘before’ the Big Bang event – there simply is no space-time; timelessness, Big Bang occurs and time starts, we can call this time t=0 and count on from there.
The principle of cause and effect can only apply in time, effect must by definition follow cause, there needs to be a passage of time, or at least the presence of time, then cause and effect can only have meaning in time, by definition.
While it is true that ‘There has never been a time when it (causality) was absent’ we can and do conceive of timelessness when time was absent by definition, and therefore causality was absent by definition.
DQ would have cause and effect rule without limit, I am suggesting that the reign of cause and effect is unchallenged within space-time and our physical universe, but we must accept that there are limits on the region where cause and effect rules. This is crucial to understand my main point, regarding free will.
First another example of where DQ’s position is different to my own, (actually it is the same example described in different words);
Ch1 Transcending God
DQ writes {for the sake of argument we assume God as creator to be true} ‘After all if the principle of cause and effect did not exist to begin with, then not even Almighty God himself could be the cause of the Universe. He would be utterly powerless and not much of a God, to say the least! This alone demonstrates that the principle cause and effect is more fundamental than God’
This is logically incorrect. The principle of cause and effect can only apply in time, effect must by definition follow cause, there needs to be a passage of time, and since space-time only exists after the creation of the universe, the principle of cause and effect can only be applicable after the beginning of the universe.
The Universe has to originate form beyond time, the ‘formless void’ which by its definition as beyond time – timeless must be beyond change and cause and effect.
If {for the sake of argument we assume God as creator to be true} then the creator must be beyond time, timeless, and therefore by definition such a God must be beyond the reach of cause and effect. It is therefore not true to say such a creator would be less fundamental than cause and effect, nor transcended by cause and effect because being out side time such a being is beyond the reach of cause and effect and in fact transcends cause and effect by merit of transcending time. Such a creator is more fundamental than time and therefore than cause and effect.
This is not to say I am supporting the idea of a ‘first cause’ a Big Bang or other type, on the contrary, there can be no first cause before time, as discussed cause and effect only applies within time. I support the idea of non-causality outside time and firmly only outside time, and causality (by which I mean cause and effect) in time, and firmly only inside time.
These two examples have been introduced to lead to my main point, in this post; free will. I agree with DQ that ‘Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’ But I add that there are limits on this rule which we need to understand, as this has very important implications to us as spiritual aspirants.
Chapter 3 Free will
DQ writes ‘Here lies the essential irony of free will. On one hand, free will, as a process, needs the existence of causality in order for it to function. It needs causality because free will is a concept that refers to the mind willing or causing things to happen. And yet, at the same time, it is the sheer reality of causality which nullifies its existence. Thus the very conditions which are needed to support it are also the very conditions which erode all possibility of it existing. It therefore can not exist’
DQ concludes free will is only an appearance, with practical uses but essentially only an appearance. He later argues against ‘fate’ or what I would call fatalism; the idea that ‘if everything is already set in motion under the law of cause and effect then there is no need for me to take an action of make an effort, as all the future is effectively already determined.’
The latter rejection of fatalism is a perfectly reasonable position for a spiritual seeker, if we accept fatalism it crushes our capacity to change anything or to develop spiritually or ethically by our own efforts, everything is going to be what ever its causes determine regardless of my best efforts to cause any change and even if I make no effort the result will be the same. This situation runs counter to our common sense as spiritual seekers, makes a mockery of the possibility of a contribution to our own spiritual progress, renders impossible self improvement, and therefore DQ rightly rejects it based on ‘common sense’ as a spiritual seeker.
Yet, it is actually contrary to DQ’s own reasoning earlier in the chapter.
Either everything is causal, and fatalism is a logical result, or there must be a loophole in the law of causality. We can not accept a middle ground, simply put; either all is causal, or it is not. We cannot set up our reasoned argument that all is subject to cause and effect, without limit, then but then reject a part of the conclusion because it is clearly counter to our ‘common sense’. This suggests a flaw in one of two places, either faulty reasoning or faulty premise. I will refer to this point as the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’
I suggest this situation is a result of DQ applying causality where it does not reign.
Causality applies to the physical world, fully. But in the mental world it does not apply fully. To prove my point I would need to show just a single example where causality does not apply, obviously, thereby proving it does not apply in all cases. The difficulty in such a proof is that not knowing the cause does not prove there is no cause, so I will have to create a contrived situation where we can use logic to do the task for us. In fact, my argument does not rest totally on the following logical proof being true this will be shown below, after my logical attempt (which is just as well, I never studied logic nor used it much, and I will not be surprised if the following is destroyed with disdain in the forum).
Consider being presented with three random but similar shapes drawn on paper, and being asked to freely pick one, the choice has neither significance nor connotation. Since the shapes are random they have no connection to any previous experience, since they are similar, if one happens by chance to look like an object I recognise, say my pet dog, they all will as they are similar. Since the choice has no relation to the previous events of my life, nor rest of my life there should be no reason to suggest a causal relation.
I know DQ would probably argue that the universe must have created the right conditions for me to have been present in the place to be offered the choice, that there are background conditions such as that I exist etc. However, the existence of me has already been met, and the conditions for me to be offered the choice have likewise been met before I actually consider the choice. While it is true that there are background conditions to me being presented with the choice, each can be related to the situation of me being able to make the choice, not to the decision I reach, not to my actual choice itself and our issue is simply is there a cause and effect relationship with the actual choice itself.
This is a contrived situation, and must be so in order to try counter the fact that we can never really be sure of the presence or otherwise of causal factors, because not knowing them does not prove they are absent.
However, logic can show there are no causes. A cause must be either a physical or mental (including emotion etc.) cause.
There is no future consequences to the choice of picture (the choice has neither significance nor connotation), no previous experience related to the choice (they are random shapes), no current influence on the choice (it’s a free choice) – no mental cause.
Also there are no physical factors related to the choice, it is not a physical event, it is a mental choice, any physical factors relate to me being offered the choice, not the actual making of the choice.
If there is no relation to past, present or future experience, no mental cause and no physical causes, what other could there be?
Therefore logically there are no causes to determine my choice.
We can produce several contrived examples and try use logic to show no causes to the actual choice itself. This proves that to some degree some of our mental reactions are free from cause and effect.
It does not run against the earlier statement ‘Within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’
This is not a physical situation, it is a mental one.
This allows us to resolve the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’ outlined above. Therefore, even if logic sharper than my own was to prove the ‘logical proof’ above to be false by showing that in fact we can never remove any possibility of a causal relationship, then the case remains unproven. I still argue that if the case is unproven either way, it can not be proven that causality does apply. Then, because my position resolves a self-contradiction in DQ’s position it is therefore the more reasonable position of the two.
I suggest that the ‘apparent contradiction between DQ’s reasoning and his final position’ has arisen because DQ has applied causality to a mental situation where it does not fully apply, while still recognizing that it does apply; ‘within space-time and our physical universe, cause and effect rules unchallenged.’
This means, we can not exert total free will, but we can exert some degree of free will within our own mental reaction to events. This may seem trivial, due to an artificial distinction, on the part of the reader, between the internal mental realm and external physical things. However I shall attempt to make explicit the mechanism involved without any reference to mentalist philosophy.
Given a certain situation, what happens is not subject to my free will, it follows cause and effect from previous events. But how I react internally to what happens is subject to my free will. My reaction then becomes one of the causes of future events. Therefore the consequences of what happens are determined by cause and effect using my internal reaction to past events as one of the causes for future events. i.e. future events can be determined to some degree by my inner reaction to the situation.
In this model, there is room for total causal relations in the physical world of space-time, but also room for some freewill in our internal reaction, which is a requirement for the spiritual path and self-improvement essential to this path to have any real meaning.
Let us consider an example of applying this theory; DQ’s own example in punishing criminals, the case of the sage Diogenes catching the thief. When the thief pleads ‘it’s my fate to steal’, he is using fatalism to say he has no choice other than stealing. When the sage answers ‘then it is your fate to be beaten’ he is showing that the thief had the freedom to choose not to steal, and when he decided to steal he has set in motion the cause, now he will see the effect.
The thief was conditioned by his environment to be a thief, maybe he has no skill and no work, but he has children to feed, who amongst us can not imagine his situation and sympathise with the poor soul? However he does have the freedom to choose if he is going to steal or take another option, such as work, beg, sell property, salvage or make something to sell, etc.
We may feel overwhelming pressure to act in a certain way, but often (or always) there are alternatives and we make a choice even if that choice is only to bow to the factors pressurizing us towards a certain behaviour.
In the case of the thief, maybe the effect, a blow to the head from Diogenes’ staff, would then in time become the cause to make him fear capture and punishment so much that he selects another choice in the future. Maybe the Sages wise words would trigger his intuition and he would realise he has a choice in the matter.
In this way our mental freedom of control of our own reaction to an event can directly influence the future events. In the example choosing not to steal or choosing to steal is a mental choice with potentially very different physical consequences in the physical world. It clearly shows how in a very real and physical way how our thinking guides our actions which determines our experiences.
The thief can refuse to learn and spiritually progress, facing beating after beating as a result, probably bringing more sever punishments upon himself (almost as if experience were trying to teach him with increasingly sever lessons until he gets the point – but that is beyond today’s topic). Or he can learn the hard way, after enough beatings he finally decides to try another option. Or he can learn the easy way by choosing to try to avoid the stealing which his own experience or reasoning teaches him will probably have undesirable results.
In this context we can see the Sages actions have correct interpretations at several levels;
1. Simple cause and effect (karma) by his own foolish actions (cause) the thief earned his reward, a sharp blow to the head (effect).
2. As part of the hard way of learning, if the Sage did not beat the thief he may be encouraged to steal again, as his experience is that crime does pay, possibly ending up with a more sever punishment.
3. As part of the easy way of learning, if the thief understands the sage he will realise that he is not fated to steal, and may choose to stop, thereby avoiding unnecessary suffering and progressing spiritually, the later being main objective of a Sages actions and words.
Light and Peace
Little Idiot