Does Causality Come First?

[Steve3007]

Obviously this will have been discussed many times in previous topics, but it came up again recently so I thought it warranted a new topic.

Causality, generally, is the idea that some events happen because of other events. Depending on the type of causality, this can mean that event A necessarily results in event B, or that event B is necessarily preceded by event A, or both, or that event A is a contributory but not a necessary cause of event B.

When I consider the way in which we infer cause from correlation I come to the conclusion that the principle of causality is a general principle that we arrive at by observing specific instances of correlation. I therefore conclude that it is arrived at via inductive reasoning. As such, like all principles arrived at via inductive reasoning, it's not logically necessary. That is, the statement "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false, even if we think that it is actually false in practice.

A related opinion on this might be that causality is a principle that we arrive at via abductive reasoning. That would still mean that "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false. Another opinion might be that causality is a universal and necessary principle about the real world. In that case "some events have no prior causes" would be necessarily false.

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

[PoeticUniverse]

I guess if everything somehow just depended on everything else, as in Rovelli's Relationalism, there would be no Absolutes at all, such as a Causeless, as he indicates.

"Somehow" needs more looking into. He only sketches out Relationism as kind of a starter idea. I'm wondering if this conflicts with his claiming of quantum fields in his other writings as exhausting reality, and thus being Absolute. (Yes, I'm already getting tired since I'm thinking 3017 may want me to write a long paper on it. I don't accept homework any more since I'm not in school.)

[Ecurb]

I think when people speak of causality they refer either to the free and intentional act of a person, or a handle we can manipulate. Here's an example: we say that germs "cause" disease. This makes sense, because we can avoid disease by encouraging sterile conditions, and cure disease with antibiotics. However, it is clear that the same number of germs sometimes cause a disease, and sometimes do not. It depends on the immune response of the individual infected. IN experimental science we often say that (for example) the variable we manipulate "causes" the explosion. When we light a match to the dynamite, it blows up. But, of course, there are inumerable other conditions that must be present for the explosion to occur -- oxygen in the atmosphere, for example. The match just happens to be the handle we are manipulating.

So the driver of the car that skids out around a turn may say that the crash was caused by excessive speed; the road engineer by inadequate banking; and the tire manufacturer by insufficiently adherent tires. They are all right. They are referring to handles which they can manipulate.

If you intentionally shoot someone, your conscious and intentional act "causes" his death. That's the other general meaning of "cause".

[Nick_A]

Do we learn by experience and inductive reason or can a person also learn by deductive reason which verifies what is already known?

From Rodney Collin's book, "The theory of Celestial influences"

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."


Do such beings still exist or have they all been kiled off along with the awakening influence they brought?

[Steve3007]

Do we learn by experience and inductive reason or can a person also learn by deductive reason which verifies what is already known?

Generally, we learn using both. But this topic was specifically about how we learn the principle of causality. In the OP I proposed that we learn that particular thing by inductive reasoning. I mentioned two other methods and asked if anyone has any others that they think we use to learn the principle of causality.

From Rodney Collin's book, "The theory of Celestial influences"...

I disagree with Rodney Collin's description of the difference between induction and deduction. In my view, induction looks for patterns in phenomena, assumes the patterns will continue, states that assumption in the form of a principle or law and makes predictions of as-yet un-observed phenomena based on that principle/law. Deduction is the process of figuring out the logically necessary consequences of statements, in the form of new statements. Neither of those two methods is specific to either science or religion.

This:

These two methods [induction and deduction respectively] belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function.

seems to me particularly mistaken. To say that induction "is the method of the ordinary logical mind" and deduction "derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function" bears no resemblance to any standard definition of those words. Although obviously he's free to redefine any words in any way he wants (although that would make communicating ideas to other people more difficult.)

[Pattern-chaser]

Obviously this will have been discussed many times in previous topics, but it came up again recently so I thought it warranted a new topic.

Causality, generally, is the idea that some events happen because of other events. Depending on the type of causality, this can mean that event A necessarily results in event B, or that event B is necessarily preceded by event A, or both, or that event A is a contributory but not a necessary cause of event B.

When I consider the way in which we infer cause from correlation I come to the conclusion that the principle of causality is a general principle that we arrive at by observing specific instances of correlation. I therefore conclude that it is arrived at via inductive reasoning. As such, like all principles arrived at via inductive reasoning, it's not logically necessary. That is, the statement "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false, even if we think that it is actually false in practice.

A related opinion on this might be that causality is a principle that we arrive at via abductive reasoning. That would still mean that "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false. Another opinion might be that causality is a universal and necessary principle about the real world. In that case "some events have no prior causes" would be necessarily false.

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

We certainly "arrive at it", but I wonder if our justification for doing so is as strong as we would like to think? We have observed, many times, that certain events are invariably followed by certain other events. We describe this by saying that the first event causes the second. There are few, if any, empirical observations that contradict this. But the supposition that cause and effect is a law (or the like) can only be derived inductively. Therefore the concept of cause and effect, as a law that somehow binds the universe, goes beyond the available evidence, and should be considered unreliable/unproven for that reason.

[Pattern-chaser]

Obviously this will have been discussed many times in previous topics, but it came up again recently so I thought it warranted a new topic.

Causality, generally, is the idea that some events happen because of other events. Depending on the type of causality, this can mean that event A necessarily results in event B, or that event B is necessarily preceded by event A, or both, or that event A is a contributory but not a necessary cause of event B.

When I consider the way in which we infer cause from correlation I come to the conclusion that the principle of causality is a general principle that we arrive at by observing specific instances of correlation. I therefore conclude that it is arrived at via inductive reasoning. As such, like all principles arrived at via inductive reasoning, it's not logically necessary. That is, the statement "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false, even if we think that it is actually false in practice.

A related opinion on this might be that causality is a principle that we arrive at via abductive reasoning. That would still mean that "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false. Another opinion might be that causality is a universal and necessary principle about the real world. In that case "some events have no prior causes" would be necessarily false.

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

We certainly "arrive at it", but I wonder if our justification for doing so is as strong as we would like to think? We have observed, many times, that certain events are invariably followed by certain other events. We describe this by saying that the first event causes the second. There are few, if any, empirical observations that contradict this. But the supposition that cause and effect is a law (or the like) can only be derived inductively. Therefore the concept of cause and effect, as a law that somehow binds the universe, goes beyond the available evidence, and should be considered unreliable/unproven for that reason.

Sorry, the point of my post was to agree with your interpretation, and to wonder, as you do, if there are other paths to that same destination? Like you, I suspect there are none.

[PoeticUniverse]

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

Perhaps all that goes on after the Big Bang is but one big effect. We try to carve it up by identifying local cause and effect, but to do so we have to apply artificial boundaries because we cannot take all of history into account.

[RJG]

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

Steve, I think our hands are tied on this one. We humans have no choice but to accept causation (i.e. that all events are caused; strict determinism) as a fundamental, undeniable truth. We have no way to rationally deny it.

The reason I say this is because we can't "make sense" of anything without relying on causation. Our sense making abilities (i.e. our reasoning; our logic (deductive and inductive)) all rely on causal connections. To put it more simply, our means of making sense would not make sense if we did not accept causation as true. Therefore, if we do not accept causation as a fundamental truth, then we could have no way to rationally refute/deny it (or make sense in refuting/denying it).

Since it is impossible to rationally deny causation (because we would have to affirm it in order to deny it), we humans therefore have no choice in the matter. We can only affirm causation, as we have no rational means to deny it!

[Tegularius]

Causality is merely a way of parsing a process into sequential segments to make it rational to ourselves. The formulas, functions and equations in physics contain no mention of any such thing as causality. It overlaps with a mentality which can only understand the world in increments.

Bertrand Russell...

The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.

[Belindi]

Steve wrote:

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

Some events don't have prior causes . Those are not only events as separate phenomena but are also necessary attributes of some other event. One example of this is that correlative events the expansion of a gas and the temperature of a gas are not causes one of the other but are necessary attributes of a gas.
Another example are the correlative events(phenomena )of night and day. Day does not cause night and night does not cause day but each (phenomenon) event is a necessary attribute of the turning of the Earth event.

If one knew all the causes of every event one would see that all events(phenomena) are necessary events that can't be otherwise than they were.

I agree with Tegularius, above. And with Bertrand Russell as quoted. We especially need billiard ball cause for apportioning blame, for if we can find no cause for a wicked action we can blame the wicked person's Free Will.

[GE Morton]

Obviously this will have been discussed many times in previous topics, but it came up again recently so I thought it warranted a new topic.

Causality, generally, is the idea that some events happen because of other events. Depending on the type of causality, this can mean that event A necessarily results in event B, or that event B is necessarily preceded by event A, or both, or that event A is a contributory but not a necessary cause of event B.

When I consider the way in which we infer cause from correlation I come to the conclusion that the principle of causality is a general principle that we arrive at by observing specific instances of correlation. I therefore conclude that it is arrived at via inductive reasoning. As such, like all principles arrived at via inductive reasoning, it's not logically necessary. That is, the statement "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false, even if we think that it is actually false in practice.

A related opinion on this might be that causality is a principle that we arrive at via abductive reasoning. That would still mean that "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false. Another opinion might be that causality is a universal and necessary principle about the real world. In that case "some events have no prior causes" would be necessarily false.

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

I assume you've read Hume's discussions of causality, which set the stage for all debates on that topic that have occurred since.

Here is a decent summary:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Cau

(Sec 5).

Hume argued that there is no necessary connection between events we deem causes and those we deem their effects. All we can observe with regard to "A causes B" is that A precedes B and is "constantly conjoined" with B. But there is no contradiction in affirming B and denying A. He argues that the "necessary connection" is supplied by our own minds, an inductive inference we are psychologically impelled to make, and not one forced upon us by anything discernible in reality.

Of course, much argument has ensued.

[GE Morton]

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

Steve, I think our hands are tied on this one. We humans have no choice but to accept causation (i.e. that all events are caused; strict determinism) as a fundamental, undeniable truth. We have no way to rationally deny it.

The reason I say this is because we can't "make sense" of anything without relying on causation. Our sense making abilities (i.e. our reasoning; our logic (deductive and inductive)) all rely on causal connections. To put it more simply, our means of making sense would not make sense if we did not accept causation as true. Therefore, if we do not accept causation as a fundamental truth, then we could have no way to rationally refute/deny it (or make sense in refuting/denying it).

Since it is impossible to rationally deny causation (because we would have to affirm it in order to deny it), we humans therefore have no choice in the matter. We can only affirm causation, as we have no rational means to deny it!

Great answer. In Kant's view cause and effect is an a priori category, a rule of thought built into our brains (as it were). Explanation, for us, consists in finding causes for effects. Without it, there are no explanations of anything.

As Steve suggest above, the "necessary connection" Hume could not find consists in pattern recognition; our ability to predict future events (predicting effects from known causes) consists in the ability to predict the other elements of a pattern if we observe a few. For example, if while walking down a street we observe parked car, we may see the rear bumper, taillights, rear window, etc. From that information we can predict that as we continue walking, we'll see a hood, grill, headlights, etc. We infer a spatial pattern from a few visible elements. Cause and effect is the same, except it is a temporal, not a spatial pattern. We observe a few events that are part of a larger pattern, a process, and infer the presently invisible portions of the process. Those patterns confer a unity on disparate perceptions and events, thus supplying a "necessary connection" between them.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

Steve, I think our hands are tied on this one. We humans have no choice but to accept causation (i.e. that all events are caused; strict determinism) as a fundamental, undeniable truth. We have no way to rationally deny it.

The reason I say this is because we can't "make sense" of anything without relying on causation. Our sense making abilities (i.e. our reasoning; our logic (deductive and inductive)) all rely on causal connections. To put it more simply, our means of making sense would not make sense if we did not accept causation as true. Therefore, if we do not accept causation as a fundamental truth, then we could have no way to rationally refute/deny it (or make sense in refuting/denying it).

Since it is impossible to rationally deny causation (because we would have to affirm it in order to deny it), we humans therefore have no choice in the matter. We can only affirm causation, as we have no rational means to deny it!

I see your point(s). But I think it is reasonable to paraphrase your argument as "Causality must be true because humans cannot make sense of the universe if it is not"?

That causality is something-close-to unavoidable for us, in practice, I accept.
That it is therefore true/correct, I find difficult to accept.

I also find it difficult to accept that all events have causes, although, equally, I would not be happy to assert that causality is incorrect.

Life, for humans, and maybe other creatures too, is uncertain, filled with things we believe, but which we cannot confirm. This uncertainty confers on almost everything we 'know' an element of, er, uncertainty, and maybe that is one of the most fundamental truths that life, the universe and everything has to offer us?

[Sculptor1]

Obviously this will have been discussed many times in previous topics, but it came up again recently so I thought it warranted a new topic.

Causality, generally, is the idea that some events happen because of other events. Depending on the type of causality, this can mean that event A necessarily results in event B, or that event B is necessarily preceded by event A, or both, or that event A is a contributory but not a necessary cause of event B.

When I consider the way in which we infer cause from correlation I come to the conclusion that the principle of causality is a general principle that we arrive at by observing specific instances of correlation. I therefore conclude that it is arrived at via inductive reasoning. As such, like all principles arrived at via inductive reasoning, it's not logically necessary. That is, the statement "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false, even if we think that it is actually false in practice.

A related opinion on this might be that causality is a principle that we arrive at via abductive reasoning. That would still mean that "some events have no prior causes" is not logically certain to be false. Another opinion might be that causality is a universal and necessary principle about the real world. In that case "some events have no prior causes" would be necessarily false.

Does anybody have any other views than the above as to how we arrive at the conclusion (if we do in fact arrive at it) that all events have prior causal events?

My feeling is that neither abduction or induction are enough. Both follow a logical assumption of linear reasoning. My feeling is that all events and causes are multifarious, and that reality is far too complex to offer simple linear causality.
The idea that some events have no prior causes seems absurd and has no valuable merit. What is likely is that whatever we choose to dub "event" is merely an empirical nexus or a complexity of causes and consequences, some of which are easy to recognise, some of which are obscure and others which are completely occult.
We love the conceit in being able to define a direct cause for a notable event, but so often are blind to unforeseen, and unforeseeable antecedent conditions and descendant consequences.