|
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.
|
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]
#5108920 - 12/26/05 08:53 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
what about neutrino's and positrons which pop in and out of existence constantly?
im really not trying to be difficult or play devil's advocate here. Im merely sitting on Planck's wall (sp?) in a philosophical position.
There are two things which we as humans, are incapable of comprehending and quantizing to fit our "logic": non-existence and infinity. You either have to say that something has always existed, or something came from nothing. the first could only be defined as long as the concept of non-existence is there for "existence" to be distinct. The second, is so far from possibly grasping that we have to consider it implausible and say "non-existence doesnt exist".... which then we can all laugh...
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5109029 - 12/26/05 09:13 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What about neutrino's and positrons which pop in and out of existence constantly?
These come from and return to empty space, and in the quantum mechanical model of reality, space is very much a something.
Non-existence does not exist.
|
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]
#5109094 - 12/26/05 09:25 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
the QM model of reality was created through quantization of forces and particles. How do you quantize non-existence? you cant, so the only way to work on the model was to "theorize" (more like guess) that these neutrino's "magically" "popped" into an alternate dimensional space.
But most of the QP books I have read actually use the word "existence" when referring to the characteristics of positrons and such.
|
Zero7a1
Leaving YourWasteland
Registered: 10/23/02
Posts: 3,594
Loc: Passing Cloud
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5109562 - 12/26/05 11:12 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This sounds like my whole semester in philosophy. From descartes to hume, hume to searle, and searle to wielenberg.
And there are things i agreed with going through, and im going to agree with you in most part, we exist because we can. There is a lot of chaos in the universe, and a lot of order. I know this may seem kind of contradictory, but to me we are just a part of nature, an ordered chaos, or chaotic order..
The whole mathematics thing isnt what our neurons decide, they dont run calculations, they just react, to other processes, like the processes inside a hurricane, maybe not as much.
But there are so many factors, how much heat is in the air, in the water, the currents, the air pressure, and each one of these is acted on by other things at the same time... fluctuations in gravity, intensities of the sun, and everything else in the universe.
Thats the problem with freedom of the will though right, how can there be any free will in a causually closed, causaully determined universe? Are there corners or pockets of freedom? I dont think so.
But to me, i rest with just the ordered chaos of nature, watching it go, making more complex things as times moves on, as entropy increases, or more or less, the matter becomes more dense, and consolidates itself into more refined systems. Its like decay, but its also birth, like biological materials, when they break down, they are absorbed and made into new more complex structures.
I think this can explain a lot of the phenomenon in the universe, and can answer not only why we are here, but how we are here.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5109613 - 12/26/05 11:26 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Non-existence exists. I see it but quite a little more pragmatic. What about the content of your fridge, or your left arm ? To begin with
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Zero7a1]
#5112165 - 12/27/05 05:34 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zero7a1 said: Thats the problem with freedom of the will though right, how can there be any free will in a causually closed, causaully determined universe? Are there corners or pockets of freedom? I dont think so.
Rejection of SCCD eliminates the argument of free will vs. determinism altogether. We're not talking about simple cause and effect - that exists, no question. It's the DEGREE of causality that I'm questioning.
Pockets of freedom? I don't even know how to respond to that... it's meaningless to me. Freedom is a human concept... based on perceived or arbitrary limits. Take this sentence "We aren't free to move the sun about the sky any way we like." The sentence is grammatically (language math) correct, but it doesn't make any sense. And why? Because "free" and "freedom" implies the ability to intend. Intent is the problem. We project it everywhere on everything. Subtract intent from either side of the "free will vs. determinism" debate and the argument falls apart entirely. If there is no invisible "who" (be it god, a flying spaghetti monster, JHVH-1, the laws of physics, or whatever) granting, allowing, guiding, or making room for our actions/decisions, then it doesn't matter which "who" "did" "what."
Is my point clear yet?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
TheGus
The Walrus
Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 387
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5113159 - 12/27/05 09:31 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"in the beginning, there was nothing, then the lord said 'let there be light'... there was still nothing, but you could see it a hell of a lot better" -unknown
-------------------- "It is easier to teach a computer to play chess than to build a mudpie."Sherry Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"-Einstein I pity the fool who break traffic laws with $870,000 of drugs in the car. -mo0nlite_sonata Psythos
|
Zero7a1
Leaving YourWasteland
Registered: 10/23/02
Posts: 3,594
Loc: Passing Cloud
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5113880 - 12/28/05 12:50 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Pockets of freedom... Yes, its meaningless to me too! This is what i hear in my philosophy class, and it makes no sense, but i repeat it in order to articulate how absurd i think it is... in any regard... As far as intention goes, well, ill leave it be, things are about in and of themselves, we simply have the ability to percieve in our own minds, and judge for ourselves, what that aboutness is.
This is why i really cant stand philosophy...Whats with all these silly questions? I do agree with you, the argument is meaningless... What im trying to understand is what relevance does the argument have at all? You had an intention for writing the post, thats what im trying to figure out, its about The Suck: , and im guessing all it was "about" is trying to express how meaningless the whole argument is.
If thats the case, then i understand perfectly well... where is there to go from there, is that the end? Or what.
Is there some great question in philosophy that is just like limiting people, or philosophers, and everyone is like "omg" whats the answer... ? and everyone is trying to come to some kind of conclusion... Is there some ultimate goal, becaus i feel like there is just something maybe im not aware of, maybe thats why it just seems so absurd to me... i really dont know, maybe you could help me out.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Zero7a1]
#5125697 - 12/31/05 10:56 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zero7a1 said: Is there some great question in philosophy that is just like limiting people, or philosophers, and everyone is like "omg" whats the answer... ? and everyone is trying to come to some kind of conclusion... Is there some ultimate goal, becaus i feel like there is just something maybe im not aware of, maybe thats why it just seems so absurd to me... i really dont know, maybe you could help me out.
Hmm... new thread.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Sclorch]
#5125741 - 12/31/05 11:17 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Eternal Tao. You cannot figure out what is ungraspable.
I don't pretend to be able to keep up with discussions like this but the above is my simple overview of this thread.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism [Re: Icelander]
#5126031 - 12/31/05 01:06 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Eternal Tao. You cannot figure out what is ungraspable.
I don't pretend to be able to keep up with discussions like this but the above is my simple overview of this thread.
Not a very accurate Cliffs Notesesque summary... but not a bad concept if you drop the idea of "ungraspable".
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|