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?

But there's lots of evidence for causality in physics. — Christoffer

Where? There are lots of cases where causality is assumed (unexamined) to be present, and so it appears. But appearance is less than scientific proof. A lot less.

We assume that cause and effect hold to get our everyday lives done. — Devans99

Of course we do. :up: My only wish is to clearly identify assumptions as such. To call them proofs, or anything more definite than the guesses they actually are, is misleading and damaging to the reasoning which follows.

I think the statistics I've given — Devans99

But you haven't given any statistics. You created an example experiment, and observed that all of the resulting observations confirmed your pre-existing beliefs, while none contradicted it. You made, for example, no effort to confirm that your observations did in fact confirm the existence of cause and effect. Such confirmation is, of course, impossible, as I think you know. Anyway, the large number of observations you made, and that they all confirmed your expectations, is not "statistics". Medians and means, and normal distributions, and so forth: those are "statistics".

The only structured, scientific, way we have of dealing with probabilities is statistics. Please translate your thoughts about probability into the realm of statistics*, and you will find out what I mean. The breakdown of your experimental observations - all for; none against - does not establish the numerical probability of your beliefs being true or false, according to the science of statistics.

* - I can't teach you statistics because I don't know enough to teach someone else, I'm too lazy anyway, and it's a Big Deal: understanding statistics takes a long time and a lot of effort. Over to you....

Yes, you did. :up: My point was that the word/term-related issues just muddy the water without adding anything useful.

We're trying to see whether axioms are in any way justified (directly contrary to the definition of the scientific term "axiom"). You have given a thought-example where all observations supported one thing, with none supporting its opposite. This does not translate to 99.99999% "certainty" (!!!) that the thing is true, or that it exists. The probability that an axiom is true is impossible to quantify. You cannot state a justified* probability for something without "demonstration, proof or evidence" to exist, or to be true.

* - Justified in the context of the scientific discipline of statistics.

OK I estimate I witness 30 instances of cause an effect a minute, so that's 43200 in a day, 15,379,200 in a year versus no examples of causeless effects. That 99.99999% certainty from 1 year of data. — Devans99

I think your understanding of statistics is somewhat lacking. That isn't how it works.

Physics doesn't just accept an axiom and form theories from it — Christoffer

Yes, it does. That's what an axiom is: something accepted with no evidence or proof.

axiom - A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge. — Philosophical dictionary

I only adopt them if they are very likely to be true. — Devans99

OK, it looks like we have to do this the hard way. :sad: Please state the statistical science that justifies your ability to define the numerical probability (likelihood) of any axiom being true. Please do this in the knowledge that axioms are not associated with any evidence or proof:

axiom - A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge. — Philosophical dictionary — Pattern-chaser

If you guess that cause and effect or God's existence is (say) 99% likely - 0.99 probability - where do you get that figure from? What is the statistical science that justifies and demonstrates a numerical probability for this value? How do you assess the probability of an axiom being true? A simple, clear and explicit answer would be appropriate, and appreciated. :smile:

That is only the prime mover argument - 1 of 10 and anyway, that seems a good axiom to me. — Devans99

axiom - A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge. — Philosophical dictionary

link to Philosophical dictionary page

An axiom is an assumption, not a proof. An axiom is declared only because there is no proof (of the concept in question). If there was proof, we'd just state it and move on, wouldn't we?

Concepts are not material so they don't exist in spacetime. I am not sure it can even be said of concepts that they 'exist' — Devans99

Agreed. :up:

Concepts are discovered by intelligence, but different intelligences discover the same concepts; so they have independent existence of a non-material manner. — Devans99

So, having agreed that concepts don't exist (outside of the minds that contain them), you assert once more that they exist. But now it's in a "non-material manner". I can't make much of that, but let's set it aside for now. If they exist, in whatever form, then please point to the place where they exist, the location where these concepts are stored, prior to their discovery. Yes, they are non-physical, so the place where they're stored is not a physical shelf or cupboard, but they must be stored somewhere, in some sense, if they exist. So where in the universe is the concept storage facility, and what form does this repository take?

From a strictly semantic point of view: no. Labeling something "an effect" implies it is an effect of something, and that "something" is its cause. In other words: there is a cause if and only if there is an effect. — Relativist

Fair point. The relationship between cause and effect is assumed to exist by the definitions of the terms cause and effect. But that has little to do with whether cause and effect is valid, or whether causeless effects can/do exist.

As to the possibility of effects without causes, please define your terms in such a way as to make the discussion meaningful. — tim wood

Define how? I have asked if we can consider the possibility of effects without causes. What further definition do you require?

As to making the discussion meaningful, this seems to depend on whether cause and effect is valid, in itself, and also whether causeless effects can or do exist. And that is the purpose of this discussion: to consider whether causeless effects can/do exist.

no evidence to back your claim; no reason for it to be true. You see? — Pattern-chaser

How about most major publications in physics? Causality is a basic part of it, so what evidence do you mean doesn't exist? — Christoffer

You claim that cause and effect exists because physics refers to it? Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it.

Maths was not created. It just existed as a concept waiting for a discoverer. — Devans99

If it existed prior to our 'discovery' of it, where, in the real-life space-time universe, was it kept? What was its location? It couldn't be in human minds, because we hadn't yet 'discovered' it.

Where is the concept store?

What is the concept store?

If your 'discovery' myth is true, you must be able to answer these questions. If not, then you should stop asserting it. :up: :smile:

how is that an unjust assertion? — Christoffer

Not "unjust" - lacking in justice - but "unjustified": no justification offered; no evidence to back your claim; no reason for it to be true. You see?

The BB has a cause. — Devans99

And that cause is...?

The justification is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 — Devans99

No it isn't. I keep looking at that link when you post it, and - surprise! - it turns out to be based on unjustified assertions and nothing else. Wishful thinking is what it looks like to me.

if causality does not apply, it would surely be just a crazy, impossible universe? — Devans99

Ah, so the reason you argue against causeless events is because you can't imagine a universe where such things exist? And you could be quite right, of course. But should we abandon our consideration because we don't understand? After all, it was my own lack of understanding that lead me to post this topic, to see if anyone else had any ideas, or helpful explanations. IMO, the best philosophy tries to break new ground. That isn't easy, but that's no reason not to try, is it?

So it's not clear i[f] we ever observe "causeless effects" or "caused effects," and it's not clear how we'd ever empirically establish the difference with any certainty. — Terrapin Station

Point being, if we can't firmly establish that time runs in only one direction, then cause and effect may be a meaningless concept. — Jake

Interesting. Thank you both.

We don't know precisely what if anything happened pre-BB. But I believe we can conclude there was a start of time and a first cause. — Devans99

Yet another unjustified assertion.

I am making the special exception that for the special BB, it is possible that something came from nothing (zero energy universe hypothesis) — Devans99

So when we consider the only example we've come up with, of what could have been a causeless event, you dismiss it as a special case? :gasp:

We could go into detail on causality in itself... — Christoffer

Yes, isn't that what we're trying to do?

...but I think the key answer to the question of causeless effects is that in our universe, no, not possible. — Christoffer

Oh look! Another unjustified assertion! :worry:

Did you read the entirety of what I wrote? — Christoffer

Yes. I commented on the bit that I couldn't make sense of. :up:

So the universe did come from nothing, contradicting what you just said:

the universe therefore cannot come from 'nothing'. — Devans99

:chin: Universes! :gasp: You just can't trust 'em! :wink:

I'm referring to entropy, to causality for any large events — Christoffer

But causality is what we're questioning here, so I'm afraid this resolves to another unjustified assertion, doesn't it? You are using causality to justify causality.... :chin:

the universe therefore cannot come from 'nothing'. — Devans99

But that is my understanding of the Big Bang. I have read that a load of nothing transformed itself into a load of something, and a balancing number of anti-somethings. Somehow, the anti-somethings returned to nothingness in greater numbers than the somethings, leaving a load of somethings behind. The universe. Have I got this wrong?

Every effect on large scales has a cause. — Christoffer

Assertions (without justification) are a problem here. We are wondering if effects can happen without causes, and you respond by saying they can't and don't, but you offer no justification. Don't misunderstand me: I have no magical explanation. But simply to assert "No, they can't happen" does not advance the discussion.

We can however deduce that something permanent cannot naturally come from nothing if time was infinite (because matter density would become infinite). — Devans99

Unless a balancing amount of 'permanent' somethings go back to nothing at some point/time, as in the QM example?

An effect is a (detectable) event of some kind. And events happen all the time. It's not the event that's different or special, it's that the event had no cause: it happened spontaneously. So the question I'm asking here turns into this: can events happen spontaneously?

It seems that some QM events can and do happen spontaneously, so is that the answer to my question? [I'm no QM expert, so I may have misunderstood.]

I would have thought that a 'causeless effect' would require some energy/matter to achieve it... — Devans99

That seems reasonable.

...so that energy/matter would have to come from nowhere to count as causeless? — Devans99

Only if the causeless effect is the creation of the matter/energy involved. If the matter/energy is simply subject to an effect that proves to be causeless, then...?

The trouble with truth is that, if you are too demanding about the quality (?) of the truth you seek, you will find nothing. Many issues do not contain Truth in the sense we might prefer, so we have to find ways of discovering and using approximations, unsatisfactory though that may be. — Pattern-chaser

Of course, however, people use this as a cop-out in order to not have to scrutiny their theories. They misuse the fact that absolute truth might be impossible in order to imbue their incomplete logic and reasoning with more truth-value than it has. It's the "because you can never know what is truly true, I'm not wrong" reasoning, which is a philosophically infantile method of reasoning. — Christoffer

We sometimes find the truth difficult - maybe even impossible? - to determine, and your response to this is to say that sometimes people reason improperly? Well so they may, but it has no effect on whether truth can be determined, or what we might do instead if it can't, does it?

Causeless effects would be something like quantum fluctuations - something coming from nothing. If something comes from nothing naturally then with infinite time, matter density becomes infinite, which is not the case. — Devans99

Define "causeless effects" as "something coming form nothing", then refute the latter? :chin: This depends for its validity on causeless effects being identically and exclusively equal to something from nothing. It is not clear to me that this is the case. You seem to be offering yet more assertions.

All effects must have causes — Devans99

I'm not saying you're wrong - I don't have the evidence for that - but I asked you whether you had considered the possibility of causeless effects, and you have simply asserted that all effects have causes. :chin: It seems you don't know - just as I don't know. :chin:

- The Big Bang theory... — Devans99

You haven't addressed the possibility that effects must have causes. Never mind the problem of obtaining eye witness (empirical) evidence of the BB, and so on....

I know he's lying about the part of believing. — Daniel Cox

Then there is no hope for you. If I tell you "I believe X", the only challenge you can make is that I'm deliberately lying, to mislead you about what it is that I believe. Assuming I'm not behaving in such a pointless fashion, you must accept my belief, even (or especially) if you don't share it.

If you are referring to emotion as our non-rational behaviour then what is emotion really? — akourios

I meant to refer to more than just emotion, but it plays a central role in what I am saying, so fair enough. :up: As to your question: "what is emotion really?", I think that would take a topic of its own just to set the ground-rules of the discussion! :smile:

When I tell someone, "I believe in the existence of God" what have I told them that they can know? Nothing. — Daniel Cox

You've told them that you believe in the existence of God. How did you miss that? It's the one and only thing you said.

I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot. — Frank Apisa

How wise, and how unusual! Most will say, without thinking, (for example) that the probability of the world our senses show us NOT being Objective Reality is 'vanishingly small' or even non-existent. The truth is that, in matters such as this (and there are more of them than you might think), we don't even have a starting point for calculating an actual statistical probability for this. It's refreshing to see at least one other person aware of this. :smile:

He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. — Devans99

I deny the very existence of "empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause."

Logic doesn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, it only has to do with formal implication/inference. That's even the case with so-called informal logic. It's just that there we're dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language. — Terrapin Station

Here we are also "dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language." I'm not suggesting that we apply de Morgan's Theorem here, only considered, structured thought, which is what people mean - in everyday terms - when they say "logic" or "logical".

Careful, considered, structured thought on this issue says that if you have nothing to analyse, there is no justifiable way to reach a conclusion. Until evidence is found, which of course will never happen, that will remain the case. No meaningful conclusion can be drawn from no-data-at-all.

And abductive reasoning is a very weak form of reasoning that can't be used to arrive at truths. — Christoffer

The trouble with truth is that, if you are too demanding about the quality (?) of the truth you seek, you will find nothing. Many issues do not contain Truth in the sense we might prefer, so we have to find ways of discovering and using approximations, unsatisfactory though that may be.

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point.