Is Causality Infinite?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by evolution »

arjand wrote: March 13th, 2021, 8:44 am
evolution wrote: March 13th, 2021, 4:53 am Are you here talking about the 'concept' of causality, and that that can only have a beginning, which can only be and is introduced by an observer?

Or, are you talking about the actual action/reaction process of 'causality', itself, which obviously had to be in existence before the observers known as human beings came into existence?
What is indicated is the concept causality and its (potential) applicability to reality. When it is indicated that causality can only derive significance by the idea of a begin that is introduced by the mind, this is not done to address the concept causality within the limited scope of a mental concept, but relative to how causality can actually find applicability to reality.
Why such a roundabout, thus detracting way, of just answering honestly and admitting that you have been talking about one or the other here?
arjand wrote: March 13th, 2021, 8:44 am My logic has shown that an action (i.e. value) cannot precede an observer because a pattern can only derive significance by observation, i.e. a pattern is 'bound' by observation. Therefor, your argument that the action/reaction process necessarily precedes the observer is invalid.
So, for the record, 'you', "arjand", are stating and claiming that the actions, which have caused the observers known as 'human beings' to have come into existence, through an evolutionary process, could NOT have happened and occurred because these observers HAD TO have existed FIRST, correct?

Also, and by the way, the fact that ONLY observers can RECOGNIZE 'patterns', and thus ANY actual, or alleged, 'significance' derived of a 'pattern' by observation has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what came first. OBVIOUSLY, what CAUSED and CREATED the observer came BEFORE the observer. This goes WITHOUT speaking.

If a pattern is 'bound' by observation, then this does NOT mean the 'things', which eventually evolved to come to recognize and see patterns, came BEFORE what caused 'them' to come to exist. In other words the fact that human beings have evolved to recognize and see 'patterns' within the Universe, Itself, does NOT mean that human beings were here BEFORE thee Universe, Itself.

If you REALLY BELIEVE that the Universe and Its action/reaction process did NOT necessarily precede the observer, 'human being', then that is one thing, but to declare that 'invalid' because of and through 'your' OWN, so called "logic", then I think you might find some difficulty in expressing 'your' "logic" to "others" and having them agree with and accept 'your' "logic" here.

If you REALLY want to BELIEVE that the observer, human being, was created and thus came into existence without ANY prior 'action', then so be it. You are completely and utterly FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. But just do NOT expect to have 'your' OWN BELIEFS understood nor accepted.

When I mention an observer, I do not indicate an individual human, but the observer as a principle (observer per se).[/quote]

Which is 'what', EXACTLY?

As I have alluded to previously. What EVERY one in this forum has as, and at, their deepest, underlying view/motive, which they are here 'trying to' fight and/or argue for, is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct. But until 'we' work TOGETHER to better understand each "other", then what this final and/or ultimate Truth, or True answer, IS, which is wanting to EXPRESSED and SHOWN, will NOT come to light and be SEEN.

Until we work TOGETHER to find the RIGHT words, which we ALL agree with and accept, then 'you', human beings, will continue on in that lost and confused state, which you are in now, when this is written and have been in since 'you' came to exist.

What I found as the BEST WAY to understand "each other" in order to FULLY understand "each other" and thus discover thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is to just ask for CLARITY to, and then RECEIVE CLARITY from, "each other".

So, when you can put a name to what this 'thing' ACTUALLY IS, which has the ability to observe, from what 'you' CLAIM is BEFORE absolutely ANY 'action' could even take place, then I can logically, and literally, LISTEN to 'you' and what you HAVE TO SAY. Until then, 'you' are NOT giving 'us' all that much to LOOK AT and SEE, really.
arjand wrote: March 13th, 2021, 8:44 am Do you agree that what you indicate as an action/reaction process cannot precede 'the observer'?
No.

Look, what I actually agree with will come to light, soon enough. I am just 'trying to' get 'you', human beings, to find, and to use, your OWN words, which 'you' ALL will agree with and accept, voluntarily.

It is in the process of FINDING your OWN words, which you ALL agree with and accept, WHERE thee ACTUAL Truth is HIDING, and thus WHERE thee Truth will BE FOUND.

Oh, and by the way, could it be possible that the action/reaction process does not precede thee 'Observer' but actually exists WITH and because of thee 'Observer', ALWAYS?

Could it be a possibility that thee 'Observer' and the action/reaction process just co-exist TOGETHER, ALWAYS?

In other words, could it be possible that there could just not be one WITHOUT the other?

Or, does the 'observer' HAVE TO exist prior to the action/reaction process?
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by NickGaspar »

arjand wrote: March 13th, 2021, 8:44 am
evolution wrote: March 13th, 2021, 4:53 am Are you here talking about the 'concept' of causality, and that that can only have a beginning, which can only be and is introduced by an observer?

Or, are you talking about the actual action/reaction process of 'causality', itself, which obviously had to be in existence before the observers known as human beings came into existence?
What is indicated is the concept causality and its (potential) applicability to reality. When it is indicated that causality can only derive significance by the idea of a begin that is introduced by the mind, this is not done to address the concept causality within the limited scope of a mental concept, but relative to how causality can actually find applicability to reality.

My logic has shown that an action (i.e. value) cannot precede an observer because a pattern can only derive significance by observation, i.e. a pattern is 'bound' by observation. Therefor, your argument that the action/reaction process necessarily precedes the observer is invalid.

When I mention an observer, I do not indicate an individual human, but the observer as a principle (observer per se).

Do you agree that what you indicate as an action/reaction process cannot precede 'the observer'?
Actions/reactions are the reason why observers (individual human beings) exist in the first place.
The process(actions/reactions in the past) responsible for our Universe is what we observe in cosmology.
Observers are thinking agents. Thinking agents make observations. Observers as a principle is a semantically null statement if you don't explain what it means to have an observer as a principle.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by popeye1945 »

There was only one cause, though it may be an oscillating universe so repetitive. The cause is the big bang, all after that is a compound reaction. There is no human action but simply reaction, if one needs to be motivated/moved within, in order to move without, the motivated response is a reaction. If you are puzzled at someones physical behaviour isn't it reasonable to wonder what they are reacting to. There is an end to compound reaction and it comes with the dissipation of energy.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by NickGaspar »

popeye1945 wrote: April 17th, 2021, 1:24 am There was only one cause, though it may be an oscillating universe so repetitive. The cause is the big bang, all after that is a compound reaction. There is no human action but simply reaction, if one needs to be motivated/moved within, in order to move without, the motivated response is a reaction. If you are puzzled at someones physical behaviour isn't it reasonable to wonder what they are reacting to. There is an end to compound reaction and it comes with the dissipation of energy.
The big bag is not a "cause". Its a label we use for a descriptive framework on an observable process.
Any reaction acts as a cause for an effect. "Cause" is an observer relative term.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by popeye1945 »

The big bag is not a "cause". Its a label we use for a descriptive framework on an observable process.
Any reaction acts as a cause for an effect. "Cause" is an observer relative term.
[/quote]

Hi Nick!
Is it not a cause because it is an oscillation? Yes, it is semantics if you do not think of it as a compound reaction, then every event is both reaction and cause. I agree the universe is a process, one can extrapolate the earth environment is a process by the same means. I am trying to understand where you are coming from, anything we come to understand is an observable process, and everything is relative.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by NickGaspar »

popeye1945 wrote: April 17th, 2021, 5:53 pm The big bag is not a "cause". Its a label we use for a descriptive framework on an observable process.
Any reaction acts as a cause for an effect. "Cause" is an observer relative term.
Hi Nick!
Is it not a cause because it is an oscillation? Yes, it is semantics if you do not think of it as a compound reaction, then every event is both reaction and cause. I agree the universe is a process, one can extrapolate the earth environment is a process by the same means. I am trying to understand where you are coming from, anything we come to understand is an observable process, and everything is relative.
[/quote]

-No its just a label based on facts of a phenomenon resembling an explosion. The Big Bang framework describes the characteristics of an expanding universe NOT the cause behind this process. We have other hypotheses that attempt to tackle the cause.

-" Yes, it is semantics if you do not think of it as a compound reaction"
-I don't know what that means....

-" then every event is both reaction and cause."
- That is a vague description. An event can be a reaction and also cause an other event to happen. A process of events is a common phenomenon in nature. The question is where ,we as observers, decide to start describing a process.

-"I agree the universe is a process, one can extrapolate the earth environment is a process by the same means. "
-Correctly. We as entities are the end result of individual biological processes.

-"I am trying to understand where you are coming from, anything we come to understand is an observable process, and everything is relative."
-Yes in science we no longer explain the world through special sustenance (Phlogiston, miasma, orgone etc) or special entities (gods demons spirits etc).
All emergent phenomena are products of processes realized by lower level mechanism and properties by high level features of complex physical structures. This is our current Scientific Paradigm and it has a huge descriptive power.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by popeye1945 »

Hi Nick,

"The big bag is not a "cause". Its a label we use for a descriptive framework on an observable process.
Any reaction acts as a cause for an effect. "Cause" is an observer relative term."

Ok, I get it the bang itself was not observed itself. Rather than call it cause and effect I still think it might be more appropriate to call it a compound reaction, particularly as it leads into an interpersonal misconception. I have stated it else where that what is called human action is itself a reaction, a movement motivated is necessarily a reaction.

"-No its just a label based on facts of a phenomenon resembling an explosion. The Big Bang framework describes the characteristics of an expanding universe NOT the cause behind this process. We have other hypotheses that attempt to tackle the cause.''

OK, I get that too, but I am not familar with these other hypotheses as explanations of cause.

-" Yes, it is semantics if you do not think of it as a compound reaction"
-I don't know what that means."

Well, both kind of make sense, cause and effect really is the same as a compound reaction, but like I said it later causes some problems. If one wants to understand the behaviour of another, rather than just believe he is acting out of a void, is it not better to ask, what is he reacting to?

-" then every event is both reaction and cause."
- That is a vague description. An event can be a reaction and also cause an other event to happen. A process of events is a common phenomenon in nature. The question is where ,we as observers, decide to start describing a process.''

Ok, If you start describing from the point of cause, you must realize that cause is caused by its reaction and the causing it does is itself reaction, or it is compound reaction.

-"I agree the universe is a process, one can extrapolate the earth environment is a process by the same means. "

"-Correctly. We as entities are the end result of individual biological processes."
Agreed!

"All emergent phenomena are products of processes realized by lower level mechanism and properties by high level features of complex physical structures. This is our current Scientific Paradigm and it has a huge descriptive power."

Wow! I am impressed. I kind of had an inkling about the emergent process, but you've refired my interest. I am all ears!!
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by NickGaspar »

popeye1945 wrote: April 17th, 2021, 10:16 pm

-"Ok, I get it the bang itself was not observed itself. Rather than call it cause and effect I still think it might be more appropriate to call it a compound reaction, particularly as it leads into an interpersonal misconception. I have stated it else where that what is called human action is itself a reaction, a movement motivated is necessarily a reaction."
-My question is simple, why using those assumptions without any objective evidence? Why using the term "compound" when we don't have a clue on whether different elements were combined . Sure, Human actions are mainly "reactions" in relation to what is registered by our sensory system, but I don't know if we can address the question "is causality infinite" by looking things at a biological scale. To be honest, I don't know if the question is meaningful.
Do I believe that different kind of elements came together, form a compound and started reacting?(this is what I understand by your term compound reaction). If I am correctly steel manning your statement then I see a gap in that narrative. What elements are those and what caused the to form a compound. Pls correct me if I misrepresent your idea.

"OK, I get that too, but I am not familar with these other hypotheses as explanations of cause."
- Lawrence Krauss book "A universe from Nothing" and "The Greatest Story ever told" present some hypotheses on the preexisting condition of the cosmos. The concept of an ever existing cosmos and our universe just being a different energetic expression of it is the main hypothesis.
**DISCLAIMER: Since I often being accused for making up an extra realm,I must clarify that the Cosmos is NOT an additional realm but the preexisting state of our local representation of the universe. The Quantum Fluctuations cause by virtual particles that "come in and out of existence" affecting particles of our universe through the phenomenon of Quantum foam is an indication of an underlying substrate that doesn't have a fundamental role at our universe's structures.

-"Well, both kind of make sense, cause and effect really is the same as a compound reaction, but like I said it later causes some problems. If one wants to understand the behaviour of another, rather than just believe he is acting out of a void, is it not better to ask, what is he reacting to?"
-Sure, but how assuming a group of elements without any objective evidence qualifies as an answer? As I asked before, how did this compound come to be?


-"Ok, If you start describing from the point of cause, you must realize that cause is caused by its reaction and the causing it does is itself reaction, or it is compound reaction."
-Sure. In my opinion the concept of cause help us define a starting point. If we are able to go back in the causal change then we can identify that cause as a reaction to something else.
I don't really disagree with that idea. As I said its an observer relative term and has to do with our limits of investigation.


"All emergent phenomena are products of processes realized by lower level mechanism and properties by high level features of complex physical structures. This is our current Scientific Paradigm and it has a huge descriptive power."
Wow! I am impressed. I kind of had an inkling about the emergent process, but you've refired my interest. I am all ears!!"
-Well this model is responsible for our huge run away success in epistemology. When science got rid off"invisible substances" carriers of advanced properties(Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone Energy etc) and realized that really simple kinetic/ energetic interactions between fundamental elements (particles with forces) can produce complex structures which in turn they can produce advanced properties(molecular, chemical, biological, mental etc)
everything started to make sense and allowed us to produce meaningful descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications.
We know understand that everything we observe are multilayered processes.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by popeye1945 »

-"My question is simple, why using those assumptions without any objective evidence? Why using the term "compound" when we don't have a clue on whether different elements were combined . Sure, Human actions are mainly "reactions" in relation to what is registered by our sensory system, but I don't know if we can address the question "is causality infinite" by looking things at a biological scale. To be honest, I don't know if the question is meaningful.Do I believe that different kind of elements came together, form a compound and started reacting?(this is what I understand by your term compound reaction). If I am correctly steel manning your statement then I see a gap in that narrative. What elements are those and what caused the to form a compound. Pls correct me if I misrepresent your idea. quote

Hi Nick, My analagy is of an explosion, the big bang, everything after the big bang is compound reaction including perception.


-" Lawrence Krauss book "A universe from Nothing" and "The Greatest Story ever told" present some hypotheses on the preexisting condition of the cosmos. The concept of an ever existing cosmos and our universe just being a different energetic expression of it is the main hypothesis.
**DISCLAIMER: Since I often being accused for making up an extra realm,I must clarify that the Cosmos is NOT an additional realm but the preexisting state of our local representation of the universe. The Quantum Fluctuations cause by virtual particles that "come in and out of existence" affecting particles of our universe through the phenomenon of Quantum foam is an indication of an underlying substrate that doesn't have a fundamental role at our universe's structures. quote

Sounds like some good reading material, but until then I can't comment/contribute much.


"All emergent phenomena are products of processes realized by lower level mechanism and properties by high level features of complex physical structures. This is our current Scientific Paradigm and it has a huge descriptive power."
Wow! I am impressed. I kind of had an inkling about the emergent process, but you've refired my interest. I am all ears!!"
-Well this model is responsible for our huge run away success in epistemology. When science got rid off"invisible substances" carriers of advanced properties(Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone Energy etc) and realized that really simple kinetic/ energetic interactions between fundamental elements (particles with forces) can produce complex structures which in turn they can produce advanced properties(molecular, chemical, biological, mental etc)
everything started to make sense and allowed us to produce meaningful descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications.
We know understand that everything we observe are multilayered processes.
[/quote]

Nick, I am sold, fascinating stuff, a whole new ball game. Thanks for your patients and sharing!!
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is Causality Infinite?

Post by popeye1945 »

-" Lawrence Krauss book "A universe from Nothing" and "The Greatest Story ever told" present some hypotheses on the preexisting condition of the cosmos. The concept of an ever existing cosmos and our universe just being a different energetic expression of it is the main hypothesis.
**DISCLAIMER: Since I often being accused for making up an extra realm,I must clarify that the Cosmos is NOT an additional realm but the preexisting state of our local representation of the universe. The Quantum Fluctuations cause by virtual particles that "come in and out of existence" affecting particles of our universe through the phenomenon of Quantum foam is an indication of an underlying substrate that doesn't have a fundamental role at our universe's structures. quote

Oddly enough, I do know what your talking about, right in line with David Bohm's wonderful stuff.


"All emergent phenomena are products of processes realized by lower level mechanism and properties by high level features of complex physical structures. This is our current Scientific Paradigm and it has a huge descriptive power."
Wow! I am impressed. I kind of had an inkling about the emergent process, but you've refired my interest. I am all ears!!"
-Well this model is responsible for our huge run away success in epistemology. When science got rid off"invisible substances" carriers of advanced properties(Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone Energy etc) and realized that really simple kinetic/ energetic interactions between fundamental elements (particles with forces) can produce complex structures which in turn they can produce advanced properties(molecular, chemical, biological, mental etc)
everything started to make sense and allowed us to produce meaningful descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications.
We know understand that everything we observe are multilayered processes.
[/quote]


Yes Nick,I am following you, great stuff!!

Nick, I am sold, fascinating stuff, a whole new ball game. Thanks for your patients and sharing!!
[/quote]
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021