|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism
#5108585 - 12/26/05 07:51 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Wiki: Causal Determinism
This subject isn't talked about enough, but it's hit on quite often. Prosgeopax's recent thread hints at this issue. Strong Causality/Causal Determinism (from now on referred to as SCCD) is a serious assumption that the majority of the world adheres to - this includes scientists, atheists, deists, the religious, etc.
Most philosophers haven't avoided this assumption either. A prime example is the "ultimate question" - why do we exist? Has anyone ever heard a coherent answer to this question? I haven't... until I realized how much intent was buried in the egocentric question. Why must everything have a beginning (distinct or not)? Why model the universe after the human life cycle? It'd be small-minded to do such a thing.
Q: Why do we exist? A: Because we CAN.
Does it seem like a play on words to you? It's not. This is no zen koan. This is no greater-than-thou "mystical" riddle. This is the intent-free, non-egocentric answer that effectively negates the silliest question ever asked.
Back to the original topic, the rejection of SCCD doesn't just apply to abstract philosophical questions. Sure, Newtonian physics got us to the moon... but there was a lot of slop in the process. Even billiard balls don't always perform perfectly as billiard balls.
Let's apply this new line of thought to thinking itself. How would the rejection of SCCD affect current theories of the mind? Sure, there are instances of cause and effect - I'm not arguing against causality itself, just the version that requires every effect to have a distinct cause. Why must one thought be the cause of another? Does every neural firing lead to a thought? Why must the experience of consciousness be at the mercy of an extremely complex algorithm? Do all our brain chemical interactions dance to a separate code that is complimentary to the neural action potentials? How could they possibly sync up like that? Is there some molecular pinball machine that determines every twist and tumble of each and every molecule that makes up the fluid in our synapses? What about turbulence? Is the "chaos" merely another complex algorithm that just happens to fit in somewhere in another meta-algorithm that keeps the brain running in mathematically perfect manner? Yeah, right.
This could be a good time to bring up "liminal zones"... just FYI because I don't want to sidetrack.
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108597 - 12/26/05 07:54 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: Q: Why do we exist? A: Because we CAN.
The Anthropic Principle
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: it stars saddam]
#5108602 - 12/26/05 07:55 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
why something instead of nothing?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: it stars saddam]
#5108609 - 12/26/05 07:56 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Nope, this is very different from the Anthropic Principle. Try again.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108619 - 12/26/05 07:57 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: why something instead of nothing?
Because it is possible.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108622 - 12/26/05 07:58 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
so is nonexistence.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108628 - 12/26/05 08:00 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: so is nonexistence.
Apparently not.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Booby
Agent Mulder
Registered: 09/14/05
Posts: 3,781
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108639 - 12/26/05 08:02 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Q: Why do we exist? A: Because we are programmed to..?
-------------------- Let it not be remembered That mycelium eats detritus and dies But that life in all it's glory Counts mycelium to be on it's side.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108654 - 12/26/05 08:05 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
just because you cant quantize the unknown doesnt mean it is impossible.
by the above logic, you would know everything, because what you dont know, doesnt exist, and isnt possible?
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108668 - 12/26/05 08:07 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: Nope, this is very different from the Anthropic Principle. Try again.
In that case I don't know what you are talking about. Are you trying to say that the idea of causal determinism is flawed?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108671 - 12/26/05 08:08 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: just because you cant quantize the unknown doesnt mean it is impossible.
by the above logic, you would know everything, because what you dont know, doesnt exist, and isnt possible?
No... this is content-specific. And by your logic... logic is a problem.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108684 - 12/26/05 08:11 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
so you believe that existence has always been? that there has never been pure nonexistence?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108691 - 12/26/05 08:12 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: so you believe that existence has always been? that there has never been pure nonexistence?
I believe little. What is this "pure nonexistence"? Has it ever been shown to have happened (existed?)?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108702 - 12/26/05 08:14 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing."
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108725 - 12/26/05 08:20 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: so you believe that existence has always been? that there has never been pure nonexistence?
Quote:
The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas1.html
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5108726 - 12/26/05 08:20 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
how could you show non-existence?
the human mind cannot comprehend it, because we are existence. we have never and will never know non-existence.
to tie back into causality, one (existence or non-existence) has to come from the other.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: shroomydan]
#5108768 - 12/26/05 08:27 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said:
Quote:
psilocyberin said: so you believe that existence has always been? that there has never been pure nonexistence?
Quote:
The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas1.html
I like it, and it is very well written, but its flaw is that it makes an assumption that "something must come from something", exactly what this thread is talking about... infinite causality. This concept isnt testable and should not be the frame for such an absolute group of statements.
I also disagree with the part about "....then nothing would exist, which is obviously not so". This is also not testable because we would need something extrinsic of "existence" to prove our own existence. How do you test non-existence?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108769 - 12/26/05 08:27 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: how could you show non-existence?
Now you're asking ME to defend your position? You're not getting off that easy!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108786 - 12/26/05 08:31 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: How do you test non-existence?
Such a concept is ridiculous... it is a mathematical abstraction and a flaw in our language.
Why must there be a yin to every yang and vice versa?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5108846 - 12/26/05 08:39 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"something must come from something", exactly what this thread is talking about... infinite causality. This concept isnt testable and should not be the frame for such an absolute group of statements.
There has never been an observed case of something coming from nothing, so inductive logic affirms a probability approaching certainty that something always comes from something.
Because it is based on inductive logic, "Something always comes from something" is a scientific claim.
|
|