Thanks anyway, MU, but I don't eat fairy floss.

But is there a real distinction, truthful, between the physical and non material or phenomenal?

This reminded me... Lets say there is a revolution. There arises a cause for the revolution... But is this cause the sort that would necessitate the revolution, or this the best guess of a cause.

The causes that are the best guesses... These are the causes of so much of what is called 'causality'.

Thanks anyway, MU, but I don't eat fairy floss. — Janus

Seems you recognize that it's pointless to argue your false claim, so you make up some fairy tale.

But is there a real distinction, truthful, between the physical and non material or phenomenal? — Blue Lux

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations.

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations — Metaphysician Undercover

The sensed?
It's how I know about our neighbor.
Would be a bit rude if I walked over and said "Hi neighbor, you're just my sensations".



red marks conundrum (to some)

What is there but the physical? And in that is said... "What is there but the phenomenal?" I have long since disbanded and have gone rogue on philosophy and science. What is there but the imagination? What is there but this seemingly singular, yet clearly not, phenomenality, which shines its light upon that which it supposedly is not. All there is is consciousness. There is no world beyond what is phenomenality, and it appears to be endless, without cause, without dimension even.

@Metaphysician Undercover@Janus@jorndoe

It seems that all attempts to understand something always lead back to an attempt at understanding existence (inevitable teleologies), which always leads to an attempt at understanding Human Existence. What greater attempt at this is psychology? Yet, what has psychology granted us? What has it given other than methods of diagnosing certain ailments, maladies and distinguishing types of behaviors and experiences? What has any attempt at a human knowledge given us? Reference after reference to a plot point said to be by virtue of reason and per reason that will shine light on everything? What are these games of knowledge seeking? What is it any more than a positing of a potential power? What is it any more than exerting power in an effort to control? What is it any more than trying to control nature, to rise above nature, to become the Overhuman? Or... To become God? We see the reason for God now. In the end it is to be united with God; to in some way be God: this is the root of spiritual belief in God, and is it the result of, perhaps, the unconscious understanding that not a 'God damn' thing is to be understood in this extraordinarily confusing, undoubtedly infinitely complex existence? Is the only thing left astonishment? Awe? Beauty? Is that where the Truth is to be shone? Is the beauty that mankind seeks to be found anywhere? Or is it all a dream? Is it all a part of a sequence of events, of an unfolding, of the existence of life into something greater? A higher form of intelligence? Is this human existence a part of some other plan? Or, for lack of better words, is human existence shaped and influenced by unseen forces? Perhaps it is, but all of this boils down to the most important question of all. The question of meaning. What does anything mean at all? What will it mean, in the end? Perhaps that is the greater question, and in that, all of eternity will be held in a moment. Perhaps then the truth will be revealed as it is. "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everhthing would appear as it is-infinite." William Blake

Whose poetry? The beginning was well written.

Any dichotomy which juxtaposes the physical/material against everything other than physical/material objects/particles is inherently incapable of taking proper account of that which consists of both and is thus... neither.

...the doors of perception... — Blue Lux

I wanna tell ya a story 'bout Texas radio and the big beat...

RIP Jim

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations. — Metaphysician Undercover

The question works from dubious presuppositions...

All interpretation is of something already meaningful. The meaning is precisely what is being interpreted. Sensations aren't meaningful in and of themselves. They are necessary but insufficient for the attribution of meaning. All sentient creatures use sensation by virtue of autonomously drawing connections between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or themselves. The complexity of the correlation translates to the cognitive ability and/or capability of the candidate.

What we tend to disregard is that what we know as "the physical realm" is only what our senses present to us as "the physical realm" — Metaphysician Undercover

Physiological sensory perception - all by itself - in utterly incapable of presenting meaning. It is a necessary but insufficient part thereof. Sensory perception allows detection of that which is not the perceiving creature.

It seems that all attempts to understand something always lead back to an attempt at understanding existence (inevitable teleologies), which always leads to an attempt at understanding Human Existence. — Blue Lux

Existence is necessarily presupposed within all thought and belief formation.

Direct perception is unmediated. Any notion of "perception" which allows, admits, and/or requires that it be informed by language cannot be direct perception for it is not unmediated. Rather such notions of "perception" conflate all sorts of distinct things, and are always partly informed by pre-existing worldview/experience.

The difference is between a gecko perceiving the toaster only as a part of a more complex thought process, say in some spatial relation with the primary objects of interest. A tasty morsel ran behind the toaster. The gecko goes around it while giving chase. It doesn't perceive it as a toaster. It perceives it as something to go around while looking for and/or chasing the insect.

The primary correlations were between the food source and the drive to eat. They all influenced the behaviour.

So what is your belief about the purpose of existence?

Yes, the quote from William Blake is extraordinary, and also was the title of a well-known book...

I have recently been led to conclude that knowledge will never be found but created. Objectivity is, too, not to be found, and too it is to be created.

Would be a bit rude if I walked over and said "Hi neighbor, you're just my sensations". — jorndoe

We're talking about reality here, not your fantasy world. In reality, the word "neighbour" above just refers to some possibility you've created.

Perhaps it is, but all of this boils down to the most important question of all. The question of meaning. — Blue Lux

I agree.

The question works from dubious presuppositions... — creativesoul

Yes, one ought to be dubious of any proposition, in the way of the skeptic. But you turn things around, as if it is the proposition which is dubious, rather than yourself who doubts the proposition. Are you really that confused? Do you really believe that it is the proposition which is dubious, and not yourself who is doubting the proposition? Why not state things to reflect the true reality, rather than creating such an illusion?

All interpretation is of something already meaningful. The meaning is precisely what is being interpreted. Sensations aren't meaningful in and of themselves. They are necessary but insufficient for the attribution of meaning. All sentient creatures use sensation by virtue of autonomously drawing connections between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or themselves. The complexity of the correlation translates to the cognitive ability and/or capability of the candidate. — creativesoul

Sure, but the point is that "objects" are created by the sentient creature, through the act of sensation. And, a very important part of what you call "the attribution of meaning" is the act of creating objects which occurs within the sentient being, Psychologically speaking, you might say that this act occurs at the unconscious level of the being, but nevertheless, it is an act carried out by the being. The attribution of meaning goes to much deeper levels of being than consciousness does.

So consider that "objects" are presented to the conscious mind of the being. You cannot take it for granted that the objects are external to the being, just because the objects appear as "given" to consciousness. You ought not dismiss the reality that it is the unconscious part of the being which is creating the objects and presenting them to the conscious mind, and therefore the objects are not external to the sentient being. And the act of "attribution of meaning" which is carried out by the conscious mind is just a layer on top of the substantial act of attribution of meaning already being carried out at the unconscious level.

We're talking about reality here, not your fantasy world. In reality, the word "neighbour" above just refers to some possibility you've created. — Metaphysician Undercover

Huh?
I chat with my neighbors all the time.
Why on Earth would they just be my sensations? :o

Huh?
I chat with my neighbors all the time.
Why on Earth would they just be my sensations? — jorndoe

Are you hearing them? Are you seeing them? Are hearing and seeing, sensations? Why assume anything more than what is clearly the truth?

Why shouldn't a cause happen after the event? — Banno

Robert Anton Wilson ( a prize loony, but a thinker nonetheless) describes in his book "Quantum psychology" how the effect can chronologically precede its cause. It was a QM thing, involving entangled particles, but I can't remember any more details than that. It convinced me, when I read it, but I'm no QM expert! :wink:

So what is your belief about the purpose of existence? — Blue Lux

The idea of "the purpose of existence" makes no sense on my view... unless a thing is created with the sole intention to serve a specific purpose. A chair's purpose is to be sat on. Purpose presupposes a creator's intent for the creation. I would warn here against unnecessarily multiplying entities...

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations.
— Metaphysician Undercover

The question works from dubious presuppositions...

All interpretation is of something already meaningful. The meaning is precisely what is being interpreted. Sensations aren't meaningful in and of themselves. They are necessary but insufficient for the attribution of meaning. All sentient creatures use sensation by virtue of autonomously drawing connections between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or themselves. The complexity of the correlation translates to the cognitive ability and/or capability of the candidate. — creativesoul

Yes, one ought to be dubious of any proposition, in the way of the skeptic. But you turn things around, as if it is the proposition which is dubious, rather than yourself who doubts the proposition. Are you really that confused? Do you really believe that it is the proposition which is dubious, and not yourself who is doubting the proposition? Why not state things to reflect the true reality, rather than creating such an illusion? — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, the irony...

Ad homs won't do here Meta.

Your position is based upon a gross misconception of "sensation". Sensations aren't meaningful. All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. It is precisely the meaning which is being interpreted. Saying "our interpretations of our sensations" shows a gross misunderstanding hard at work. It's a fatal flaw.

Sure, but the point is that "objects" are created by the sentient creature, through the act of sensation... — Metaphysician Undercover

There's the proof!

You agree by saying "sure" and then continue on unabated as if what you agreed to was not a problem for your position. It was and remains to be.

You are failing to draw and maintain the distinction between what you're reporting upon and your report. You've got plenty of company in philosophy.

I would say it's actually classical physical explanations that break down rather than causality.

Events A and B are independent transformations which can be ordered differently. — Andrew M

Does it even make sense to differentiate between "before" and "after" on the quantum level? I've heard that no, because the arrow of time for a quantum system only gets defined when the system decoheres into a classical system (the wave function collapses), thereby increasing entropy.

And if there is no difference between "before" and "after", what sense does it make to differentiate between cause and effect?

I'm no QM expert! — Pattern-chaser

Even the experts aren't experts... We have no idea about the nature of light(in terms of what it is, what it consists in/of).

What is the difference between a cause and effect, if not their ordering in time? A common attempt to remove temporal ordering from the relationship, beloved by some fundamentalist apologists, is to replace temporal ordering with logical ordering, by which they envisage something like an entailment A->B, with the cause being the antecedent A and the effect the consequent B. The trouble with this is that, in most cases, when all information is incorporated into the calculation, the arrow becomes bidirectional A<->B.

We typically say that fire causes smoke: Fire -> Smoke. But as the saying goes, 'there is no smoke without fire', which gives us 'Smoke -> Fire'. If we remove the temporal aspect - that the fire started before the smoke did, it becomes as valid to say the smoke caused the fire as it does to say the fire caused the smoke.

Similarly for when some people argue that we can infer the existence of God from the existence of the world. So we have World->God to match the usual statement that God->World.

In ordinary language, as well as in the philosophical definitions of people like Hume or Russell, part of the definition of a 'cause' is that it temporally precedes its 'effect'. It becomes a contradiction in terms to say an effect precedes its cause.

So when somebody says 'causes can occur before effects', it becomes more crucial than ever to ask them what they mean by 'cause' and 'effect'. Odds are they won't be able to answer the question.

I have recently been led to conclude that knowledge will never be found but created. Objectivity is, too, not to be found, and too it is to be created. — Blue Lux

Well, strictly speaking one can find knowledge if it exists in it's entirety prior to it's being found. To talk of "creating" knowledge seems fraught. Objectivity is yet another notion that leads to nowhere... "point of view invariant" is better for the same tasks.

What is the difference between a cause and effect, if not their ordering in time? A common attempt to remove temporal ordering from the relationship, beloved by some fundamentalist apologists, is to replace temporal ordering with logical ordering, by which they envisage something like an entailment A->B, with the cause being the antecedent A and the effect the consequent B. The trouble with this is that, in most cases, when all information is incorporated into the calculation, the arrow becomes bidirectional A<->B. — andrewk

It's no problem that the effect is entailed in the cause (and in the laws of physics) and that the cause is entailed in the effect (and in the laws of physics). However, what differentiates the effect from the cause is that the cause is prior to the effect in time. So you need both logical and temporal ordering to explain causality, where the temporal ordering (the arrow of time) is defined by the increasing entropy of the universe along the time axis of spacetime.

Does it even make sense to differentiate between "before" and "after" on the quantum level? I've heard that no, because the arrow of time for a quantum system only gets defined when the system decoheres into a classical system (the wave function collapses), thereby increasing entropy.

And if there is no difference between "before" and "after", what sense does it make to differentiate between cause and effect? — litewave

This probably gets into interpretation territory, but I don't think quantum systems do collapse into classical systems (for example, even if one observes a system in a precise location its momentum is still indefinite). Instead the physical context (and thus the observer's perspective) changes whenever there is a physical interaction between quantum systems. This defines an arrow of time, but it is indexed to the observer rather than being absolute. (Which is an idea we're used to with relativity anyway.)

So "before" and "after" are physically well-defined for the observer. In the case of interference effects, the history of the observed particle is the sum of the particle's component histories. "Before" and "after" are still well-defined for the particle (i.e, it goes into an interferometer, unitary processes occur and it is finally observed at a detector). However each component history must be considered separately, with cause preceding effect in each separate case. What doesn't make sense is to apply "before" and "after" in aggregate when no measurement has been performed (which would of course result in a singular observation where "before" and "after" are well-defined for that component history).

Here's an excellent video (Witnessing causal nonseparability) that demonstrates the indefinite causal order experiment that the OP describes. (It also has a nice demonstration of the Mach-Zehnder experiment.)

Sensations aren't meaningful. — creativesoul

Like I was born yesterday?

You are failing to draw and maintain the distinction between what you're reporting upon and your report. You've got plenty of company in philosophy. — creativesoul

That's correct, there's no distinction to be made there. Philosophers agree. Why do you bother to argue otherwise?

What is the difference between a cause and effect, if not their ordering in time? A common attempt to remove temporal ordering from the relationship, beloved by some fundamentalist apologists, is to replace temporal ordering with logical ordering, by which they envisage something like an entailment A->B, with the cause being the antecedent A and the effect the consequent B. The trouble with this is that, in most cases, when all information is incorporated into the calculation, the arrow becomes bidirectional A<->B. — andrewk

This I agree with. There is no point in speaking about cause and effect if you do not maintain the necessity of temporal ordering. That's what the concept is based in. And, by the way, it can be demonstrated that all logical ordering is reducible to temporal ordering, so the assumption that one can avoid temporal ordering by referring only to logical ordering is unfounded, because logical ordering becomes completely ungrounded, and random in an absolute sense, without temporal ordering.

For instance, there is no reason to the ordering of the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., without a temporal referencing. The ordering would be completely random, without the temporal act of counting, in which 1 is prior to 2, etc.. You might argue that 2 is greater than 1, but by what principle would this be true, other than the fact that 2 comes after one in the act of counting. If we were subtracting, then 1 comes after 2, and might be apprehended as greater than 2. If you say that 2 is more than 1, we have to ask "more" in what sense. And we are turned toward a temporal ordering in any determination of quantity due to the necessity of counting. A determination of quantity requires counting and therefore relies on the temporal order.

So you need both logical and temporal ordering to explain causality... — litewave

I don't agree that you need both temporal and logical ordering to explain causality. All that is needed is temporal ordering. The requirement for logical ordering leads to the problem of induction. We want the cause to be within a particular spatial radius because that's what experience and induction (consequentially our inductively produced premises) tell us must be the case. But if we release the need for logical ordering with premises derived from references to spatial relations , we can focus specifically on temporal ordering and avoid the problems which may be created by faulty spatial conceptions and the derived premises..