Imagine if theoretical physicists considered causation optional: it would be the end or research. I think it's safe to continue assuming it, even though it is impossible to prove, because the success of science provides good inductive support to accept it as true (or at least, as highly likely to be true).

There remain som more interesting considerations: 1) is causation present due to physical necessity or metaphysical necessity? 2) if everything that exists has been caused, does this imply an infinite causal chain? If not, then this implies something exists (or existed) that was not caused.

Pattern-chaser
1k
↪Relativist
I'm merely curious about a long-accepted axiom. In recent years, I've read of causeless effects, and effects that chronologically precede their causes. I wonder if the axiom is still 'safe' for use? Is it always the case that an effect has - and maybe must have - a cause? — Pattern-chaser

Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...

...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...

...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."

It is nonsense.

No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap.

Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...

...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...

...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."

It is nonsense.

No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap. — Frank Apisa

Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible?

Relativist
534

Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...

...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...

...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."

It is nonsense.

No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap. — Frank Apisa

Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible? — Relativist

We are of one mind in the cause/effect; creation/creator semantic issue.

That last part I'd have to think about a long time...and I doubt I could come up with a strong conviction for my inclination. My inclination is that "brute facts" are possible. Whether humans can figure out what is a fact and what is not...is the question that initially intrudes for me.

Some things simply ARE. Whether we humans know they ARE or not...does not impact on whether they ARE or not...or at least, I do not think it does. (It may.)

Here's my take on brute facts. Consider the Principle of Sufficient Reason (a version popularized by William Lane Craig), which states: Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause

Why think this is true? Because it appears everything has been caused. This seems reasonable - within the context of the universe (broadly defined as "all of material existence"). There's a causal chain that reaches back, either into an infinite past or to initial conditions (or "first cause"). Setting aside an infinite causal chain (which I find objectionable), I settle on there being a first cause - which is itself uncaused. What is its nature? EITHER it is something that exists out of metaphysical necessity, or it exists as brute fact. Theists rule out brute facts because we don't know of any brute facts existing. But on the other hand, we don't know of any necessary existents that are causally efficacious (i.e. the only thing we know that exists necessarily are abstractions, like the law of non-contradiction).

Therefore, at minimum, I think it reasonable to argue that that it is at least as likely that brute facts exist as it is for a necessarily existing non-physical creator to exist. I lean strongly toward brute fact because it cannot be shown that a creator has properties that exist necessarily (theists simply assume the properties are necessary).

I personally see no reason to embrace the PSR as anything more than a description of what we tend to do. — pomophobe

I personally agree. :wink:

...the success of science provides good inductive support to accept [causation] as true (or at least, as highly likely to be true). — Relativist

Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why.

And finally, should we conclude that causation is "highly likely" to be true? If we have reason - reason based on the scientific discipline of statistics, that is - then yes, of course we should. But do we have any statistical justification at all for assigning a numerical probability to the supposed truth of causation? No, I don't think we do.

Most important of all: nothing I have written here points to the collapse of causation, or of science. I am only trying to explore the long-held axiom of causation, to see if there is anything to be learned, other than blind acceptance.

IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible? — Relativist

I agree! It would be exciting if we could show that some effects are causeless, or maybe that the causes of some effects follow them chronologically. Exciting because it would be a new discovery, promising new conclusions, and maybe new avenues of research. But neither science nor the universe offers novelty for its own sake. The likelihood is that causation will remain axiomatic, because it looks to be true. For the sake of accuracy, we'll leave it as vague as that. :smile: :up:

Some things simply ARE. Whether we humans know they ARE or not...does not impact on whether they ARE or not...or at least, I do not think it does. (It may.) — Frank Apisa

:smile: :smile: :smile:

Theists rule out brute facts because we don't know of any brute facts existing. But on the other hand, we don't know of any necessary existents that are causally efficacious (i.e. the only thing we know that exists necessarily are abstractions, like the law of non-contradiction).

Therefore, at minimum, I think it reasonable to argue that that it is at least as likely that brute facts exist as it is for a necessarily existing non-physical creator to exist. I lean strongly toward brute fact because it cannot be shown that a creator has properties that exist necessarily (theists simply assume the properties are necessary). — Relativist

I'm really uneasy about introducing theism or atheism into this topic. Uneasy because I see no justification for that introduction. What does it add to the discussion? Little that I can see. There may or may not be brute facts (causeless effects). I wonder if we would realise their actual nature if we observed such things? Or would we just assume they were caused, and thereby miss them? Maybe.

An uncertain world is an interesting world.

Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it. — Pattern-chaser

A lot of people say this, but what would proof of causation look like? How do you know that we don't have proof of cause and effect? The assumption isnt just made up. There must be a reason for this assumption and why it is so common.

How do you know that we don't have proof of cause and effect? The assumption isnt just made up. There must be a reason for this assumption and why it is so common. — Harry Hindu

Because if we had a proof, we'd use it. No need for guesses (axioms), we'd justifiably assert the truth of causation, based on our proof, and that would be that.

I'm really uneasy about introducing theism or atheism into this topic. Uneasy because I see no justification for that introduction. What does it add to the discussion? — Pattern-chaser

I think the thought experiment is useful. Brute facts can't be proven to exist nor to be metaphysically impossible, but the causal chain provides some reason to think ultinate brute fact is fundamental to existence.

(I wish you'd stop using the semantically problematic term "causeless effect" instead of "brute fact").

Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little.

Well, the relevant point to make here is that causality is a pattern in the world at a human scale i.e. the world we experience through our naked senses and their extensions. This isn't entirely correct because there may be stuff going on inside our bodies, especially our brains (mind), that may be exempt from causality (freewill/determinism).

Another thing to note is the quantum world is, on some view, acausal/nondeterministic.

What we experience as causation on a human scale may not apply at another scale. For instance in the subatomic level radioactive decay is random. At the scale of the universe itself we don't know the cause for its expansion (Big Bang Theory).

Relativist
538

Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little. — Relativist

I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.

Zero, nil, none, zip.

Why do you consider that extreme?

Because if we had a proof, we'd use it. No need for guesses (axioms), we'd justifiably assert the truth of causation, based on our proof, and that would be that — Pattern-chaser

You skipped over the most important question in my post. Again, what would proof of causation look like? What reasons do we have to argue for causation? Why would anyone have posited such an idea and how did it become common if there is no proof?

In quantum physics, however, there are particles popping in and out of existence all the time. The famous outburst from Einstein about not playing dice with the universe is in relation to that. What causes these particles to pop in and out of existence? They seem to be exactly that, something out of nothing, then back to nothing. — Christoffer

Funnily enough, what that effectively suggests is that feasibly we're experiencing a "momentarily popped in" state within a "popping in and out of existence" overall dynamic.

This aligns, in its vast mysteriousness, with the proposal by certain physicists that there are countless "big bangs" happening continually throughout a broader reality beyond the edge of the universe. If I recall correctly, this is only a guess hazarded based on two dimensional images captured by some kind of (wave resonance?) imaging the name of which I don't even slightly remember.

But the notion is basically that these "big bangs" vary in magnitude and don't necessarily birth universes.

I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.

Zero, nil, none, zip. — Frank Apisa

Self contradiction:
Statement F: "I, for one, do not do any 'believing' at all."

Therefore you don't believe statement F.

Why do you consider that extreme?

There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently.

Do you NOT believe you are alive and have to do various things to stay that way? (eat, breath,...). Do you not make choices, and when doing so - do you not sometimes base it on expected outcomes (i.e. outcomes you believe might occur)?

Belief needn't equate to certainty.

Relativist
540

I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.

Zero, nil, none, zip. — Frank Apisa

Self contradiction:
Statement F: "I, for one, do not do any 'believing' at all."

Therefore you don't believe statement F. — Relativist

Not 'self-contradictory" at all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.

I KNOW IT.

Why do you consider that extreme?

There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently. — Relativeist

I have no idea of what in hell you are trying to sell here...but I am not buying.

A belief, in the context of "do gods exist or not"...is nothing but a blind guess.

No need to justify a blind guess.

One might want to think about why one is disguising a blind guess by calling it a "belief"...but it doesn't much matter.

Do you NOT believe you are alive and have to do various things to stay that way? (eat, breath,...). — Relativeist

No...I KNOW I am alive and that I have to eat, breathe, etc. in order to stay alive.

Do you not make choices, and when doing so - do you not sometimes base it on expected outcomes (i.e. outcomes you believe will occur)?

I "expect" lots of things...I "guess" lots of things...I "estimate" lots of things...I "suppose" lots of things.

When I do, I say that I expect, guess, estimate, suppose...those things. I do not disguise the fact that I am expecting, guessing, estimating, or supposing...by calling any of those things "believing."

As I said...I do not do "believing."

Not at all.

Not 'self-contradictory" at all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.

I KNOW IT. — Frank Apisa

Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F.

Relativist
542

Not 'self-contradictory" at all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.

I KNOW IT. — Frank Apisa

Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F. — Relativist

Bullshit!

In any case, I am totally willing to change F to "I suppose F to be true." Or "I guess F to be true." Or "I estimate F to be true." I "suppose" F to be true.

Whatever makes you happy.

BUT...I do not do "believing"...because I also estimate, guess, suppose, think, feel...that striking "believe" and "belief" from the lexicon would make planet Earth a more enjoyable place on which to exist. It would eliminate lots of contentious misunderstandings of what is being said in conversations where those words are used.

Said again: I do not do "believing."

Frank - It's not bullshit, as this shows:

" The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[5] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. "

I'm not the semantics police. Feel free to use words however you like, but try not to get mad when this leads to misinterpretation.

Relativist
543
↪Frank Apisa
Frank - It's not bullshit, as this shows:

" The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[5] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. "

I'm not the semantics police. Feel free to use words however you like, but try not to get mad when this leads to misinterpretation.
14 hours ago
Reply
Options — Relativist

C'mon, Relativist.

You quote one ancient philosopher from a Wikipedia comment...and expect that to be definitive.

And from an opening remark that begins with:

"Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. "

I DO NOT DO BELIEVING...which no matter what Plato or anyone else says. "Believing is the act of a person saying, "I believe...(x)..."

I DO NOT DO THAT.

If I suppose (x)...I say, "I suppose (x).

If I guess (x)...I say, "I guess (x).

If I estimate, propose, think, assume (x)...I say, I estimate or propose or think or assume (x).

I never say that I "believe" (x). So let's get off you telling me that I must "believe" something in order to write what I wrote...and to which you took exception.

I am telling you that I do not do "believing."

I wish more people would do the same. We would stop all this "I believe (in) God"; "I believe there are no gods" and crap like that, which, in a philosophical setting and discussion, should more properly and truthfully, be stated, "I guess or suppose there is a God" or "I guess or suppose there are no gods."

Now, with as much respect as I can show at this moment, let us please move on with the discussion, because I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

The things that you 'know', you act on them. You 'know' that such or such thing is going to happen in such or such situation, even though you may turn out to be wrong. Same goes with those who 'believe'. When they believe, they know that such or such thing is going to happen or not happen. You say you do not do believing because you call it knowing, but the thing that you do others call believing. Some people do not just guess that there is a god or no god, they 'know' it, based on what they have experienced.

Then some call a guess a belief, but it's a matter of semantics.

Frank - Terminology aside, your views seem pretty reasonable to me. I only brought up the standard terminology to explain how I had interpreted your comments. I wasn't trying to tell you what you "believe" or "know" or whatever words you care to use.

Relativist
544
↪Frank Apisa
Frank - Terminology aside, your views seem pretty reasonable to me. I only brought up the standard terminology to explain how I had interpreted your comments. I wasn't trying to tell you what you "believe" or "know" or whatever words you care to use. — Relativist

Thank you, Relativist.

I tend to over-react to people disputing (or if I think they are disputing)...

a) that I am NOT an atheist

b) that I do NOT do "believing"

c) that I am NOT a Democrat (although I champion a progressive agenda.)

Without re-reading my remarks, I probably went over the line in some of my responses to you on the "believing" issue.

I wish you'd stop using the semantically problematic term "causeless effect" instead of "brute fact" — Relativist

I'm afraid I prefer the former. I started this topic to consider cause-and-effect, and the possibility of causeless effects: effects that have no cause. The phrase "brute fact" is less well-known and therefore less well understood. And Wikipedia says "...brute facts may be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation)." This isn't exactly what I'm trying to get at. I'm focussing on spontaneous events, to give them another name, not mysterious facts.

Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. — Relativist

You say the success of science offers evidence, but you don't say what it is, and I can't see it in what you write. :chin: Then you follow up simply by asserting that causality should be assumed (i.e. accepted as an axiom). Why? Causality wasn't invented to facilitate science; science was built onto a pre-existing theoretical scaffold already founded by causality, and the other axioms that we usually use.

Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? — Relativist

Absolutely, yes. To have any other position than this would be to go beyond the available evidence - scientific heresy! :wink: - and to deny logic (in its everyday sense; I'm not advocating de Morgan's Theorem here).

That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little. — Relativist

Extreme? How can accepting what is be extreme? And yes, welcome to the world of uncertainty, the real world. Although I would have put it slightly differently: I believe all kinds of nonsense, as we all do, but I know very little, as you observe.

Well, the relevant point to make here is that causality is a pattern in the world at a human scale i.e. the world we experience through our naked senses and their extensions. — TheMadFool

Causality is certainly something we think we have identified, but have we? There are always different ways of looking at things. If we think A causes B, Pirsig suggests we can say that B values pre-condition A instead. I don't doubt there are many other ways we could look at this. Perhaps one of them might prove interesting?

We could also wonder if we would or could identify a causeless effect even if we saw one? Is our perception of the causality pattern an accurate perception? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just wondering....

what would proof of causation look like? What reasons do we have to argue for causation? Why would anyone have posited such an idea and how did it become common if there is no proof? — Harry Hindu

Good questions. I don't have answers, sadly, but they're good questions. Especially the last one. I imagine the idea became popular because it proved useful?