Pattern-chaser
1k
↪Relativist
I'm merely curious about a long-accepted axiom. In recent years, I've read of causeless effects, and effects that chronologically precede their causes. I wonder if the axiom is still 'safe' for use? Is it always the case that an effect has - and maybe must have - a cause? — Pattern-chaser
Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible?Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...
...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...
...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."
It is nonsense.
No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap. — Frank Apisa
Relativist
534
Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...
...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...
...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."
It is nonsense.
No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap. — Frank Apisa
Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible? — Relativist
I personally see no reason to embrace the PSR as anything more than a description of what we tend to do. — pomophobe
...the success of science provides good inductive support to accept [causation] as true (or at least, as highly likely to be true). — Relativist
IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible? — Relativist
Some things simply ARE. Whether we humans know they ARE or not...does not impact on whether they ARE or not...or at least, I do not think it does. (It may.) — Frank Apisa
Theists rule out brute facts because we don't know of any brute facts existing. But on the other hand, we don't know of any necessary existents that are causally efficacious (i.e. the only thing we know that exists necessarily are abstractions, like the law of non-contradiction).
Therefore, at minimum, I think it reasonable to argue that that it is at least as likely that brute facts exist as it is for a necessarily existing non-physical creator to exist. I lean strongly toward brute fact because it cannot be shown that a creator has properties that exist necessarily (theists simply assume the properties are necessary). — Relativist
A lot of people say this, but what would proof of causation look like? How do you know that we don't have proof of cause and effect? The assumption isnt just made up. There must be a reason for this assumption and why it is so common.Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it. — Pattern-chaser
How do you know that we don't have proof of cause and effect? The assumption isnt just made up. There must be a reason for this assumption and why it is so common. — Harry Hindu
I think the thought experiment is useful. Brute facts can't be proven to exist nor to be metaphysically impossible, but the causal chain provides some reason to think ultinate brute fact is fundamental to existence.I'm really uneasy about introducing theism or atheism into this topic. Uneasy because I see no justification for that introduction. What does it add to the discussion? — Pattern-chaser
Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little.Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why. — Pattern-chaser
Relativist
538
Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why. — Pattern-chaser
Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little. — Relativist
You skipped over the most important question in my post. Again, what would proof of causation look like? What reasons do we have to argue for causation? Why would anyone have posited such an idea and how did it become common if there is no proof?Because if we had a proof, we'd use it. No need for guesses (axioms), we'd justifiably assert the truth of causation, based on our proof, and that would be that — Pattern-chaser
In quantum physics, however, there are particles popping in and out of existence all the time. The famous outburst from Einstein about not playing dice with the universe is in relation to that. What causes these particles to pop in and out of existence? They seem to be exactly that, something out of nothing, then back to nothing. — Christoffer
Self contradiction:I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.
Zero, nil, none, zip. — Frank Apisa
There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently.Why do you consider that extreme?
Relativist
540
I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.
Zero, nil, none, zip. — Frank Apisa
Self contradiction:
Statement F: "I, for one, do not do any 'believing' at all."
Therefore you don't believe statement F. — Relativist
Why do you consider that extreme?
There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently. — Relativeist
Do you NOT believe you are alive and have to do various things to stay that way? (eat, breath,...). — Relativeist
Do you not make choices, and when doing so - do you not sometimes base it on expected outcomes (i.e. outcomes you believe will occur)?
Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F.Not 'self-contradictory" at all.
I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.
I KNOW IT. — Frank Apisa
Relativist
542
Not 'self-contradictory" at all.
I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.
I KNOW IT. — Frank Apisa
Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F. — Relativist
Relativist
543
↪Frank Apisa
Frank - It's not bullshit, as this shows:
" The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[5] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. "
I'm not the semantics police. Feel free to use words however you like, but try not to get mad when this leads to misinterpretation.
14 hours ago
Reply
Options — Relativist
Relativist
544
↪Frank Apisa
Frank - Terminology aside, your views seem pretty reasonable to me. I only brought up the standard terminology to explain how I had interpreted your comments. I wasn't trying to tell you what you "believe" or "know" or whatever words you care to use. — Relativist
I wish you'd stop using the semantically problematic term "causeless effect" instead of "brute fact" — Relativist
Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. — Relativist
Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? — Relativist
That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little. — Relativist
Well, the relevant point to make here is that causality is a pattern in the world at a human scale i.e. the world we experience through our naked senses and their extensions. — TheMadFool
what would proof of causation look like? What reasons do we have to argue for causation? Why would anyone have posited such an idea and how did it become common if there is no proof? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.