GENIUS FORUMS

Does thinking about a thing appearing without prior cause make it possible?

It is absolutely impossible for an apple to appear in front of me without any cause because it takes specific conditions for the constituent parts of an apple to coalesce into what we know as an apple. There may be an extremely low probability of matter around me spontaneously turning into an apple but even an action like would have causes.

Conceiving of an apple mystically appearing in our reality without any cause doesn't make it possible.

More specifically, uncertainty doesn't allow for events which are outside of the natural realm. When someone says that it's extremely unlikely that something could occur they don't mean it's extremely unlikely that something supernatural could occur. The events which could lead to Earth suddenly breaking free of it's gravitational moorings and smash into Mars are fantastically unlikely to ever take place, however, the chance of Earth disappearing without prior cause is zero since that would be within the realm of supernatural and outside of our ability to predict or, ultimately, understand logically.

All natural events have causes even if we don't understand the cause (such as the beginning of our universe or the original spark which caused emergence of life on our planet). A lack of knowledge doesn't point to supernatural causes just our inability to understand what is happening around us.

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: They are all critical to the occurrance of the person's death. For example, if there was no time and space, then there would be no person to begin with and therefore no possibility of his death. So there is no question that time and space play an essential role in the death. The same goes for all the factors I listed.

EI: A breathable atmosphere is hardly required for death (and did appear on your list). It's pretty hostile to death. Using that same line of thought, we could say that time and space could very well hamper death as well. It kinda depends upon how you want to define "death", but I think we could consider a fella essentially dead if time and space were to take a permanent holiday.

Exactly right. Time and space would necessarily be causal factors in both cases - both in allowing room for a body to exist, so that it can one day die, and in eliminating the body through their own elimination.

The essential point is that a death cannot occur in the absence of causal conditions, and time and space are just two elements of a wide range of causal conditions which are necessarily linked to the death.

On a more serious note, it isn't at all logically necessary that a breathable atmosphere is required for life. Thus it is hardly a requirement for death. That's not to say that I don't think we need oxygen to breathe, or anything so silly, but rather that we inductively infer the relationship amongst such things.

On the contrary, it is a relationship that it is deductively concluded from the reality that we are lung-breathing creatures who require oxygen to survive. That is the reality of our existence, of our particular chemistry.

In other words, given that we are creatures whose chemistry requires oxygen for its continued functioning, it becomes deductively certain that we require oxygen for our continued functioning and existence. To argue otherwise would be to deny the reality of our existence - that is, to emasculate our existence.

We are not featureless non-entities without traits residing in a vacuum. Our existence is tangible and cannot be separated from the world around us.

DQ: There is no reason to exclude these causal factors from the equation, other than arbitrarily deciding to adopt a narrower perspective which focuses purely on the immediate. From a broader perspective, the role of time and space is just as critical to a person's death as is a heart attack or organ failure.

EI: I imagine they don't let you preform autopsies then. Cause of death: time and space.

This is a philosophical matter and thus the bigger picture needs to be taken into account. Alas, the matter is outside the scope of medical science to resolve, or even shed light on.

That aside, I still don't see why I should think of time and space as a cause of death. Such things are just part of what it is. I don't say that redness causes tomatoes or that wheels cause cars.

Time and space are part of a larger array of causes of a death. They are just as necessary to the occurrence of a death as is organ failure or the sudden absence of oxygen. As far as the bigger picture is concerned, all of these causal factors should be placed on the same footing and treated in the same way. They are all equally necessary, as far as the death is concerned.

Otherwise you stand accused of being anthropomorphic, parochial, provincial, etc - that is, someone who places undue emphasis on his own immediate situation and blocks out larger perspectives.

DQ: It is in the very identity of an existing thing that it has causes and consequences, just as it is in the very identity of a triangle that it has three sides. Thus, in order to promote the view that non-causality is possible you have to mentally block out the identity of what it means to be an existing object. That is, you have to emasculate its existence.

EI: Are you simply asserting that something needs to have causes and consequences to exist? Such a thing doesn't strike me as clear at all.

I'm asserting the opposite - namely, to exist means having a particular nature with particular traits and intrinsic to this situation are causes and consequences. Existing literally means being an effect and causing consequences. So from a logical standpoint, it is impossible to divorce causes and consequences from existence.

For example, consider fire. It is the very nature of fire that it emits heat and light in cooler, darker surroundings. You can't divorce these consequences from the fire without mentally destroying the very nature of what fire is - i.e. without emasculating its existence and turning it into a featureless non-entity.

DQ: Sure. But it is impossible to imagine, for me at least, that the ball can move without any exerting force at all, either internally or externally. For that would be a case of saying "it just happens", which is meaningless and ignores the reality of what it means for something to exist.

EI: You can't imagine it, or you 'can't imagine it'? It's become a rather frequently used expression to say that one can't imagine something, but when I speak of not being able to imagine something, I'm speaking quite literally. I'm guessing that you can imagine it, as I shouldn't think that you lack basic mental capabilities, and thus are simply using the weak form the expression. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

I literally can't imagine it without emasculating its existence and descending into the meaningless view that "things just happen".

DQ: Again, we could only imagine such an occurrence by subconsciously blocking out the sheer reality of the man's existence, in all his substantial glory, and turning him into a abstract, featureless non-entity. In that instance, you are mentally switching from the reality of the man's existence as a physical, unique reality and replacing him with a featureless non-entity, before switching back again. It is the only way that the logic of it can work.

EI: So you're suggesting that I should focus on that which I've inductively inferred from observation, as opposed to thinking in terms of what's logically essential. I'm prone to agree, as that's what I've been saying all along.

No, I'm suggesting that you need to get over Hume, break out of the academic mindset and start opening your eyes to the real world and examine more thoroughly what it means to exist.

-

Hm, Trevor (my comments bolded):

1) All things are causal (effect and are effected). (Transcendent feature of reality)
2) To be causal, a thing is dependent on another thing for existence. (That is, effects are effected and, in turn, effect.)

POSSIBLE STEPS (since there are many ways to go from here):
3) All things are dependent on the Totality for existence. (All things are effected by the Totality--the sum of all things effected and effecting--and thus exist.)
4) The Totality is dependent on each individual thing for existence. (otherwise it would be less than the totality) (The Totality is effected by its dependency on the sum of all things, rather than a single thing, which idea is reserved for effecting other single things only.)

THEREFORE,
5) All things are dependent on each individual thing for existence. (What?? I‘m having trouble seeing how this “therefore” cogently follows the argument so far. Up to this, your argument looked more like a logical proof for the existence of the Totality rather than causality. Same thing? Otherwise, this “therefore” merely looks like a re-assertion of your earlier premises.)

Leyla:
The "therefore" is me putting it all together through a series of substitutions that go all the way back to premise 1. It is a re-assertion; however, it is quite a bit more clear than any of the other steps, and justifies each and every other step.

It's a very weird argument, I know, but causality can be proven to be a necessary feature of the Totality in many ways. This proof is simply the first one that came to mind.

"Any given thing is dependent on each and every [other] thing for existence."

DQ: It is in the very identity of an existing thing that it has causes and consequences, just as it is in the very identity of a triangle that it has three sides. Thus, in order to promote the view that non-causality is possible you have to mentally block out the identity of what it means to be an existing object. That is, you have to emasculate its existence.

EI: Are you simply asserting that something needs to have causes and consequences to exist? Such a thing doesn't strike me as clear at all.

DQ: I'm asserting the opposite - namely, to exist means having a particular nature with particular traits and intrinsic to this situation are causes and consequences. Existing literally means being an effect and causing consequences. So from a logical standpoint, it is impossible to divorce causes and consequences from existence.

For example, consider fire. It is the very nature of fire that it emits heat and light in cooler, darker surroundings. You can't divorce these consequences from the fire without mentally destroying the very nature of what fire is - i.e. without emasculating its existence and turning it into a featureless non-entity.

I don’t get it. Why, David, do you say you are “asserting the opposite”?

“Anything which exists has a particular nature with particular traits” is not the opposite of “any-/some-thing needs to have causes and consequences to exist.” As you say, the latter cannot be divorced from the former; causes and consequences are an intrinsic part of, and not opposite to, particular nature and traits (character/quality).

"Any given thing is dependent on each and every [other] thing for existence."

Trevor, I have a problem with the Totality having the same quality of thingness as an apple, for example. For instance, a characteristic of apple is that it is necessarily a finite thing. Only the Totality can cause an apple. Another apple and two oranges and a man in a red pointy hat with a wand alone do not do this.

The Totality can't be the sum of nothings.

Trevor,

If causality is a true transcendent feature of reality, then if something exists, it has causes and consequences.

'Transcendent' as in existing outside of the world? I don't consider anything to be transcendent as we exist within the world, and have no means to determine what might be outside of it. Or, I should say, I don't think we're capable of knowing something transcendent.



Chochem,

Does thinking about a thing appearing without prior cause make it possible?

It means that it isn't tautological to say that things must have prior causes.

It is absolutely impossible for an apple to appear in front of me without any cause because it takes specific conditions for the constituent parts of an apple to coalesce into what we know as an apple.

As I said to David, whatever conditions are logically necessary for the existence of the apple are simply part of the apple. If we imagine every conceivable situation that could involve an apple, whatever they all had in common can be singled out as the apple. Whatever additional conditions are necessary for an apples existence must be inferred via induction. Inductive logic is like: p has alway proceeded q, and thus p must alway proceed q. If we don't consider it a requirement that an apple must grow on an apple tree to be called an apple, then we can't say that it is logically necessary that an apple must grow on an apple tree. Even if we were to define an apple as something that grows on an apple tree, and use that basis for claiming that an apple must logically grow on an apple tree, we are demonstrating nothing about the natural world by doing so.

the chance of Earth disappearing without prior cause is zero since that would be within the realm of supernatural and outside of our ability to predict or, ultimately, understand logically.

You'll have to explain to me what you mean by 'understand logically'. I'm guessing that you simply mean that we can't account for a cause if there is no cause, but that seems a very poor reason to reject the idea that things may occur without prior cause (it is begging the question). Insofar as predictive power is concerned, I can't predict when it will rain, but I shouldn't say that it is impossible.

All natural events have causes even if we don't understand the cause

A more rational (and less dogmatic) take on the issue is to assume that if we don't know the cause of everything (and in some cases don't even know where to begin looking for a cause), then everything may or may not be caused.



David,

In other words, given that we are creatures whose chemistry requires oxygen for its continued functioning, it becomes deductively certain that we require oxygen for our continued functioning and existence. To argue otherwise would be to deny the reality of our existence - that is, to emasculate our existence.

Okay, I'll grant you that if we require oxygen, then we require oxygen, but now you have to deductively demonstrate that we require oxygen to live. I can say that if God is the king of the heavens, then God is the king of the heavens, and prove nothing about whether or not God exists.

For example, consider fire. It is the very nature of fire that it emits heat and light in cooler, darker surroundings. You can't divorce these consequences from the fire without mentally destroying the very nature of what fire is - i.e. without emasculating its existence and turning it into a featureless non-entity.

Alright, now demonstrate why fire has to be the result of something else to exist (without falling back on inductive inference). That is far less clear.

'Transcendent' as in existing outside of the world? I don't consider anything to be transcendent as we exist within the world, and have no means to determine what might be outside of it. Or, I should say, I don't think we're capable of knowing something transcendent.

No, I use transcendent in the Kantian sense. A "transcendent feature of Reality" is a fact of existence that is true across all Reality -- no matter where or when you are located.

Calling causality a transcendent feature of Reality, therefore, means that if something exists in Reality (ie. if it exists at all), it will be causal.

Some uses of the word transcendent consider it to refer to things that a person cannot prove the existence of. I avoid those uses, although technically "causality" doesn't exist.

Trevor wrote:The Totality can't be the sum of nothings.

Thanks for that! But, I’m pretty sure I had that much already figured out: the sum of nothing can only, of course, be nothing.

The point is:

4) The Totality is dependent on each individual thing for existence. (otherwise it would be less than the totality) (The Totality is effected by its dependency on the sum of all things, rather than a single thing, which idea is reserved for effecting other single things only.)

The Totality, by definition, is not dependent upon anything and thus has no existence--much the same as causality, in fact. Now, I know the QRS say that the Totality neither exists nor does not exist, but I cannot reconcile such a thing. When I think of any number of other such inferred “things,” (like “mind,” “pink unicorns,” “memory,” etc.,) I am left with a very definite 3/4D category of objects comprising “existing things” period.

It means that it isn't tautological to say that things must have prior causes.

All that sets up is asking me to prove something I couldn't possibly understand and likely wouldn't recognize. The gist of such an argument is that I can't prove all things need causes so something could happen without a cause. Where is the utility in making such an assumption?

As I said to David, whatever conditions are logically necessary for the existence of the apple are simply part of the apple. If we imagine every conceivable situation that could involve an apple, whatever they all had in common can be singled out as the apple. Whatever additional conditions are necessary for an apples existence must be inferred via induction. Inductive logic is like: p has alway proceeded q, and thus p must alway proceed q. If we don't consider it a requirement that an apple must grow on an apple tree to be called an apple, then we can't say that it is logically necessary that an apple must grow on an apple tree. Even if we were to define an apple as something that grows on an apple tree, and use that basis for claiming that an apple must logically grow on an apple tree, we are demonstrating nothing about the natural world by doing so.

We are demonstrating that in the natural world apples grow on apple trees. What is demonstrated about the natural world through assuming apples can exist without prior cause?

If I see an apple on the ground I may play with the idea that appeared there, however, ultimately I will look around the corner for the guy selling apples. Trains of thought like this always feel like toys to me, something entertaining to ponder but without any actual use.

You'll have to explain to me what you mean by 'understand logically'. I'm guessing that you simply mean that we can't account for a cause if there is no cause, but that seems a very poor reason to reject the idea that things may occur without prior cause (it is begging the question). Insofar as predictive power is concerned, I can't predict when it will rain, but I shouldn't say that it is impossible.

All I was trying to point out was that arguments such as these feel strongly like the "logical proofs" of God's existence religious people like to throw around to bolster their faith. The usual claim is "You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't look, and be everywhere at once to prove God isn't there". By setting up an impossible scenario people allow themselves to believe whatever they want and feel logical in the process.

Something existing without prior cause would qualify as a supernatural event and given that everything we know and the logic we (well maybe not me, my formal logic is a bit lacking) are using is based in the natural world how would we comprehend and identify something supernatural? Ultimately you'd have to go through the same impossible exercise to prove an even was without prior cause namely exhausting ever possible occurrence which could lead to an event.

A more rational (and less dogmatic) take on the issue is to assume that if we don't know the cause of everything (and in some cases don't even know where to begin looking for a cause), then everything may or may not be caused.

That's fine, I can't logically or empirically prove that causality is necessary but as I've stated previously, I don't understand what I get out of such a mental exercise.

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

As I said to David, whatever conditions are logically necessary for the existence of the apple are simply part of the apple.

Time and space are logically necessary for the existence of the apple, as is the existence of the Universe itself. Yet we don't normally think of these things as being part of the apple.

DQ: In other words, given that we are creatures whose chemistry requires oxygen for its continued functioning, it becomes deductively certain that we require oxygen for our continued functioning and existence. To argue otherwise would be to deny the reality of our existence - that is, to emasculate our existence.

EI: Okay, I'll grant you that if we require oxygen, then we require oxygen, but now you have to deductively demonstrate that we require oxygen to live. I can say that if God is the king of the heavens, then God is the king of the heavens, and prove nothing about whether or not God exists.

We can only determine whether something exists by observing it. If we observe a creature that requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing, then we can deductively conclude that it requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing.

Now we might be wrong in concluding this because our initial observation might be wrong. For example, the creature we are observing might be, say, a hologram. If that is the case, then a different causal equation automatically comes into play. Instead of oxygen, for example, the observed creature would require light to continue existing.

The important point is that no matter what the creature is, or how it is constructed, there will always be a set of causal factors of one kind or another that will be needed to sustain it.

As soon as we identity an object and determine its characteristics, we are in that very moment also affirming the truth that it is the result of a particular set of causal conditions.

DQ: For example, consider fire. It is the very nature of fire that it emits heat and light in cooler, darker surroundings. You can't divorce these consequences from the fire without mentally destroying the very nature of what fire is - i.e. without emasculating its existence and turning it into a featureless non-entity.

EI: Alright, now demonstrate why fire has to be the result of something else to exist (without falling back on inductive inference). That is far less clear.

Well, what is fire exactly?

-

David,

Time and space are logically necessary for the existence of the apple, as is the existence of the Universe itself. Yet we don't normally think of these things as being part of the apple.

The universe is only what occurs within it, and divides into that which occurs within it. Time is a fancy name for change, and thus our knowledge of it can be divided into facts about things changing (and then exhausted). Same basic idea goes for space as well.

If we observe a creature that requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing, then we can deductively conclude that it requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing.

No we can't. It doesn't follow from the fact that such a creature now requires p, that it will then always require p.

Well, what is fire exactly?

this stuff

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: Time and space are logically necessary for the existence of the apple, as is the existence of the Universe itself. Yet we don't normally think of these things as being part of the apple.

EI: The universe is only what occurs within it, and divides into that which occurs within it. Time is a fancy name for change, and thus our knowledge of it can be divided into facts about things changing (and then exhausted). Same basic idea goes for space as well.

Nonetheless, the Universe, and time and space (or change, if you want to call it that) are all logically necessary for the apple to come into existence.

DQ: If we observe a creature that requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing, then we can deductively conclude that it requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing.

EI: No we can't. It doesn't follow from the fact that such a creature now requires p, that it will then always require p.

What happens in the future doesn't matter, as far as this issue is concerned. What matters is that which is occurring right before us.

DQ: For example, consider fire. It is the very nature of fire that it emits heat and light in cooler, darker surroundings. You can't divorce these consequences from the fire without mentally destroying the very nature of what fire is - i.e. without emasculating its existence and turning it into a featureless non-entity.

EI: Alright, now demonstrate why fire has to be the result of something else to exist (without falling back on inductive inference). That is far less clear.

DQ: Well, what is fire exactly?

EI: this stuff

It's combustion, isn't it. It is a chemical reaction which transforms wood into ash, or oil into gas. It thrives by consuming things.

-

Expectantly, we're all waiting for your reply to continue the Causation Wars

David,

Nonetheless, the Universe, and time and space (or change, if you want to call it that) are all logically necessary for the apple to come into existence.

Nah. Space, the universe, time, color, apple seeds, and whatnot, just necessarily come into existence with the apple.

What happens in the future doesn't matter, as far as this issue is concerned. What matters is that which is occurring right before us.

Eh? So you can't demonstrate that one event must necessarily follow after another. I don't think there's any question over whether we see things operate in a somewhat predictable manner.

It's combustion, isn't it. It is a chemical reaction which transforms wood into ash, or oil into gas. It thrives by consuming things.

Sure, we can run with that. I prefer 'glowing gas' myself, but I generally think of fire as flames.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Nah. Space, the universe, time, color, apple seeds, and whatnot, just necessarily come into existence with the apple.

So you mean to say, 'all matter comes into existence at the same time'? This doesn't refute that they all have causes.

Eh? So you can't demonstrate that one event must necessarily follow after another. I don't think there's any question over whether we see things operate in a somewhat predictable manner.

but there IS proof that one event must follow from another. If I fail an exam I will be very very disappointed, precisely because I studied hard and wasted effort and time and nothing came of it.

Sure, we can run with that. I prefer 'glowing gas' myself, but I generally think of fire as flames.

either way fire is still caused.

Faust,

So you mean to say, 'all matter comes into existence at the same time'?

No. What I'm saying is a simple truism. If an apple comes into existence, everything that that apple is comes into existence. Otherwise, we wouldn't say that an apple came into existence. An apple can be thought of as a particular color in a particular shape (occupying a particular area of space), and an apple taste, an apple smell, etc. Given that the universe is only that which it contains, if an apple comes into existence, even if it were the only existent thing, the universe would also exist. Such things are an apple. I'm saying that we're only talking about language when we insist that space causes an apple. It only causes an apple in the sense that we wouldn't call something an apple if it didn't occupy space.

This doesn't refute that they all have causes.

I'm not trying to refute the idea that everything might have a cause. That would be a bit too dogmatic for my tastes. Rather, I'm only trying to show that we can't logically prove that everything has a determinate cause that proceeds it in time.

but there IS proof that one event must follow from another. If I fail an exam I will be very very disappointed, precisely because I studied hard and wasted effort and time and nothing came of it.

That's an inductive 'proof'. Which is something else that I've been repeating over and over in this thread: our reasons for believing in causality are inductive. Inductive inferences aren't considered 'sound' in the language of logicians. This is due to the fact that they don't necessarily follow from their premise. It is possible that you might not feel disappointed if you were to fail an exam. At no point have I argued that we couldn't inductively infer cause and effect, or that we should ignore such inductive inferences, or anything along those lines. I'm just saying that to demonstrate that any given thing is caused we need to rely on such induction.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I'm not trying to refute the idea that everything might have a cause. That would be a bit too dogmatic for my tastes. Rather, I'm only trying to show that we can't logically prove that everything has a determinate cause that proceeds it in time.

i can already say by this reply that Causality has won the Causation Wars.

Inductive inferences aren't considered 'sound' in the language of logicians. This is due to the fact that they don't necessarily follow from their premise.

What a bunch of putrid rubbish!!! this nonsense only the most academic and nihilistic of thinkers could ever take seriously.

It is possible that you might not feel disappointed if you were to fail an exam.

No, it's NOT possible, sorry, but I should know. This is as imbecile as one of my friend's who zealously claimed that I could consciously and purposely drop money for no reason at all, using purely scientific probabilistic theories!! Without any focus on my own Realist emotional and especially financial commitments since I'm not rich at all, it's quite absurd.

I'm just saying that to demonstrate that any given thing is caused we need to rely on such induction.

i don't see what's so significant about this. It's like saying, "we need to see things to know about them," or "we need to think about things to know about them."

Faust,

You lose at reading comprehension. Go back to the start of the thread and try again.

EI, you have a lot of patience.

faust wrote:What a bunch of putrid rubbish!!! this nonsense only the most academic and nihilistic of thinkers could ever take seriously.

Therefore, academics and nihilists are more concerned with accuracy than their lazy e-philosopher counterparts.

Expectantly,

I think you lost from that unconvincing and knee-jerk reaction to my reply. What's absurd about your position is that you don't deny causality exists, but you think that we can never know what these causal links are, holding these two positions is quite contradictory I think.

I don't lose at reading comprehensing Expectantly, it's obvious that your reply marked a clear deficiency in your argument. Especially this retarded quote,

Expectantly wrote:It is possible that you might not feel disappointed if you were to fail an exam.

where you got this from I have no clue, but it's definitely a last backdoor entry resort.

Faust,

What's absurd about your position is that you don't deny causality exists, but you think that we can never know what these causal links are, holding these two positions is quite contradictory I think.

This is the reason I told you to go back and read the thread. In my very first post I say quite clearly that we can know that a train will kill a dude who stands in front of it.

Cause: Dude standing in front of a train.
Effect: Dead dude.

My discussion with David started over my defense of Hume's analysis of how we know dude will die. Nobody has seen some odd entity--'causality'--forcing dudes to die when getting hit by trains, and we can imagine a situation where a dude could survive getting hit by a train (Superman does it), so it's clear that we just assume that since dudes have been seen to die when getting hit by trains, that dying is an effect of getting hit by trains. Our belief obviously depends upon inductive inference. Now, a Kantian argument could be made that we can a priori infer what happens when dudes and trains meet on the tracks by knowing things about dudes and trains. I don't dispute that. Nevertheless, the premise upon which such deductions are made is ultimately going to be inductive. Our knowledge of any given causal connection isn't ever deductive 'all the way down'.

As an example of the above, I may know that dudes die when fast moving objects of respectable mass collide with them. I may also know that trains tend to be fast moving objects of respectable mass. Thus, even if I've never actually seen or heard what happens when dudes and trains collide, I can still deductively infer from the above that dudes tend to die when trains collide with them. There is no way my conclusion can be false if the premise it is based on is true. We can, though, imagine that my first premise might be false. It is the inductive premise that informs the belief. Hence, Hume's simple observation about how we infer causal connections remains intact, though Kant added something of an important footnote to it. The point here is that our knowledge is ultimately informed by empirical observation, the limits of our imagination, and our manner of speaking. There is no back door to a more urgent sort of truth or realization.

where you got this from I have no clue

There are a thousand and one conceivable scenarios in which you wouldn't be disappointed to fail an exam. Your insistence that it is impossible only demonstrates a lack of imagination. Maybe prior to an exam you meet some keen lady who you fall madly in love with, and just utterly stop caring about everything else, content in the knowledge that you'll be happy as long as you have her. Or, if you're too pessimistic for all that, maybe some rich dude has a vendetta against your instructor, and offers you massive cash to fail an exam. More pessimistic yet, we could imagine that after completing an exam you have some serious accident that paralyzes you from the neck down, and your resulting sorrow runs so deep that you can't be bothered to care about petty things like exams. I can give you more examples if you'd like, but I think you probably get the idea.