Philosophy: Losing Causality

[Truthstalker]

If you deny causality, someone said, you just lost reason.

Justify this statement.

How, I have no idea. It would seem to be an observation. It would also seem to be that causality is implicit to and part of the definition of reason. Just to be ornery, let us say there is a position that says cauality is not integral to reason. What does that do to the universe?

 

[Verisimilitude]

If you deny causality, someone said, you just lost reason.

Justify this statement.

How, I have no idea. It would seem to be an observation. It would also seem to be that causality is implicit to and part of the definition of reason. Just to be ornery, let us say there is a position that says cauality is not integral to reason. What does that do to the universe?

Do you mean:
If something is rejected by reason, is that something a casualty of the argument?

If 2 apples+2 apples=5 apples is rejected because I only have 4 apples. What is the significance to call 5 a casualty and not just wrong?

I’m not sure how you are relating reason/casualty to the universe.

 

[dylanschrader]

Causality is integral to Reason because Reason has to do with our ability to understand the relationships underlying objects. If objects are not related causally at all, then we have no way of knowing them and also know way of knowing relationships among them.

 

[john_doran]

Causality is integral to Reason because Reason has to do with our ability to understand the relationships underlying objects. If objects are not related causally at all, then we have no way of knowing them and also know way of knowing relationships among them.

this sounds right: without causality, there is no basis for scientific reasoning.

there may be a basis for a more general connection between causality and reason if we suppose, for instance, that true propositions (or statements or sentences, depending on what you identify as the bearers of truth) cause true beliefs.

 

[dylanschrader]

Causality is given. Anyone who asks for a proof of the Law of Causality is already assuming it.

To ask for a justification of the statement “reason is lost without causality” is to ask for a judgment about a causal relationship between causality and reason.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is the background to the OP.

dylanschrader:

Causality is integral to Reason because Reason has to do with our ability to understand the relationships underlying objects. If objects are not related causally at all, then we have no way of knowing them and also know way of knowing relationships among them.

Give the man a cigar!

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

The reference which Truthstalker gives in the OP starts in this thread:

dylanschrader:

If your asking about different types of logic itself, I would be careful. Any system of logic that is in reality unreasonable, that is, any system which would not uphold basic laws like causality, non-contradiction, conservation, etc. is problematic. #3

Ani Ibi being a troublemaker:

Hasn’t causality been demonstrated not to exist at the quantum level? #4

dylanschrader:

No. Even if quantum events are unpredictable, etc. even if it seems that electrons pop in and out of existence or other similar phenomena, things don’t happen for no reason. Even the idea that observation affects the behavior of particles upholds causality.

But how does the idea that observation affects the behavior of particles upholds causality?

This is answered in an article by Stephen Hawking. Read this on how Hawking takes Heisenberg’s thinking on the Principle of Uncertainty and returns quantum physics back to the land of causality.

Then read #13 and #20 and #24 further down on the thread.
Ani Ibi:

I do not think that am defending causality. I am saying that causality does not depend on what we thought it depended on before Feynman, Hawking, and the others. Observation is part of causality. It wasn’t before. An illusion existed before as to the impartial observer.

There is further causality discussion on a second thread.

The discussion ended up in these two posts on a third thread:

nobody:

Albert Einstein said (quoting from my imperfect memory here) “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”.

Ani Ibi:

He said this to Heisenberg whose observations brought into question the law of causality.

Einstein knew better. He knew what it would take a century for other scientists to prove. Causality is a done deal.

If we lose causality then we lose logic. And, with observation being in the tenuous state it is these days in the quantum world, observation ain’t much good either.

We’d lose both poles of science [theory and observation] and be left with nothing we could know…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

dylanschrader:

Causality is given. Anyone who asks for a proof of the Law of Causality is already assuming it.

Nice move.

 

[Truthstalker]

Causality is given. Anyone who asks for a proof of the Law of Causality is already assuming it.

To ask for a justification of the statement “reason is lost without causality” is to ask for a judgment about a causal relationship between causality and reason.

You are assuming that the only way to prove anything is with a causal relationship. Many things exist together without a causal relationship, such a peanut butter and ostrich eggs, or Latin and sukiyaki, or yaks and canoes. Reason is not limited to causation.

Do not ask me to explain the examples in the previous paragraph. Please.

 

[dylanschrader]

Give the man a cigar!

I’d better be careful; there’s another thread on whether smoking is a mortal sin.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You are assuming that the only way to prove anything is with a causal relationship. Many things exist together without a causal relationship, such a peanut butter and ostrich eggs, or Latin and sukiyaki, or yaks and canoes. Reason is not limited to causation.

Do not ask me to explain the examples in the previous paragraph. Please.

How much is it worth to ya?

By the way you are talking about correlation. Can you know something through correlation, without proving causality?

 

[dylanschrader]

You are assuming that the only way to prove anything is with a causal relationship. Many things exist together without a causal relationship, such a peanut butter and ostrich eggs, or Latin and sukiyaki, or yaks and canoes. Reason is not limited to causation.

Do not ask me to explain the examples in the previous paragraph. Please.

First of all, contingent things (anything that does not exist in itself) exist because of other things. Peanut butter exists because peanuts exist, because human beings exist to make peanut butter, because human beings had the materials necessary to make peanut butter, etc., and most of all because God holds peanut butter in existence. These are causal relationships.

What is a proof?

A proof shows reasons (material, formal, efficient, and final causes) for the truth of something.

 

[cpayne]

I have a question about something Ani Ibi posted before: “Observation is part of causality. It wasn’t before. An illusion existed before as to the impartial observer.”

Assume this is true at the particle level (which I accept, but still have problems accepting). Do these sentences still hold true at the level of unaided sensory observations? If so, I don’t see how. (This, as you see, is partly an argument, but it really is mostly a question.) In other words, above the particle level, I still do not see observation as part of causality. How is it so?

 

[cpayne]

I have a question about something Ani Ibi posted before: “Observation is part of causality. It wasn’t before. An illusion existed before as to the impartial observer.”

Assume this is true at the particle level (which I accept, but still have problems accepting). Do these sentences still hold true at the level of unaided sensory observations? If so, I don’t see how. (This, as you see, is partly an argument, but it really is mostly a question.) In other words, above the particle level, I still do not see observation as part of causality. How is it so?

Okay, I read the article Ani Ibi linked, on Hawking’s idea of backward causality. However, as Hawking himself admits, “From inside the universe, though - from the only place we can possibly be - no observer sees causality violated.” So even if observation is part of causality at the macro level, it seems to me that it can’t be KNOWN as such. (On top of being massively counter-intuitive, especially causality of the “backwards” variety.)

(Talking to myself) I’ve got too much to do; I CANNOT get involved in this discussion. Bye (for now).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

above the particle level, I still do not see observation as part of causality. How is it so?

I suppose in myriad ways.

One comes to mind. If a deer is grazing on my front lawn but I don’t see it as a deer, but as a rabbid dingo, then I might shoot it.

The way I observe and what I observe has set in motion a chain of events. That chain of events is causal.

Observation is relative to what we think we already know about something.

Therefore what we think we know about something has a causal component on how we relate to that something.

 

[cpayne]

Hmm. Okay–I thought the idea was more consequential than that, however. I can understand that my observations (mistaken, in this example) causally affect my actions (the shooting), and my actions causally affect the object observed (the deer). But I thought the idea was that somehow my observations had a causal effect on the object observed, even apart from any actions on my part?

 

[cpayne]

I can’t stand Kant, either. (As long as I’m philosophically in over my head, anyway.)

 

[Truthstalker]

Hmm. Okay–I thought the idea was more consequential than that, however. I can understand that my observations (mistaken, in this example) causally affect my actions (the shooting), and my actions causally affect the object observed (the deer). But I thought the idea was that somehow my observations had a causal effect on the object observed, even apart from any actions on my part?

I don’t think anyone is saying that if you think it is a dingo, it is a dingo, and if you think it is a deer, it is a deer, depending on your observation. General semantics can be misrepresented as coming close, and a semantic philosophy (“it is as you define it”) can do the same thing, and erroneous presuppositions can do the same (it may look like a dingo, but only deer can be on my lawn, so it must be a deer). I am not sure Hawkings isn’t saying that if you think it is a dingo, somehow its history is that of a dingo (even if there is no such thing as a dingo that appears on yards, except now there is, because you thought it up). How he defends against this I am not sure.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If you deny causality, someone said, you just lost reason.

Justify this statement.

How, I have no idea. It would seem to be an observation. It would also seem to be that causality is implicit to and part of the definition of reason. Just to be ornery, let us say there is a position that says cauality is not integral to reason. What does that do to the universe?

I thought that causation was given up in science many years ago. I’m (mis ?)remembering a discussion of causation in C.E.M. Joad’s book “God and Evil”, which was published in 1943. He gives a description of causation which does seem to leave no need for it, on physical grounds.​

Go to pages 118-121 of the book

What do quantum physicists say about this ? Is there a difference between causation in physics, & causality ?

 

[cpayne]

I thought that causation was given up in science many years ago. I’m (mis ?)remembering a discussion of causation in C.E.M. Joad’s book “God and Evil”, which was published in 1943. He gives a description of causation which does seem to leave no need for it, on physical grounds.​

Go to pages 118-121 of the book

What do quantum physicists say about this ? Is there a difference between causation in physics, & causality ?

Well, I know that science has given up on “final” causation, but I think science still describes material and efficient causation, and the biological classification system seems an awful lot like a “formal causation” type of description.

As for quantum physics–well, as I said earlier, I’m in over my head anyway.

P.S. Even though science has given up on final causation, I personally think scientists smuggle in a lot of final causation language. For example, “Blood clotting occurs not only to stop bleeding, but also to help prevent infection.” “Sea turtles swim ashore in order to lay their eggs.” And so on. If unintelligent nature has such intentions, wouldn’t they be put there by an intentional intelligence? (Aquinas’s 5th argument for God.)

But my biologist friend thinks I’m way wrong.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Well, I know that science has given up on “final” causation

No. Hawking rescued it and brought it back into the fold.

okgrouputer.blogspot.com/2006/05/heisenberg-lsd-stephen-hawkings.html

cpayne:

but I think science still describes material and efficient causation, and the biological classification system seems an awful lot like a “formal causation” type of description.

OK.

cpayne:

As for quantum physics–well, as I said earlier, I’m in over my head anyway.

Quantum physics is about the small. Classical physics is about the large. It was quantum physics which questioned causality. In the article I linked above, Heisenbergs double-slit experiment (questioning causality) is described.