No such thing as a hierarchical causal series in the real world

[Gorgias]

To give you a sense of where I’m coming from let me say that I was hoping that you would begin with the hangers and then trace a line of causation backwards from there to a first cause.

The ‘hanger’ example is good as an illustration of a certain point, but isn’t intended to be the whole enchilada on its own. After all, the ‘motion’ here isn’t ‘motion’ in the way we normally think of; what’s really going on is that each of the hangers is reacting to gravity. The example merely illustrates that, without each of the hangers being in place, the whole chain falls apart. (That’s important; the distinction between per se and per accidens is about whether each part must continue to exist at each moment in order for the series to exist.) The attempt to make the example say more than it’s intending to is an attempt that’s bound to mischaracterize the illustration.

I think that Feser would assert, then, that your question of temporality in a strictly physical (i.e., ‘physics’ as opposed to ‘metaphysics’ context) sense likewise misses the point. Both examples are thought experiments which take place in the framework of a temporal universe, and therefore, temporality pervades the illustration. Nevertheless, the point isn’t about Newtonian physics, but about Aristotle’s or Aquinas’ philosophy / metaphysics.

If I have for example a loaf of bread, what’s the hierarchical causal series for that loaf of bread?

You’re gonna hate this answer, but… God.

I’m a solipsist

Hmm. Ok, then… that adds complexity into the discussion. At the heart of it, you’re not really ever going to be able to say “this is true” or even “this appears to be true”, but rather, “among all logically possible assertions in the world, this is one of them.” It’s rather difficult to continue a discussion if the best we can get to is “meh… maybe your words make sense, but…”, no?

 

[lelinator]

So, for the article to state that “that outsider’s observation … diverges from [the measurer’s]” is a mischaracterization. The second person has not yet made an observation; for him, it’s merely the case that both polarizations are possible.

I realize that you may not fully understand what was going on in this experiment. But you have misunderstood the results. The results show that for the first observer the photon is in a fixed state, and for the second observer the photon is in a superposition of states. It’s not that the state is ambiguous for the second observer, meaning that they just don’t know what state it’s in. They do in fact know exactly what state it’s in…it’s in a superposition of states.

Superposition is a very real and measurable state with measurable physical effects. It’s not simply a matter of the second observer not knowing. That would hardly have been a newsworthy experiment.

What the experiment demonstrated is that one observer can see a photon in a fixed state, while a second observer sees it in a state of superposition. Two entirely different yet measurable states.

 

[lelinator]

The ‘hanger’ example is good as an illustration of a certain point, but isn’t intended to be the whole enchilada on its own. After all, the ‘motion’ here isn’t ‘motion’ in the way we normally think of; what’s really going on is that each of the hangers is reacting to gravity. The example merely illustrates that, without each of the hangers being in place, the whole chain falls apart. (That’s important; the distinction between per se and per accidens is about whether each part must continue to exist at each moment in order for the series to exist.) The attempt to make the example say more than it’s intending to is an attempt that’s bound to mischaracterize the illustration.

I realize that it’s an analogy. I got that. The problem is no one can seem to offer up a real world example of a hierarchical causal series, or even an explanation of how one works.

All that I’ve been given to work with are analogies. I do what I can with what I’m given. If you think that you can give a metaphysical explanation, please do.

You’re gonna hate this answer, but… God .

Actually that is exactly the answer that I was expecting. Every hierarchical causal series must be extremely short. Even shorter than Aquinas’ hand, staff, rock analogy. What caused the loaf of bread…God. What caused the hangers…God. What causes anything…God. That is the sum total of every hierarchical causal series.

But if one doesn’t begin with a preconceived outcome in mind, then one can read into Aquinas’ First Way something completely different.

Aquinas’ First Way begins with an explanation of change as the actualization of potential. Which most people would immediately recognize as a temporal causal series. Fire which is actually hot, makes wood which is potentially hot, actually hot. A clear temporal series. Then at the end he throws in the hand, staff, rock analogy. Which is a different type of temporal series, but still a temporal series.

One could however draw a completely different conclusion from this analogy then most theists do.

The hand may simply be the first cause…at the beginning of time, the rock is any change that’s happening now, and the staff is all the events that occurred in between the two. In which case what Aquinas is saying is that the past must still exist, otherwise the events of the present couldn’t happen. All the events in the series are simply what we refer to as the past.

This would seem to be a much simpler and clearer explanation than a hierarchical explanation that nobody seems to be able to explain, other than God did it.

 

[lelinator]

At the heart of it, you’re not really ever going to be able to say “this is true” or even “this appears to be true”, but rather, “among all logically possible assertions in the world, this is one of them.”

That’s a fairly accurate description, about something that I have indeed contemplated. How do I weigh the likelihood of reality being the result of one possible cause, versus another possible cause? Is it more likely that God created reality, or that reality is simply the result of some benign natural phenomena? I may have feelings one way or the other, but when it comes right down to it, how do I logically assign a probability to them?

My conclusion…I really can’t. But what I can do is assess whether your arguments for one position or the other are logical and consistent. What you can be confident of, is that I’ll try not to make assumptions, and I’ll try to judge your arguments by the same standard that I judge everyone else’s by.

You have at times made excellent arguments, but at other times, not so much. You’re not alone however.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Just letting y’all know that I haven’t abandoned this discussion. Busy week with applications, letters, and interviews (passed my boards and got my license ).

Just wanted to say a couple of quick things.

First, the hanger chain is an example of a hierarchy of causation, but it is merely analogical to the more pertinent metaphysical hierarchy of causation that we see with things like forms and being.

Second, I’m not well versed in quantum physics but the article cited doesn’t seem to necessarily be saying that two contradictory states can be equally true in the same sense, but rather that objective measurement of such states may be impossible under certain interpretations of quantum physics. Different interpretations will have different solutions to this problem, and not all of them are troubled by the results of the analysis (I don’t believe this article is presenting any empirical research, but rather mathematical models).

I don’t know much about quantum physics, but I wonder if it is even possible to say that we can objectively know the states of quantum particles. Every observation necessarily changes both the object and subject (photons are emitted from a chair and alter the receptors in our eyes, allowing us to see the chair) it’s just that on a macro level these changes don’t drastically affect the perception of the object. I’m not sure how a change in states in both the object and observer can be avoided on a quantum level, as any instrument sensitive enough to detect a quantum state would also seem to be highly susceptible to changes from exposure to the object. There could be a true objective reality on a quantum level without us having the ability to properly assess its actual value.

I’ll post more when I can. God bless!

 

[STT]

That’s a fairly accurate description, about something that I have indeed contemplated. How do I weigh the likelihood of reality being the result of one possible cause, versus another possible cause? Is it more likely that God created reality, or that reality is simply the result of some benign natural phenomena? I may have feelings one way or the other, but when it comes right down to it, how do I logically assign a probability to them?

My conclusion…I really can’t. But what I can do is assess whether your arguments for one position or the other are logical and consistent. What you can be confident of, is that I’ll try not to make assumptions, and I’ll try to judge your arguments by the same standard that I judge everyone else’s by.

You have at times made excellent arguments, but at other times, not so much. You’re not alone however.

You become only certain about God when you have a spiritual experience. Otherwise, you are free to relay on what people reporsts. Some people consider spiritual experience as halosination.

 

[Gorgias]

how do I logically assign a probability to them?

My conclusion…I really can’t. But what I can do is assess whether your arguments for one position or the other are logical and consistent.

In other words, you really can assess the arguments. (Newman called this kind of reasoning the ‘illative sense’, btw. Good stuff to look up and think about.)

I’ll try to judge your arguments by the same standard that I judge everyone else’s by.

OK, then… how would you assess an argument about a supernatural reality? Does that assessment admit of “the same standard” or does it require a different set of assumptions and range of proof?

You become only certain about God when you have a spiritual experience.

Not true. Even then, as you say, you can reject it as a hallucination…

 

[IQ170]

That’s a fairly accurate description, about something that I have indeed contemplated. How do I weigh the likelihood of reality being the result of one possible cause, versus another possible cause?

Whether something is logically possible is irrelevant. You cannot exclude on some logical grounds that the universe was created one second ago, and all our memories are simply implanted by the creator.

In mathematics there is the Bayes-theorem, when one can assign probability values to possible causes. That is the way to assign probability values to possible causes.

My conclusion…I really can’t.

Yes, you can. Mathematical statistics comes to your aid.

But what I can do is assess whether your arguments for one position or the other are logical and consistent.

Whether something is logical and consistent is irrelevant. Without a proper foundation logic is meaningless. Remember the difference between a logically valid and logically sound arguments.

 

[IQ170]

Even then, as you say, you can reject it as a hallucination…

It depends.

Suppose you and your friend walk around in a hot desert, and see something in the distance that looks like a lake. Your friend says that it is a lake. You - knowing physics - can object that it might just be a mirage. How to deal with the question? You keep on walking and the “lake” keeps on receding. In that case it is likely that you only saw a mirage.

However, you keep walking and get to the lake shore. You can get into the water, you can drink from it, your hands get wet when you immerse them, you can hear the waves crushing into the shore. All your senses report the same result: “it is really a lake”. At that point you cannot reject is as mere hallucination.

Among our senses the “sight” is the one which can be “fooled”. The others cannot. Of course the expression “fooled” is incorrect. The actual, physical signals that our senses perceive are correct, but in the case of “sight” they can be misinterpreted. If you touch a hot stove, you cannot convince yourself that it is really cold. When you hear a violin, you cannot misinterpret it to be the sound of a discharged gun. We all rely on our senses, because there is nothing else. And if we incorrectly interpret the signals, we shall likely die - very quickly.

If God would manifest itself in a physically discernible fashion, that would be a huge step toward substantiating the “non-physical” reality. But there is still the question of how to differentiate between the “real” God from an impostor. That is a different question.

 

[STT]

Not true. Even then, as you say, you can reject it as a hallucination…

Not, when everbody confirms it, I mean in another world.

 

[Gorgias]

Suppose you and your friend walk around in a hot desert, and see something in the distance that looks like a lake.

You - knowing physics - can object that it might just be a mirage. How to deal with the question? You keep on walking and the “lake” keeps on receding. In that case it is likely that you only saw a mirage.

However, you keep walking and get to the lake shore. All your senses report the same result: “it is really a lake”. At that point you cannot reject is as mere hallucination.

Among our senses the “sight” is the one which can be “fooled”.

I don’t know whether you are deliberately aware of this, but you’ve just moved the goalposts.

First, you talk about “spiritual experiences” of God. Then, you attempt to bolster your argument by talking about empirically measurable experiences. The two cannot be conflated.

If, on the other hand, you’re talking about a physical manifestation of God to you on a personal basis, then you’re talking about something completely different. Look at the Bible, and count the number of empirical manifestations of God… and then divide that by the number of years in the span of the narratives (or even the number of people who have lived on the earth in that timeframe). You’ll find that the fraction is miniscule. One cannot assert “since I didn’t have a physically verifiable experience of God, therefore He doesn’t exist” and expect to be taken seriously, don’t you think?

Not, when everbody confirms it, I mean in another world.

That’s the point. Not everybody would confirm it, if only for dogmatic reasons.

 

[IQ170]

I don’t know whether you are deliberately aware of this, but you’ve just moved the goalposts.

I was only talking about the “hallucination”, which was something YOU brought up. And, no, I did not speak about “spiritual” experiences. You confused me with someone else.

If, on the other hand, you’re talking about a physical manifestation of God to you on a personal basis, then you’re talking about something completely different.

I was talking about something that might be personally convincing for me. What is wrong with that? We are all different. For some people a second-hand information is sufficient, for others it is not. Why should I take the Bible more seriously than any other creation story?

One cannot assert “since I didn’t have a physically verifiable experience of God, therefore He doesn’t exist” and expect to be taken seriously, don’t you think?

Except I did not say that. The correct wording is: “since I didn’t have a physically verifiable experience of God, therefore I don’t believe that he exists.” It would be an interesting problem to contemplate: “If we would have a personal manifestation of God, how would be able to decide if the entity is really God, or an impostor?” But that would be a different conversation.

 

[Gorgias]

I was only talking about the “hallucination”, which was something YOU brought up. And, no, I did not speak about “spiritual” experiences. You confused me with someone else.

To be fair, I was quoting STT there.

I was talking about something that might be personally convincing for me. What is wrong with that? We are all different.

Fair enough. (In fact, that’s the whole point of the “illative sense” – each of us has a threshold, beyond which we are convinced of any particular proposition.)

However, there’s another perspective to be considered: in an objective sense, what would we consider to be sufficiently convincing for a reasonable person? I mean, we could look at a person who witnessed a car crash in front of his face but who says “nope, didn’t happen”, and respond “you’re being unreasonable and irrational”, can’t we?

For some people a second-hand information is sufficient, for others it is not. Why should I take the Bible more seriously than any other creation story?

Two thoughts:

• In terms of the Gospels (since they’re at the core of the Christian narrative), we don’t have “second-hand information.” What we have is two Gospels that are being asserted as eyewitness accounts of apostles, and two others that are the accounts of apostles that have been written down by a scribe (a ‘ghost-writer’, in modern terms). So, “second-hand narratives” aren’t at all what we’d say that the Gospels present us.
• WRT the creation story, I’d assert that it’s important to recognize the literary genre of the story, and to treat it within its genre (and not as if it’s some other genre). The first chapter of Genesis is written in the genre of epic poetry. It literally has the elements of a poem! Would we, then, expect it to be approached in the same way we approach a 21st-century newspaper story? (That would be ludicrous, wouldn’t it?) So, my response to you is: “yes, take it seriously; but, take it in the form it’s given, and approach it accordingly.”

The correct wording is: “since I didn’t have a physically verifiable experience of God, therefore I don’t believe that he exists.”

From the context of your perspective, those two are identical.

(And, I’d say, somewhat illogical, since the vast majority of people don’t have such an experience. Nor, would I say, do the vast majority of people have a “physically verifiable experience” of the moon landings, or of black holes, or of the sunrise over Mt Everest. Yet, we wouldn’t claim that our lack of personal experience implies that these things don’t exist, would we? )

 

[IQ170]

However, there’s another perspective to be considered: in an objective sense, what would we consider to be sufficiently convincing for a reasonable person?

Let’s use the maxim: “beyond any reasonable doubt”. It works really well in the important criminal cases. The “preponderance of evidence” is only applicable in relatively unimportant cases.

In terms of the Gospels (since they’re at the core of the Christian narrative), we don’t have “second-hand information.” What we have is two Gospels that are being asserted as eyewitness accounts of apostles, and two others that are the accounts of apostles that have been written down by a scribe (a ‘ghost-writer’, in modern terms). So, “second-hand narratives” aren’t at all what we’d say that the Gospels present us.

Sorry, all that is second hand information for US, today. Do you believe that all written in the gospels is literally true, that they all must be taken as seriously as any newspaper article?

WRT the creation story, I’d assert that it’s important to recognize the literary genre of the story, and to treat it within its genre (and not as if it’s some other genre). The first chapter of Genesis is written in the genre of epic poetry . It literally has the elements of a poem! Would we, then, expect it to be approached in the same way we approach a 21st-century newspaper story? (That would be ludicrous, wouldn’t it?) So, my response to you is: “yes, take it seriously; but, take it in the form it’s given, and approach it accordingly.”

It is allowed to take it verbatim, in the literal sense. That is a general question: “which parts of the Bible are allowed to be taken literally”? And what about the other creation stories? Should they also be taken seriously, even as an allegorical story? And not just the creation stories… all the details in all the different sacred texts?

Ambrose Bierce wrote a great book: “The Devil’s Dictionary”. Let me quote one definition:

Koran (noun): “A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.”

From the context of your perspective, those two are identical.

No, they are not. The expression “I do not believe” is fundamentally different from “it is not true”.

(And, I’d say, somewhat illogical, since the vast majority of people don’t have such an experience. Nor, would I say, do the vast majority of people have a “physically verifiable experience” of the moon landings, or of black holes, or of the sunrise over Mt Everest. Yet, we wouldn’t claim that our lack of personal experience implies that these things don’t exist, would we? )

This would be a long conversation about the necessary epistemological underpinning of all the different beliefs we hold. Do you accept the golden tablets of the Mormons? The winged horse of Mohammed? The turtles which hold the Earth?

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s use the maxim: “beyond any reasonable doubt”. It works really well in the important criminal cases. The “preponderance of evidence” is only applicable in relatively unimportant cases.

I’m not sure that this is the relevant standard. It works in jurisprudence, but we’re not talking about a court case here. (I’d even assert that your characterization is off: a minor criminal case is ‘beyond doubt’, while the biggest multi-billion dollar civil case is still just ‘preponderance’. So, the standard here isn’t “relative unimportance”… )

Anyway, that’s not a ‘maxim’ – it’s merely the process in jurisprudence. As such, it doesn’t apply outside that context (unless we want to get really sloppy…)

Sorry, all that is second hand information for US, today.

Certainly not! Since you want to operate in the sphere of jurisprudence, I’m willing to address your contention in that context. You’re talking about “hearsay”. Yet, the written testimony of an eyewitness (in this case, a deceased eyewitness) is not necessarily hearsay, and therefore, can be admitted into consideration!

Moreover, your assertion here creates an untenable position: essentially, you’re asserting that anything that happened prior to the time of any currently-living person is now something that is ‘fantasy’ (or, at least, not credible). That’s a large swath of history that you’re willing to throw out the window!

It is allowed to take it verbatim, in the literal sense. That is a general question: “which parts of the Bible are allowed to be taken literally”?

Be careful about using the term “literal.” In the context of the Scriptures, the Church’s definition of “the literal sense” isn’t what I’m guessing you think it is…

And what about the other creation stories? Should they also be taken seriously

That depends on whether you’re asserting that they’re divinely inspired, or merely reading them as literature, I’d say…

Ambrose Bierce wrote a great book: “The Devil’s Dictionary”. Let me quote one definition:

Koran (noun): “A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.”

Snark always amuses. Doesn’t illuminate, mind you. Just amuses, in a condescending way…

This would be a long conversation about the necessary epistemological underpinning of all the different beliefs we hold. Do you accept the golden tablets of the Mormons? The winged horse of Mohammed? The turtles which hold the Earth?

The question is not “do you accept X”, but rather “on what basis do you accept Y and not X”…

 

[IQ170]

I’m not sure that this is the relevant standard.

You are always welcome to suggest another one. Please give me the details. I am very much willing to entertain your suggestions.

Yet, the written testimony of an eyewitness (in this case, a deceased eyewitness) is not necessarily hearsay, and therefore, can be admitted into consideration!

This does not apply here. The texts all have been edited, re-written, translated - several times. The “authors” were all unknown people, and textual analysis shows that every gospel was written by several authors. They are all hearsay testimonies - several times over.

That’s a large swath of history that you’re willing to throw out the window!

History might be interesting, but cannot be accepted as a substitutes for first hand information.

Be careful about using the term “literal.”

Suggest a different one. I understand it as being historically correct, properly describing the actual events.

That depends on whether you’re asserting that they’re divinely inspired, or merely reading them as literature, I’d say…

The same as you would assert the biblical texts… divinely inspired - whatever that might mean. Historically correct, verbatim, precise. Pick your word.

Snark always amuse

It is not “snark”. It shows that the “divinely inspired, sacred text” of another religion is not measured on the same scale. Which is fine, as long as you understand that your religion is also subject to the same kind of assessment process.

The question is not “do you accept X ”, but rather “on what basis do you accept Y and not X ”…

Fine by me.

 

[Dovekin]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gorgias:

Be careful about using the term “literal.”

It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the “literal” meaning…
When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors.
Pontifical Biblical Commission The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church

This is the usual Catholic understanding of literal. Sometimes it is expressed as what the author intended to express, according to ancient literary forms rather than a naive historicism.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gorgias:

I’m not sure that this is the relevant standard.

I am jealous. When I offered a different standard on another thread, it was just dismissed without being addressed.

 

[IQ170]

This is the usual Catholic understanding of literal .

That does not help. I am not interested in hair splitting for its own sake, just to have a conversation about certain subjects. This is my question: IF we had time travel, and IF we could go back in time, and observed the events, what are those parts of the bible which we both accept that they properly described these events?

And if you could separate the wheat from the chaff, what evidence could you provide for the skeptics that you are correct?

It is aggravating to see the “cop-out” like: it needs to be taken in conjunction with the other parts, or you need to consider the times when it was written. As it was displayed in the show “Dragnet”: “just the facts, ma’am”.

I am jealous. When I offered a different standard on another thread, it was just dismissed without being addressed.

I have no idea what you mean. Would you provide a link to the posts you have in mind?

 

[Dovekin]

This is my question: IF we had time travel, and IF we could go back in time, and observed the events, what are those parts of the bible which we both accept that they properly described these events?

The exegete’s question is different: If we read an account of an event, what is the author trying to tell us?

Gorgias was just pointing out that your definition of “literal” is not the same as is commonly used is the discussion of the Bible. You do not have to use the definition, just be aware of it.

“Just the facts” is the “cop out.” Complaining about hairsplitting is not the behavior promised with “I am very much willing to entertain your suggestions.”

 

[IQ170]

The exegete’s question is different: If we read an account of an event, what is the author trying to tell us?

Looks like we are unable to find a common platform for a conversation. I am only interested in facts, not the intent of the author. I am able to make my interpretation based upon the information presented.

Gorgias was just pointing out that your definition of “literal” is not the same as is commonly used is the discussion of the Bible. You do not have to use the definition, just be aware of it.

This is why I clarified with the “just the facts, ma’am”, which is NOT a cop-out. It is the very antithesis of a cop-out.