This is not a possibility, backed by the fact that you posted an argument on an online forum. Barring the fact that you were the cause of writing that argument, the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality. — Philosophim

Now you impose your idea of causation into someone's mind. If the person addressed doesn't agree, your reality is wrong, and your idea of causality is just an idea then. Even if computers and the internet seem to conform to your idea. There can even be physics done without the use of time, without cause and effect, seeing the whole of existence as one instant happening, unstructured by cause and effect.

the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality. — Philosophim

The internet and the computer I use are phenomena that are conditioned by the mental apparatus. Things in space and time have no independent existence outside of their appearance.

The classic Hume approach. — Philosophim

Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still.

The point is, I suppose, that if you wish to account for your world with stories, you can. But they'll break down at the borders of your world. And just see to what lengths some - many - will go to extend their story beyond its border, where it does not belong.

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball.
— Philosophim
Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist.
The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state
— Philosophim
Is there a new thing that exists when the 8 ball exists in a new velocity state?
You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.
— Philosophim
Sure... would that be a new thing existing? — InPitzotl

Yes, the 8 ball in a state of velocity is different from the 8 ball in a state of zero velocity. There is added heat to the ball through friction and the slight bend and reaction from the impact. The reason it is in the state of velocity at this particular shap shot is because a cue ball hit it one second ago. Depending on the scale of measurement, we could view the ball as merely an arrangement of atoms and elections. That is up to you. Create whatever scale you would like. I believe the argument isn't concerned with scale, though perhaps you can find a flaw in it if you do think there is a valid point here.

Now you impose your idea of causation into someone's mind. If the person addressed doesn't agree, your reality is wrong, and your idea of causality is just an idea then. Even if computers and the internet seem to conform to your idea. There can even be physics done without the use of time, without cause and effect, seeing the whole of existence as one instant happening, unstructured by cause and effect. — Verdi

No, I'm not imposing anything. They made a claim. I pointed out a contradiction I saw with that claim. They are free to counter that point if they wish. We are here to think about things logically (as best we can, I fail too), so I am going to point out when I see a contradiction.

Lets say that physics can be done without cause an effect. That still does not counter my specific contradiction I pointed out to him. With even one instance of independent causality, it cannot be the case that causality is merely in the mind. The points I am making are about causality, and the logic we can conclude from it. If he cannot prove that causality does not exist, then my points still stand.

Disingenuious selective reading. Let's not waste anymore of each other's time. Our respective posts might be read and evaluated by interested third-parties. I've given this thread topic far more attention than it warrants. Pax.

The internet and the computer I use are phenomena that are conditioned by the mental apparatus. Things in space and time have no independent existence outside of their appearance. — _db

Your computer is a bunch of circuits and logic gates that only function because we know how they will respond once electricity is applied properly. If the gate is on, its true and lets electricity go to the next gate. If it is off, electricity is shunted to another gate. All of this necessitates that causality, independent of the human mind, exists. You believing that the computers circuitry does not exist when you aren't looking at it is not good enough for the chip manufacturers who ensure you received a working product.

Yes, the 8 ball in a state of velocity is different from the 8 ball in a state of zero velocity. — Philosophim

I'm not clear how this is answering the question. Are you comparing the 8 ball before the cue ball hits it to the 8 ball after it hits it, or the 8 ball after the cue hits it to what would be the 8 ball were the cue ball not to hit it? And how does this relate to my question... what new thing was caused to exist?

The reason it is in the state of velocity — Philosophim

This means nothing to me until you tell me what new thing was caused to exist.

Depending on the scale of measurement, — Philosophim

You're a bit ahead of yourself here. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by causing something to exist, and you're having me pick scales for some reason or another.

I believe the argument isn't concerned with scale, — Philosophim

Curious language... isn't this your argument? I would have thought you would be the authority on what was meant.

Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still. — tim wood

The presupposition of theory is that cause will continue into the future. That is the induction. That is what can never be truly known, because we cannot know until we step into the future and confirm it. Still, we take it on faith, and it has always been confirmed (so far).

Do you think the computer you are using doesn't use causality? I'm going to need a little more detail than the idea that some scientists in some things don't use causality anymore. As far as I know, every single thing manufactured and used in this world cannot be done without a fundamental understanding of causality. If you can grant me this much, then you should be armed to address the OP.

Disingenuious selective reading. Let's not waste anymore of each other's time. Our respective posts might be read and evaluated by interested third-parties. I've guven this thread topic far more attention than it warrants. Pax. — 180 Proof

Disingenuious selective reading? You don't read my post, you post very selective readings, then when I read your selective readings and show they were straw men, you throw a pithy insult in an attempt to save face and run away?

Third parties ARE reading our posts, and you are setting a very poor example. I hope you're just having a bad day because you were incredibly disappointing.

With even one instance of independent causality, it cannot be the case that causality is merely in the mind. — Philosophim

What then do you see as one instance of independent causality, which is only an illusion on your part, as reality doesn't contain causation, as it's merely imparted on it by us, to make our way through space and time. Very usefull features, them cause and effect, but merely Illusions. As seen by the person you address. Is his view not corresponding to reality, because he made use of cause and effect himself?

There could have been many first causes. In theory, there could be first causes happening in the universe now that we're unaware of. But much like multiverse theory, its something we really can't test easily, if at all. — Philosophim

It is my understanding of quantum mechanics, that matter and energy are continually being created and destroyed from nothing and to nothing in the quantum vacuum state.

My apologies if I've been confusing. The state of the cue ball in its new velocity is not the same as the cue ball without velocity. This is a "new" state caused by the cue ball's collision. Without the cue balls collision, or an equally placed force, the 8 ball would not be in its new state of velocity.

What then do you see as one instance of independent causality, which is only an illusion on your part, as reality doesn't contain causation, as it's merely imparted on it by us, to make our way through space and time. Very usefull features, them cause and effect, but merely Illusions. As seen by the person you address. Is his view not corresponding to reality, because he made use of cause and effect himself? — Verdi

Verdi, when you press the key on your keyboard to type a message, does the message type? Doesn't the press of the physical key cause the letter to appear on you screen? Aren't you the one causing the message to be typed and sent to me? Or is that all in your mind?

When it gets compiled into very specific 1's and 0's sent over your line, read by a server that only responds very specifically to a set combination of 1's and 0's, is that not causality? If you can demonstrate that these instances are all in my mind, and do not exist independently of our observation, I will consider your proposal.

My apologies if I've been confusing. The state of the cue ball in its new velocity is not the same as the cue ball without velocity. This is a "new" state caused by the cue ball's collision. Without the cue balls collision, or an equally placed force, the 8 ball would not be in its new state of velocity. — Philosophim

Would gravity be a force? Magnetism? The Higgs Mechanism?

It is my understanding of quantum mechanics, that matter and energy are continually being created and destroyed from nothing and to nothing in the quantum vacuum state. — T Clark

Yes! You don't know how good it feels to finally speak with someone who is willing to take the conversation to its conclusion.

I realized it after I finished the proposal. After all, an uncaused cause does not necessarily have to remain existing. In fact, since an alpha would follow no rules for its being, it would seem that anything could form at equal likelihood. Why would a self-caused existence necessarily exist forever? If any period of time to exist is equally likely, as there would be no reason why it should or should not, by random chance most alphas would have a finite existence.

I've often wondered if that also means alphas would be "small". A self caused entity would be complete right? A complex "self-caused" entity would be several self caused entities that not only appeared in a specific order, but also would be able to interact in a way that remained stable. That's seems ridiculously unlikely. I've often wanted another person's take on this. What do you think?

Would gravity be a force? Magnetism? The Higgs Mechanism? — InPitzotl

I am not trying to put my own spin on force here. Yes. All of these are forces in physics.

I am not trying to put my own spin on force here. Yes. All of these are forces in physics. — Philosophim

I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at this point I'm not sure what the difference is between "cause things to exist" and just "cause things".

Yes! You don't know how good it feels to finally speak with someone who is willing to take the conversation to its conclusion. — Philosophim

Yeah, but it's not that simple. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics and creation from nothing, they'll tell you the quantum vacuum isn't nothing. Anything that can cause something is, by definition, something.

I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at this point I'm not sure what the difference is between "cause things to exist" and just "cause things". — InPitzotl

If that would make things clearer, lets do that. Its about things being a state captured in time, another state captured later in time, and an explanation for why the state of the later is different form the former.

All of this necessitates that causality, independent of the human mind, exists. You believing that the computers circuitry does not exist when you aren't looking at it is not good enough for the chip manufacturers who ensure you received a working product. — Philosophim

I got my degree in CS, I know how these things work...regardless, none of it necessitates that causality exists independently of the human mind. Rather, all it demonstrates is that our perception of computers always involves an element of causality.

There is the computer chip qua phenomena, which is conditioned by the pure sensible intuitions of space and time, and is understood through the application of concepts, one being causality; note that the computer chip qua phenomena is nothing when not considered in relation to them. Objects of perception are always in a relation to the mind, in that it is the mind that determines how the object is perceived.

The computer chip, as it exists independently of the human mind (qua noumena), is unknowable, i.e. it transcends the conditions of the possibility of experience.

Yeah, but it's not that simple. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics and creation from nothing, they'll tell you the quantum vacuum isn't nothing. Anything that can cause something is, by definition, something. — T Clark

Nothing ever is! The quantum vacuum is of course only a theory at this time. Many of its postulates are hypothetical. We know certain things are happening like particles popping in and out of existence, and this is an attempt to explain why.

But barring this, lets say it is real. What caused the quantum vacuum? And we're right back where we started. The existence of the quantum vacuum is irrelevant to the point made in the OP, because it is simply another Y.

This doesn't mean we should keep trying to look for prior to that which we discover causality, but logically, there will be a point that has no prior explanation for its existence. And if that is logically the case, what does that mean for the universe's existence? What potentials does that open up? Does this mean multiverse theory is not only plausible, but a logical certainty given enough time?

I got my degree in CS, I know how these things work...regardless, none of it necessitates that causality exists independently of the human mind. Rather, all it demonstrates is that our perception of computers always involves an element of causality.

There is the computer chip qua phenomena, which is conditioned by the pure sensible conditions of space and time, and is understood through the application of concepts, one being causality; note that the computer chip qua phenomena is nothing when not considered in relation to them. Objects of perception are always in a relation to the mind, in that it is the mind that determines how the object is perceived.

The computer chip, as it exists independently of the human mind (qua noumena), is unknowable, i.e. it transcends the conditions of the possibility of experience. — _db

Let define what you mean by perception. When I think of perception, I think of the senses. Then there is interpretation of what those senses perceive. Finally, there is application. I cannot interpret a perception of sight if I am blind. Light within my eyes causes me to see, and my mind causes me to interpret that light a particular way. I can then analyze and think about how the light behaves, and how to use it.

But if I am blind, light still exists. My perception of it by sight is gone, but it is still around. This is evidenced by there being blind people in the world and light still exists. If you are going to go into solipsism, I decline as that goes too far out of the topic we are covering.

If you understand CS, then you understand causality. Unless there is a language barrier, I can't think of anything more plain to prove that causality exists apart from direct perception than that.

But if I am blind, light still exists. My perception of it by sight is gone, but it is still around. This is evidenced by there being blind people in the world and light still exists. If you are going to go into solipsism, I decline as that goes too far out of the topic we are covering. — Philosophim

Not solipsism, transcendental idealism.

Unless there is a language barrier, I can't think of anything more plain to prove that causality exists apart from direct perception than that. — Philosophim

The objects that you describe cannot be described independently of a reference to the mind. They exist in space and time and are understood through the application of concepts like causality.

We do not experience causality! We experience phenomena, arranged in an order in space and time, and apply the concepts of cause-and-effect to these phenomena.

None of this entails that things only exist if they are perceived, or that there is nothing outside of our perceptions. But it does entail that the things that we perceive, as they are perceived, are nothing outside of this condition.

This doesn't mean we should keep trying to look for prior to that which we discover causality, but logically, there will be a point that has no prior explanation for its existence. And if that is logically the case, what does that mean for the universe's existence? What potentials does that open up? Does this mean multiverse theory is not only plausible, but a logical certainty given enough time? — Philosophim

Yes, a certainty. Besides, if one universe can become, so then can another.

It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. — tim wood

I was going to say "But then all of what we call 'reality' is just an 'observer's account.' But then you wrote:

And I wonder if that distinction has been made, or even seen, because accounts themselves are just convenient fictions. — tim wood

Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still. — tim wood

I guess it's no surprise we agree n this.

The point is, I suppose, that if you wish to account for your world with stories, you can. But they'll break down at the borders of your world. And just see to what lengths some - many - will go to extend their story beyond its border, where it does not belong. — tim wood

I like this too.

Its about things being a state captured in time, another state captured later in time, and an explanation for why the state of the later is different form the former. — Philosophim

Different from the former as opposed to same as the former?

I'm convinced this is what happens. But there might exist views, realities, ways of looking, even opinions, which see all the causal happenings you (as I!) have in mind, are just illusionary qualities, like time can be illusionary. You might have the feeling that all this change and xausal, and timelike behavior we see around us is really out there (like I do!), but you can just as well ignore all that and claim that it's all a persistent and stubborn illusion, and that it's you who is having the illusion (though I'm not sure if you would have any reason to notify you then, because also that would be an illusion).

We do not experience causality! We experience phenomena, arranged in an order in space and time, and apply the concepts of cause-and-effect to these phenomena. — _db

The problem here is you just keep saying an idea, but you're providing no evidence. Try to explain how a computer chip works without causality. If you can do it, I think you'll have something.

Yes, a certainty. Besides, if one universe can become, so then can another. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! Isn't that neat? Opposed to multiverse theory being something we entertain for fun, it becomes something we can view as a logically likely reality.