Does Causality Come First?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:[To GE Morton] GE, I understand your point that making the claim "X may have no cause" seems very 'rational' since we don't know if there truly is a cause or not. But my point is that if it truly has no cause, then it (a non-caused event) can't "make-sense"; it can't be rational or logical (as it lacks any causal connective-ness). So, as I see it, an "event that is not-caused" is 'irrational'; there is no causality, or rationality/logic, to it whatsoever!
What would it mean for an event to make sense, be logical, not make sense or not be logical? In my usage of language, it's statements that are logical or not logical. Events aren't. If an event happened without a prior cause, it would be (in my usage) a category error to call that event illogical. It might be surprising, sure. But it's not illogical for surprising things to happen. It just doesn't fit with a pattern I thought I'd seen. Different thing.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:What would it mean for an event to make sense, be logical, not make sense or not be logical?
For an event to "make sense" (be logical/rational), it needs causality; a causal connection.

Steve3007 wrote:In my usage of language, it's statements that are logical or not logical. Events aren't. If an event happened without a prior cause, it would be (in my usage) a category error to call that event illogical. It might be surprising, sure. But it's not illogical for surprising things to happen. It just doesn't fit with a pattern I thought I'd seen. Different thing.
I don't think it really matters what we humans are trying to "make sense" of. Making sense of statements, or events, or anything, all requires some "causal connective-ness". Without this causal connective-ness there can be no "making sense" (no rationality; no logic).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:For an event to "make sense" (be logical/rational), it needs causality; a causal connection.
OK. So your argument seems a tad circular then. You seem to be saying that the reason it's illogical to propose that an event can happen without a cause is because it's illogical to propose that an event can happen without a cause.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:I don't think it really matters what we humans are trying to "make sense" of. Making sense of statements, or events, or anything, all requires some "causal connective-ness". Without this causal connective-ness there can be no "making sense" (no rationality; no logic).
I understand what you're saying here. If there were no causal connections then there can be no people to make arguments to doubt the existence of causal connections (back to the Descartes-esque stuff). But as I said I wasn't proposing that the principle "there are no causal connections" is logical. I was proposing that "some events don't have causes" is logical. i.e. it's not logically necessary that it is false.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sculptor1 wrote:Describe the causality of this event.

It grows dark. I see a light switch. Describe the causality which leads to the light coming on.
Well, if you mean the four events: "It grows dark. I see a light switch. I flick the switch. The light comes on." then there would be a whole complex sequence of events in between those four. And some people (not me, but TS for one) would argue that the human action involved in deciding to turn on the light had no prior cause. I'd dispute that while acknowledging that it's not illogical to claim it.

What's the purpose of your question? Is it to illustrate that some chains of cause and effect are very complex and difficult to figure out? If so, we've already covered that.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by GE Morton »

Steve3007 wrote: October 11th, 2021, 4:36 am
So the proposition "some events have no causes" is not a logically necessary falsehood. Someone who regarded causality as a synthetic a priori truth would presumably believe it was.
"Synthetic a priori truth" is not quite correct. Per Kant, cause and effect is a synthetic a priori postulate (one of several) from which any attempt we make to understand something will necessarily begin. But calling it a "truth" is a step too far. We have no means of determining whether it is true or not; we just have to (meaning "we're compelled to") assume it is if we wish to understand anything.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Sculptor1 »

In the long darkness of the period of human ignorance, it pleased us to believe that there could be such a thing as a non-caused event.

Maggots and other beasts of decay, such as funghi were said to spontaneously generate. Even mice were said to spontaneously generate from rubbish heaps or in piles of old cloth.
Experiments in which lumps of meat were placed into sealed containers were found to produce no maggots.
When we learned to seek more carefully into the causes of things, and to unpack the series of events that could lead to various consequences, a revolution in thinking occured.
Science moved from a position of stagnantion that existed from the time of Aristotle to the times of Boyle, and Bacon.
Upon taking up the assumption that all things have a cause has led us to the information super highway, space exploration, and medical science that would see magical to people living just a couple of generations ago.

In all that time there has no been a single unabiguous phenomenon for which no cause sould easily be attributed.

The argument against induction so well expressed by the likes of Hume is still valid, but really, only as an academic exercise.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

=GE Morton wrote:"Synthetic a priori truth" is not quite correct. Per Kant, cause and effect is a synthetic a priori postulate (one of several) from which any attempt we make to understand something will necessarily begin. But calling it a "truth" is a step too far. We have no means of determining whether it is true or not; we just have to (meaning "we're compelled to") assume it is if we wish to understand anything.
Ok. Thanks for pointing out the distinction. It seems to me that RJG's position is broadly similar to Kant's in that both think that in order to even be able to think about these problems (or to think anything) we need to take causality (as a universally applicable principle) as a given.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by GE Morton »

RJG wrote: October 11th, 2021, 8:10 am
GE, I understand your point that making the claim "X may have no cause" seems very 'rational' since we don't know if there truly is a cause or not. But my point is that if it truly has no cause, then it (a non-caused event) can't "make-sense" to us humans; and therefore it can't be rational or logical (as it lacks any causal connective-ness).
Logical and rational are not the same. I agree that "X has no cause" is irrational, in the sense that if it is true, then X is mysterious and inexplicable. But there is no logical problem with it, i.e., it violates no logical rules. "Connective-ness" is not a logical rule or requirement.
So, then do you believe "uncaused events" (and magic, and true randomness) are actually possible?
Yes. Only because there are no logical or empirical grounds for ruling them out. But, of course, I'd be highly skeptical of a claim that any given X was such an event.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Ecurb »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 11th, 2021, 7:17 am

Describe the causality of this event.

It grows dark. I see a light switch. Describe the caualsity which leads to the light coming on.
Using my definitions (Cause: the conscious act of a rational being OR a handle we can manipulate) most people would say that flipping the switch "caused" the light to come on. In fact, I think that most people would say that, and that's how the word "cause' is normally used. True: the light bulb manufacturer might say the light came on because when the filaments were heated blah, blah blah.... The electrician might say the light came on because I connected the wiring to the bulb, etc. etc. That's because those are handles THEY (but not the rest of us) can manipulate.

This is how the word "cause" is generally used, I think. If some want to argue that everything is caused (and must be in order to make sense), then I could argue that if everything HAS a cause, everything IS a cause. If all coincidences are causes, then "cause" becomes meaningless, because there are infinite causes to every event, or (depending on one's world view) because there is one cause (the big bang or God's creation) for every event.

MOrton's dfinition of "cause' as the last satisfied condition runs into these same difficulties (as I explained earlier).
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: While I accept what you say, I would simply add that we humans have no rational reason to accept its truth.
RJG wrote: October 10th, 2021, 4:15 pm Sure we do! It is perfectly 'rational' to accept the truth of causality (causal connections).
For practical purposes, yes, of course it is. It appears to be the case in most/all cases. But to accept it as a formal, philosophical, universal truth is going beyond the evidence. Causality is derived by inference, not deduction.


RJG wrote: October 10th, 2021, 4:15 pm Causation is (the essence of) rationality!
No, I don't think so. It is not anti-rational, or opposed to rationality, but your claim, once again, goes beyond available evidence. You seem to think, in a very binary way, that if causation weren't the case, all events must be random. "If it's not black, it must be white!" Not so. There are all kinds of possibilities, but I won't muddy the waters by inventing examples.



I have always been taken with Pirsig's idea that instead of saying "A causes B", we could say - with equal validity - "B values pre-condition A". [Quoted from memory.] This particular idea is just taking a different perspective on causality, not offering an alternative to it. But I quite liked the idea anyway, and still sympathise with it today.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote:[Talking to RJG] 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.
Steve3007 wrote: October 11th, 2021, 4:17 am If your last sentence was "That it is therefore a necessary truth..." then I would agree. I think the key difference between causality as an inductively or abductively derived principle and causality as an a priori first principle is that in the latter case the proposition "all events have a cause" is seen as necessary truth. In the former it isn't.
Fair enough. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:I have always been taken with Pirsig's idea that instead of saying "A causes B", we could say - with equal validity - "B values pre-condition A". [Quoted from memory.] This particular idea is just taking a different perspective on causality, not offering an alternative to it. But I quite liked the idea anyway, and still sympathise with it today.
Persig? Is that a "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" thing then? All I can really remember about that is the whole Romantic/Classical people division that he talked about a lot.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: October 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Using my definitions (Cause: the conscious act of a rational being OR a handle we can manipulate) most people would say that flipping the switch "caused" the light to come on. In fact, I think that most people would say that, and that's how the word "cause' is normally used. True: the light bulb manufacturer might say the light came on because when the filaments were heated blah, blah blah.... The electrician might say the light came on because I connected the wiring to the bulb, etc. etc. That's because those are handles THEY (but not the rest of us) can manipulate.
If the bulb manufacturer and electrician said that they would be mistaken . . . because the light is not ON (by hypothesis) when only the conditions they cite are satisfied. It does not come on until the switch is flipped. Flipping the switch is the last of the necessary and sufficient conditions for activating the light to be satisfied, and hence its cause.
This is how the word "cause" is generally used, I think. If some want to argue that everything is caused (and must be in order to make sense), then I could argue that if everything HAS a cause, everything IS a cause.
I'm not sure how that follows. ??
If all coincidences are causes, then "cause" becomes meaningless, because there are infinite causes to every event, or (depending on one's world view) because there is one cause (the big bang or God's creation) for every event.
Why do you suppose all coincidences are causes? A coincidence is merely two or more events which happen simultaneously, of which there are millions occurring every second. We only note them if they occur in our presence and find them suspicious.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does Causality Come First?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Ecurb wrote: October 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 11th, 2021, 7:17 am

Describe the causality of this event.

It grows dark. I see a light switch. Describe the caualsity which leads to the light coming on.
Using my definitions (Cause: the conscious act of a rational being OR a handle we can manipulate) most people would say that flipping the switch "caused" the light to come on. In fact, I think that most people would say that, and that's how the word "cause' is normally used. True: the light bulb manufacturer might say the light came on because when the filaments were heated blah, blah blah.... The electrician might say the light came on because I connected the wiring to the bulb, etc. etc. That's because those are handles THEY (but not the rest of us) can manipulate.

This is how the word "cause" is generally used, I think. If some want to argue that everything is caused (and must be in order to make sense), then I could argue that if everything HAS a cause, everything IS a cause. If all coincidences are causes, then "cause" becomes meaningless, because there are infinite causes to every event, or (depending on one's world view) because there is one cause (the big bang or God's creation) for every event.

MOrton's dfinition of "cause' as the last satisfied condition runs into these same difficulties (as I explained earlier).
I was making a point about the vast uncharted wildernesses of causality.
I flip a switch and that causes the light to work. What about when it does not work?
Why do you want the light?
Where does the electricity come from?
What is actually happening at a molecular level, an atomic level, an energetic level?
Where is the ultimate source of the energy?
The chains of causality go in a multitude of directions, from light energy from the sun stored in fossil fuels to make electricity, to the motivations and needs of people to light their homes, to stuff about electrons in copper.
How much more might be going on that we cannot understand yet?
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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