Cause and Effect

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

Suppose we say A caused B, then the question would arise to what caused A? If it's x, then what caused x? And so forth. Is this infinite regress? Does that mean no cause can ever be found? But isn't all science based on understanding causal relationships?

Besides, Marxism does work on the cause-effect assumption...crowning capitalism as the cause of all the current evils like exploitation of labor etc. So if we were to disregard this, how do we make sense of what's happening around us?

[Buffalo Souljah]

Platonists and Christian philosophers would argue that there is some final cause which acts ex nihilo or deus ex machina to create the conditions of other causes. Anselm has his famous ontological proof of God, in which he asserts
"For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one that can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then. so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being though art, O Lord, our God." Kant naturally disproved this in his
Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of
the Existence of God, in which the idea of God is seperated from the cognition of God, and where it is stated that

"The notion of a Supreme Being is in many respects a highly useful
idea; but for the very reason that it is an idea, it is incapable of
enlarging our cognition with regard to the existence of things. It
is not even sufficient to instruct us as to the possibility of a being
which we do not know to exist." Kant was still an idealist and believed there were certain a priori cognitions which we are aware of innately, ie, time and space. David Hume, on the other hand, who was a materialist, would argue that there can be no assumption made as to the causality of two particular events: in essence, what Hume is saying is that if I were, for instance, to release my grip on a glass jar that I was holding above the ground, there is nothing but empirical data to tell me that anything at all should happen, and that my postulates are based upon this data and not upon any factual data. This argument is interesting in that it dismisses outrightly any causality or notion of consequences. Quantum theory has taken this argument to another level by asserting that, when a particle is observed from its atomic and sub-atomic stratum, it is very likely that it serves two or more positions simultaneously, and as such, conjectures about objects at the atomic and sub-atomic level are contingent to our present knowledge of the behavior of particles at that level of reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pyotr:


Does that mean no cause can ever be found?

You mean 'final cause', I think.

If we want to know what caused, say, a car crash, we do not look beyond the contributing causes -- the state of the road, the weather conditions, the state of the driver, the condition and speed of the car/lorry/bus, etc. No one says, "Ah, but you have ignored the Black Death, the demise of the dinosaurs, and the origin of the solar system..."

So, our concept of cause does not involve the infinite regress that seems to worry you, nor is it in any way related to the bogus worries of philosophers, who are intertested in 'causes', not causes.

[ZeroNowhere]

Besides, Marxism does work on the cause-effect assumption...crowning capitalism as the cause of all the current evils like exploitation of labor etc. So if we were to disregard this, how do we make sense of what's happening around us?Not really, because the statement, 'The current crisis is caused by the beginning of life on Earth' doesn't show much other than a useless use of the word 'caused'.

[syndicat]

Typically in an explanation there are two kinds of conditions that are referred to. If we ask, "What caused the collapse of the bridge?" a person might refer to a big truck that tried to cross the bridge. This event, they might say, is "the cause." That is, often when people speak of "the cause" they have in mind the precipitating or occasioning cause. But that isn't enough for a complete explanation.

If the bridge had greater structural strength, or if it hadn't been deteriorating in recent years, with various stress cracks showing up, etc, then it might not have collapsed. So we have to look at the various capacities, structural features, powers, susceptibilities of the things in the situation where the event occurred.

If I scratch a wooden kitchen match on the rough leather sole of my shoe, and it bursts into flame, the scratching was the occasioning cause of the match bursting into flame, but it wouldn't have happened if the match stick was rubbery so I couldn't get friction, or if the matchhead were wet, or if the matchhead had a defective chemical batch that wasn't sufficiently flammable, or if I'd scratched it in a vacuum. So, being dry, having a rigid enough match, a flammable material in the head, etc. are structural causes.

The sciences are interested in the structural or capacity aspects of explanation because these are more general and may include elements that figure in other explanations. So, when Marx talks about the "laws of motion" of capitalism, he's talking thus about a structural cause.

[The New Consciousness]

The universe is just a tangled web of chaotic, infinite chain reactions without beginning or end and we are part of this mad dance. Our suffering is a failure to realise this.

The only thing we can actually aspire to is to attain awareness for awareness is beyond the world of cause and effect. Sadly the path to that awareness is conditioned by the chain events on this planet. The plus side is that all those who have experienced this awareness feel the necessity of propagating it, potentially setting others on the same path.

We haven't seen a mass-awakening yet but it could happen. Impossible to say though.

[newsocialism]

Nature doesn't work with causes and effects, nor is it aware of them. They are our terms in order to explain the phenomenon. But, there is a problem. There would be no clear-cut causes, or effects if we could grasp the matter from all of its aspects. For example: I took a stone from the soil, threw it to the air, it felt and created a small crater on the soil. Cause: I threw the stone Effect: A crater was created. However, there are a lot of causes and effects.

Cause: I have muscles to throw the stone
Effect: I change the position of the stone
Cause: I transform carbohydrates to energy to throw the stone
Effect: I can throw it and change it's position
Cause: Atoms of the stones have a mass
Effect: Stone can create a small crater when it falls on the soil
and so forth.....
There are maybe countless causes and effects beyond only one cause or one effect. We humans don't have a skill to see the things from a wider aspect. We do specialize things. We make reductions in order to understand what is going on around us. They sometimes lead us to an abyss of questions without a clear answer. There are other mathematical odds. There is an example which my math teacher told me. I don't remember who discovered this principle but here it is: You throw an arrow to an apple. You divide the way that arrow goes while it advances. But each time you divide, the numbers shrink, but cannot be zero. According to this, an arrow never hits to it's target. Similarly, we might think that there is endless chains of causes, but maybe there is not. Another logical or mathematical model might yet to be discovered.

[Belisarius]

There are other mathematical odds. There is an example which my math teacher told me. I don't remember who discovered this principle but here it is: You throw an arrow to an apple. You divide the way that arrow goes while it advances. But each time you divide, the numbers shrink, but cannot be zero. According to this, an arrow never hits to it's target. Similarly, we might think that there is endless chains of causes, but maybe there is not. Another logical or mathematical model might yet to be discovered.
Zeno of Elea, a greek philosopher, invented this paradox. he wanted to prove that motion is an illusion.

[syndicat]

You throw an arrow to an apple. You divide the way that arrow goes while it advances. But each time you divide, the numbers shrink, but cannot be zero.

Assumes must be a finite number of "divisions". But there aren't. There is an uncountable infinity of divisions. But each segment also encompasses an uncountable infiinity of divisions. That's what a continuum is. but the arrow hits the target nonetheless.

[therockman]

Nature doesn't work with causes and effects, nor is it aware of them. They are our terms in order to explain the phenomenon. But, there is a problem. There would be no clear-cut causes, or effects if we could grasp the matter from all of its aspects. For example: I took a stone from the soil, threw it to the air, it felt and created a small crater on the soil. Cause: I threw the stone Effect: A crater was created. However, there are a lot of causes and effects.

Cause: I have muscles to throw the stone
Effect: I change the position of the stone
Cause: I transform carbohydrates to energy to throw the stone
Effect: I can throw it and change it's position
Cause: Atoms of the stones have a mass
Effect: Stone can create a small crater when it feels on the soil
and so forth.....
There are maybe countless causes and effects beyond only one cause or one effect. We humans don't have a skill to see the things from a wider aspect. We do specialize things. We make reductions in order to understand what is going on around us. They sometimes lead us to an abyss of questions without a clear answer. There are other mathematical odds. There is an example which my math teacher told me. I don't remember who discovered this principle but here it is: You throw an arrow to an apple. You divide the way that arrow goes while it advances. But each time you divide, the numbers shrink, but cannot be zero. According to this, an arrow never hits to it's target. Similarly, we might think that there is endless chains of causes, but maybe there is not. Another logical or mathematical model might yet to be discovered.



This is great, but I would also like to add that modern science is founded on the principles of quatum mechanics which disproves any theoretical notion of cause and effect. To believe in cause and effect is to discount all of modern physics.

[therockman]

Suppose we say A caused B, then the question would arise to what caused A? If it's x, then what caused x? And so forth. Is this infinite regress? Does that mean no cause can ever be found? But isn't all science based on understanding causal relationships?

Besides, Marxism does work on the cause-effect assumption...crowning capitalism as the cause of all the current evils like exploitation of labor etc. So if we were to disregard this, how do we make sense of what's happening around us?



This sounds like you believe in freewill. That is such a quaint idea.

[Muzk]

To believe in cause and effect is to discount all of modern physics.


Why?

[therockman]

Why?



As I indicated in my original post, modern physics is based on the concepts of quantum mechanics. The principles of quantum mechanics utilize the concept of non-determinicy and also wave-particle duality. Both of these scientific principles rule out cause and effect. In fact, the whole field of quantum mechanics and quantum thermodynamics rule out any idea of cause and effect in the real world.

[Muzk]

Please explain because I always believed in cause and effect...

Is the peoples behavior still dependant on cause and effect? Or what is it?

[Lynx]

Why would quantum mechanical effects apply at the micro or macro level?

[syndicat]

It seems like someone is confusing determinacy with causality. These are logically independent concepts. A cause can be a probabilistic cause. It isn't necessary to assume that all causes have an iron law in the relationship. When we say, smoking causes cancer, this is verified by showing that smoking greatly increases the probability of one's getting lung cancer. But there is no claim that this must happen.

[Muzk]

A cause can be a probabilistic cause.


But my materialist logic tells me that there's no such thing as luck or probablity, it's just that we as humans put "possibilities" on things where we can't perfectly measure / foresee some things. We know that 2+2 will be 4, even tomorrow, as a simple example... What else could there be other than cause and effect?

As long as this doesn't refute materialism I'm okay with "quantum mechanics".


Or someone should open a thread where one can fully explain why materialism is wrong (and cause and effect)
I don't think it's enough to say "your whole life depends on how the quantum level of your atoms behaves..."

Screw my nonsense, cause and effect IS right, and there is no such thing as luck and probability - it's just that we, as humans, can't foresee the future. Never.
(Actually we can if we really don't even miss out 1 factor...)

[Paul Cockshott]

Assumes must be a finite number of "divisions". But there aren't. There is an uncountable infinity of divisions. But each segment also encompasses an uncountable infiinity of divisions. That's what a continuum is. but the arrow hits the target nonetheless.

You are assuming that space is continuous, it very probably is not. QM in conjunction with relativity indicates a smallest unit of space of the order of 10^-34 meters ( Planck Dimension)

[Paul Cockshott]

As I indicated in my original post, modern physics is based on the concepts of quantum mechanics. The principles of quantum mechanics utilize the concept of non-determinicy and also wave-particle duality. Both of these scientific principles rule out cause and effect. In fact, the whole field of quantum mechanics and quantum thermodynamics rule out any idea of cause and effect in the real world.
That is a bit of an over simplification, the evolution of the quantum state of a system is still strictly deterministic, but what evolves deterministically is the amplitude of the sub states of the system.

[therockman]

It seems like someone is confusing determinacy with causality. These are logically independent concepts. A cause can be a probabilistic cause. It isn't necessary to assume that all causes have an iron law in the relationship. When we say, smoking causes cancer, this is verified by showing that smoking greatly increases the probability of one's getting lung cancer. But there is no claim that this must happen.



I like your logic and your explanation. I will try to reframe my physical explanation of cause and effect but take into account your perspective.

[therockman]

That is a bit of an over simplification, the evolution of the quantum state of a system is still strictly deterministic, but what evolves deterministically is the amplitude of the sub states of the system.



I am glad to see that there are some here that are familiar with quantum mechanics. Actually every moment in space-time is a temporary manifestation of the energy/matter that make-up the material world. This materialism has a definate probability to manifest in a particular state of existance, and this is what you refer to. This "probability" of quantum mechanics is the same as your determinism, in a philosophical way. All this aside, I believe that your statement is correct and similar to what I said, except from a different perspective.

[syndicat]

But my materialist logic tells me that there's no such thing as luck or probablity, it's just that we as humans put "possibilities" on things where we can't perfectly measure / foresee some things. We know that 2+2 will be 4, even tomorrow, as a simple example... What else could there be other than cause and effect?


Determinism and materialism are not the same thing. Nowadays philosophers tend not to use the word "materialism" because in the 19th century it was ambiguous, and meant several different things. It meant:

1. The spatial world of interacting things revealed by our sensory experiences is real. This is nowadays called "realism."

2. The way we understand what happens is only in terms of the causality of the various entities that make up nature, that is, the physical cosmos. This is called "naturalism" nowadays.

3. The only entities that exist are entirely composed out of the sorts of entities that are posited as basic by the physical sciences, such as physical particles, waves, etc. This is called "physicalism".