Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

An Exploration Of Causality


Legion

Recommended Posts

As the title of this thread suggests, I am hoping that we may may explore causality a bit here. It seems to me that we would do this because we believe our current understanding is somehow deficient and there is something to be gained by a renewed investigation. My belief is that life and organism reveal that our current understanding of causality is deficient. It seems to me that much of living behavior is inexplicable and beyond our present abilites to predict.

 

What I hope to bring to this discussion is only an intuition at the moment. With your participation, I hope to solidify this intuition a bit further. I mainly bring three ideas before you, which I will briefly outline. And then I will (try to) explain why I think these ideas are connected to each other and to causality.

 

anticipation - a method of self-control which is guided by models (i.e. understanding).

 

function - the concept that various components of the body (e.g. skin, brain, heart, etc.) have roles to play with the body.

 

natural paradoxes - these are exemplified by such things as the chicken and the egg and self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

I have a vague sense that these are related through a certain restricted manifestation of final causes in nature. I'm not talking about teleology here. I'm talking about the idea that while we are often interested in what entails things, we are also interested in what things themselves entail. That is, when considering some thing, call it X, and we ask what entails it, or gives rise to it, or causes it, or is responsible for it, then we are asking something like this... ? --> X. But when we ask what X entails then we are asking something like this... X --> ?.

 

Now, some people apparently believe that material, efficient, and formal causes are sufficient for understanding nature. But I believe that final causes are also required to provide more comprehensive explanations. I also believe its inclusion in our models forces us to re-examine time itself.

 

If you are confused when reading all that, then welcome to the club. As I've indicated, these are the products of an intuition. And I believe one of the ironies of learning is that we must risk confronting our own confusion. I think we must often pass through confusion on our way towards understanding.

 

I welcome any questions and comments you may have. I will do my best to address them. A special thanks goes out to BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Legion, I am confused by a lot of this, but I'll just do what I usually do - stick with it until the penny drops.

 

It looks to me as if I'll grasp more of what you mean if I can get my head around these four types of causes. Then, I could try applying my understanding to the three ideas you mention - anticipation, function and natural paradoxes. Should I go to the Wiki pages about Causes and start there or do you know anywhere else that explains it all, at a beginner's level?

 

Legion wrote...

"I have a vague sense that these are related through a certain restricted manifestation of final causes in nature. I'm not talking about teleology here. I'm talking about the idea that while we are often interested in what entails things, we are also interested in what things themselves entail. That is, when considering some thing, call it X, and we ask what entails it, or gives rise to it, or causes it, or is responsible for it, then we are asking something like this... ? --> X. But when we ask what X entails then we are asking something like this... X --> ?."

 

 

Ummm... what's the difference between entailment and cause?

 

My shaky understanding is that X has a cause or causes that chronologically precede it, whereas whatever is entailed by it is chronologically separate from the causes and exists in the future, after X has manifested itself. Until X actually becomes X, whatever it entails isn't fully realized until the moment that X actually becomes X. The entailments are latent until X 'matures' fully. Once that moment occurs, X's causes are firmly in the past and it's entailments, not being able to exist in the past or the present, can only occupy the remaining category - the future.

 

Of course, I could be completely wrong here.

I can't remember exactly where I read it, but I recall reading that some kinds of (sub-atomic?) particle can be described in exactly the same way, either forwards or backwards in time. If my memory is faulty on this, so be it. But if there's some truth in it, then Time itself could just be an illusion and I'm hopelessly stuck in the mirage when I talk about the past, the present and the future as sharply-defined and separate entities.

 

Or, the could be another way of looking at this ?-->X vs. X-->? problem.

What if the failure lies, not in the actual nature of reality, but in the symbols we use to describe it and communicate about it - that is, language?

 

Could it be a bit like the wave function collapse that occurs in the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox? So long as nobody looks inside the box, nobody knows if the cat is alive or dead. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the act of observing changes what is being observed. Therefore, the act of opening the box to see if the cat is alive or dead, changes what is being observed (the cat). Until the box is opened and the observation made, you've got a cat that exists in a state of quantum limbo, neither alive or dead.

 

Going back to X, what if our act of trying to define reality changes it from what it really is to something else?

 

Rank speculation, I know, but this is all about exploration, right?

 

Seriously tho' Legion, I'm looking to you for some help here (see above). I could go it alone, but why should I try and re-invent the wheel if you've done it already?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA I think you have very good instincts. I am going to address your excellent comments and questions as I can find the time. I just wanted to drop in here real quick and say...

 

Thank you

 

Edit: In the interim, here is a thread I started on Aristotle's causes and natural entailment. It may not be completely accurate, but I believe it's close...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/50234-aristotles-causes-and-natural-entailment/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA let me once again thank you. I think you've shown an immense curiosity and courage. I hope that I am capable of the same.

 

Yes Legion, I am confused by a lot of this, but I'll just do what I usually do - stick with it until the penny drops.

 

Yes sir. I know what you mean. Patience and persistence are a great deal of learning I think.

 

Ummm... what's the difference between entailment and cause?

 

I believe there are two different types of entailment. We have natural entailment which exists between phenomena, and is generally known as causality. And we have formal entailment which exists between propositions in language, and is generally known as inference. If we are talking about natural entailment then we are talking about causality. Hopefully the link I gave you above will help some.

 

... Time itself could just be an illusion and I'm hopelessly stuck in the mirage when I talk about the past, the present and the future as sharply-defined and separate entities.

 

Again I think your instincts are good BAA. I am having serious difficulties here too. I believe objective time exists, but I suspect it may not be as simple as we have hitherto known. I've been trying the approach that time is associated with efficient causes. For instance, we can cast the equation for a falling body in the language of categories...

 

tg: vi --> vf

 

In words, the time of gravity's operation gives rise to a transformation between an initial velocity and a final velocity. Okay, so when we ask... why does this final velocity obtain?... we have two answers. Because of the intial velocity. Because of the time of gravity's operation. The first answer is the analog of material causation. The second is the analog of an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes, and that's where time is sitting.

 

What if the failure lies, not in the actual nature of reality, but in the symbols we use to describe it and communicate about it - that is, language?

 

I think this a suspicion bearing immense insight. I think the formal languages we've been using have unneccesarily constricted us. Newtonian mechanics and its extensions over the years will not support final causation. Without final causes in nature there can be no causal loops. Natural paradox would be impossible. But the fact is... they do exist (e.g. chicken and egg, self-fulfilling prophecy).

 

If we cast it into categories we will require at least two maps such as....

 

f: A --> B, Phi: B--> F

 

Togther these two maps represent a loop of formal entailment.

 

You've really got me thinking over here BAA. And again I thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Legion!

 

BAA let me once again thank you. I think you've shown an immense curiosity and courage. I hope that I am capable of the same.

 

Well, thanks. smile.png

 

Somewhere there's an epitaph on the grave of an astronomer (don't ask me for details, this is a dim and distant memory from i-duuno-where) that reads,

"I loved the stars too much to be afraid of the dark".

I'd like to think that I share the same kind of love, so I'm putting my skepticism and reductionism on hold and going forwards in this, using my love for the stars as the gas for my engine, metaphorically speaking. Getting to grips with this stuff will help me on a whole bunch of levels and I (hope) I can feed this back into my Cosmological/Astronomical knowledge base, extending and strengthening it.

 

More power to you too!

 

Yes Legion, I am confused by a lot of this, but I'll just do what I usually do - stick with it until the penny drops.

 

Yes sir. I know what you mean. Patience and persistence are a great deal of learning I think.

 

Agreed.

 

Ummm... what's the difference between entailment and cause?

 

I believe there are two different types of entailment. We have natural entailment which exists between phenomena, and is generally known as causality. And we have formal entailment which exists between propositions in language, and is generally known as inference. If we are talking about natural entailment then we are talking about causality. Hopefully the link I gave you above will help some.

 

Thanks (for explaining) and thanks (for the link).

 

Time itself could just be an illusion and I'm hopelessly stuck in the mirage when I talk about the past, the present and the future as sharply-defined and separate entities.

 

Again I think your instincts are good BAA. I am having serious difficulties here too. I believe objective time exists, but I suspect it may not be as simple as we have hitherto known. I've been trying the approach that time is associated with efficient causes. For instance, we can cast the equation for a falling body in the language of categories...

 

tg: vi --> vf

 

In words, the time of gravity's operation gives rise to a transformation between an initial velocity and a final velocity. Okay, so when we ask... why does this final velocity obtain?... we have two answers. Because of the intial velocity. Because of the time of gravity's operation. The first answer is the analog of material causation. The second is the analog of an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes, and that's where time is sitting.

 

Ok.

Now here's where I need to surround the concept of Causes. I'll get back to about this once I've delved into the Efficient, the Formal, etc.

 

What if the failure lies, not in the actual nature of reality, but in the symbols we use to describe it and communicate about it - that is, language?

 

I think this a suspicion bearing immense insight. I think the formal languages we've been using have unneccesarily constricted us. Newtonian mechanics and its extensions over the years will not support final causation. Without final causes in nature there can be no causal loops. Natural paradox would be impossible. But the fact is... they do exist (e.g. chicken and egg, self-fulfilling prophecy).

 

Hmmm...

"..unneccesarily constricted..." Time for another question, methinks.

 

Isn't some of this 'constriction' derived from the need for agreement of meaning between any two communicating parties? Isn't that what we humans do with language? Constrict both ourselves and it (language) so that there's agreement about what words mean what?

 

Otherwise chaos ensues. You and I agree that the meaning of the word, 'dog' is a four-legged canine mammal, right? But if that word means different things to each of us, then communication becomes difficult or even impossible. For instance, if I wrote...

 

"My dog is bright blue, seats six people and has a scratch on the hood." ...you'd be confused. Or if you wrote...

"My dog is painted a pale yellow color, has a large patio and a jacuzzi." ...I'd be equally confused.

 

My point is this Legion.

If any kind of meaningful communication requires agreement and this agreement is a necessary constriction, can we ever get past this barrier into unconstricted meaning? I'd say no. You?

A less-constricted mode of communication? I'd say... possibly. You?

 

Btw, manterrgeistmann. Unvertrackensteign, -->ganzel<-- furstin-lastenbrugg?

Lol! Crotehavin jaal. Ok? wink.png

 

If we cast it into categories we will require at least two maps such as....

 

f: A --> B, Phi: B--> F

 

Togther these two maps represent a loop of formal entailment.

 

 

Ok. (nods.) I see that.

 

I see it, because you and I are in agreement as to just what these patterns of pixels mean. If your symbols were expressed in strings of binary notation or Sanskrit or sign langauage we'd be in trouble, because I can't understand any of those modes of communication.

 

You've really got me thinking over here BAA. And again I thank you.

 

Ditto and ditto.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I loved the stars too much to be afraid of the dark".

 

That is so beautiful. Understandings are my stars, and the dark is my confusion.

 

... I'm putting my skepticism and reductionism on hold...

 

Okay, although I believe there is a proper place for skepticism because the foundations of natural philosophy are built upon some results of skepticism, and reductionism has a place because it often confers models of mechanisms.

 

Now here's where I need to surround the concept of Causes. I'll get back to about this once I've delved into the Efficient, the Formal, etc.

 

If you're anything like me BAA, then you like to have some space and time to think of things in your own way. So as you will.

 

"..unneccesarily constricted..." Time for another question, methinks.

 

Isn't some of this 'constriction' derived from the need for agreement of meaning between any two communicating parties? Isn't that what we humans do with language? Constrict both ourselves and it (language) so that there's agreement about what words mean what?

 

BAA, in all honesty this seems like an extraordinarily complex question. I had an explosion of thoughts when you asked it. I will not be able to do it justice. I see my feebleness. And I want to be brief so I don't come off as a know it all. :(

 

It seems to me that natural language acquisition and deployment is a near miracle. However we can make a discernment in language between syntax and semantics. Formal languages are governed by syntactical qualities alone. For instance if I say the word, triangle, it will have a propositional structure within say, geometry, but it will also bring forth a whole set of semantically laden ideas which are not found in geometry. Language thus has internal workings and external references.

 

But yes, I agree that if we do not share enough language then we will be unable to communicate. Thankfully you and I do. :)

 

Otherwise chaos ensues.

 

Of primary concern with formal languages is that they are consistent, such that (P and ~P) is never a proposition in it. However, apparently there do exists paradoxes within some formal languages which cannot be cast into other languages without creating contradiction.

 

You and I agree that the meaning of the word, 'dog' is a four-legged canine mammal, right?

 

Yes. :) I agree the word 'dog' is a noun which refers to a four-legged canine mammal.

 

If any kind of meaningful communication requires agreement and this agreement is a necessary constriction, can we ever get past this barrier into unconstricted meaning? I'd say no. You? A less-constricted mode of communication? I'd say... possibly. You?

 

I hope what I wrote above about the need for consistency within formal languages and yet also that they support paradox comes near to answering these.

 

I think these questions about language are critical though they may seem to have little to do with the subject of causality, because I think an explicit understanding of nature is a relation between the inferences made possible by language and causality which resides in nature.

 

It's been a real pleasure to speak with you BAA. It's been a delight. I think you ask some great questions. And you make me ask questions I had not thought to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion wrote...

"BAA let me once again thank you. I think you've shown an immense curiosity and courage. I hope that I am capable of the same."

 

Hey Legion!

 

Ummm... what I'm going to write next may well test your capabilities. (and your patience)

This could get awkward, but please bear with me on this, ok?

 

I've spent some time looking at the thread you linked to...

http://www.ex-christ...ral-entailment/

...and I can see where you're coming from, when you give this example of Aristotle's Four Causes...

 

"Now the log has been transformed into either a chair or a statue. Now we may inquire into its causes. Why does this artifact exist? Because of the log. Because of the chainsaw. Because of the informed application of the chainsaw. Because of the intended function of the artifact. These are in turn: material, efficient, formal, and final causes of the artifact."

 

Log = Material Cause.

Chainsaw = Efficient Cause.

Application of Chainsaw = Formal Cause.

Intended Function = Final Cause.

 

So far, so good.

Now here comes the potential spanner-in-the-works!

 

Noggy, on 27 February 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

"It's based on the macroscopic understanding of cause and effect. We see things that appear to have a cause, and appear to have an effect. It seems to hold true all the time, but when we look into our tiny microscopes and use our detectors, we see that cause and effect dont necessarily hold. The universe is based on probabilities. And those probabilites cannot be effected by anything outside of themselves, probability is an intrinsic property of the universe. Now, when all of those probabilities average out, we get the macroscopic world and an illusion of cause and effect."

 

Legion replied...

No Noggy. No. You did not address the OP. You are trying to change the context.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, I'm somewhat familar with Quantum theory and I have a basic understanding of how Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle works, so I get where Noggy's coming from on this. Please note that I don't say that I necessarily agree with him, wholesale. I just think that (up to a certain point) he has a valid objection to your OP.

 

I'll attempt to clarify my position on this issue now, ok?

 

In science, when an experiment is performed, every effort is made to account for unwanted variables like observer bias, instrumental error and similar. Therefore, anything that can influence what is being tested for HAS to be taken into account - either by trying to neutralize it's influence during the experiment or by compensating for it's influence afterwards, by making the neccesary allowances in the data. If these influences aren't dealt with, then other scientists will be quite within their rights to say that the data is flawed and/or corrupt and not fit for purpose.

 

Therefore, using this principle Legion, I find that I need your help. Could you answer some question for me please, remembering that I'm tentatively 'feeling' my way thru this complex field of exploration and will therefore need some help with this stuff?

 

Thanks in advance. smile.png

 

1.

Could you explain what you meant when you said that Noggy was trying to change the context [of the OP, I presume]? Changing it from an Aristotlean (macroscopic) paradigm to a different one, one that takes quantum-level probability into account? Is that what you meant? Or something else?

 

2.

Assuming that it's a given that quantum events do affect the processes of cause-and-effect in reality, shouldn't we therefore try to account for these effects, when exploring Causality?

(If it's not a given... why is that? I don't mean to be combative on this, I'd just like to know, ok?)

 

3.

It seems to me that often we have to ask the right question, before we can get a useful answer. Therefore, we should try not to fall into the trap of the Theists, who usually ask questions based upon the assumption that there is a God. (I'm currently taking this approach with Aaron, in the Lion's Den.) So, I have to ask a difficult one of you Legion?

 

Do you think that maybe Aristotle's definitions of Causes are inadequate because they don't seem to factor in what we now know about the quantum aspects of reality?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA this strikes me as an unfortunate turn of events. I have no desire to pursue this line of inquiry.

 

Edit: Let me try and explain why. I believe Newtonian mechanics or even quantum mechanics (which are both formal systems) place severe a priori restrictions upon what we expect of causality.

 

Thank you for what constructive dialogue we had. I wish you the best going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA this strikes me as an unfortunate turn of events. I have no desire to pursue this line of inquiry.

 

Hmmm... I wondered if I my latest post might have gone too far and ventured into some kind of no-go area. (You did see that I qualified what I said - that I'm not in full agreement with Noggy? Even that was a step too far for you, then?)

 

So Legion, you have no desire to pursue this line of inquiry?

Not even if it's to demonstrate to me where you think I'm going wrong in my thinking? That's a shame. sad.png

I'd like to think that I'd do that for you, if our positions were reversed. Imho, the potential gains in mutual understanding and respect would outweigh whatever the problem is. But I don't know what the problem is, do I? Instead, I'm left in the dark, with this thread hanging unfinished in cyberspace.

 

Earlier in this thread, you wrote that you were delighted with my questions. But not any more, it seems.

And whatever delight you had is insufficient reason for you to persist with our joint exploration of Causality? Well, I really wish you'd let me know you had such severe constraints on what you'll explore and what you won't, before we started. That way I might not have trodden on your metaphorical toes, like this...eh?

As an example, when I invite a guest to dine with me, shouldn't I check with them beforehand, to see if they are a vegetarian, or milk intolerant or a recovering alcoholic?

Y'know...common courtesy and all that.

I seem to remember saying that I'd put my Reductionism on hold for the duration, to meet you on more equal terms in our joint venture. Thanks for (not) meeting me halfway and (not) explaining that certain areas of discussion were off-limits.

 

Edit: Let me try and explain why. I believe Newtonian mechanics or even quantum mechanics (which are both formal systems) place severe a priori restrictions upon what we expect of causality.

 

I see.

You have this belief about formal systems like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics.

The belief that they place severe a priori restrictions upon what we expect of causality.

 

Then I suppose you won't be any more forthcoming about why you have this belief, how you acquired it, how you've tested it or anything else like that? Nor will you say anything much about what you think these a priori restrictions are? Not really much of an explanation, is it Legion? (Rhetorical question, btw.)

"Let me try and explain why", you wrote...

 

Thank you for what constructive dialogue we had. I wish you the best going forward.

 

Going forward? In this thread? How? Your 'belief' has killed it!

.

.

.

.

.

 

Excuse me while I go and rinse the bad taste out of my mouth!

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

p.s.

If it's not another no-go zone for you, please Un-friend me. I've no wish to see your avatar on my profile page any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics, as formal languages, will not support a formal analog of final causation. Adopting these languages to speak of causality is the conceptual equivalent of tying our own hands behind our backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics, as formal languages, will not support a formal analog of final causation. Adopting these languages to speak of causality is the conceptual equivalent of tying our own hands behind our backs.

 

You seriously expect me to understand what you mean by this, Legion?

 

Did I not have the courtesy of telling you (before we even started this abortive 'exploration') that I'm self-taught and have had no training in Epistemology, the Philosophy of Science and similar? Knowing this, how do you expect me to understand what a formal analog of final causation is? Or what a formal language is? Or why adopting them is like tying our hands behind our backs?

 

I'm not a ****ing telepath, you know!

 

Just because you understand these things, you therefore expect me to both understand them AND to see why you won't go any further with this? (Incredible!)

 

Look buddy, just don't bother...ok?

 

Don't trouble yourself to explain this stuff to me. Don't even bother trying. It's blindingly obvious to me that you can only relate to someone else on your own terms - so never mind even trying to meet me halfway.

 

This thread is dead.

You killed it, not me.

 

Now, un-friend me.

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you have that capability yourself BAA. You don't need me for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you have that capability yourself BAA. You don't need me for that.

 

I see.

 

That's very neat, Legion.

 

Now you don't have to do anything at all.

 

Well, it looks as if your messages are getting shorter and shorter.

 

So please just hit the keys four more times and answer, 'Yes' to my request for you to un-Friend me, ok?

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, if you wish to un-friend me then please just do so.

 

I have no hard feelings towards you. I think this is just one of those unfortunate things which isn't really anyone's fault.

 

And I meant what I said about you earlier. I think you have a keen mind and a curiosity which knows little fear. I want you to find the understanding you seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion, you haven't been very fair to BAA here. He came to this discussion basically saying "I only understand English, please converse with me in English" and you decided to change to Mandarin Chinese even though you could talk to him in English. BAA didn't deserve that. No-one does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puddin' thanks for your voicing your perspective. Perhaps what I say here will offer some explanation. I don't feel that I've been unfair here.

 

Aristotle's causes are still relevant to us today for gaining understanding, because they probe entailment. Causality in nature, and inference in formal languages, are both examples of entailment. The idea is that we can ask "Why is X true?" or "Why does X obtain?" There will generally be many answers to this single question whether we are talking about natural entailment or formal entailment.

 

If we understand some aspect of nature then we are observing nature, making inferences, and casting predictions which commute with causality. And entailment is with us at every step.

 

The complexity we see in nature is made possible through final causes in nature. If the languages we use to describe nature will not themselves support final causation then we will be unable to mirror natural complexity within these languages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puddin' thanks for your voicing your perspective. Perhaps what I say here will offer some explanation. I don't feel that I've been unfair here.

 

Aristotle's causes are still relevant to us today for gaining understanding, because they probe entailment. Causality in nature, and inference in formal languages, are both examples of entailment. The idea is that we can ask "Why is X true?" or "Why does X obtain?" There will generally be many answers to this single question whether we are talking about natural entailment or formal entailment.

 

If we understand some aspect of nature then we are observing nature, making inferences, and casting predictions which commute with causality. And entailment is with us at every step.

 

The complexity we see in nature is made possible through final causes in nature. If the languages we use to describe nature will not themselves support final causation then we will be unable to mirror natural complexity within these languages.

 

Legion, concepts are a language in themselves. They are weighted with layers of meaning, and I don't understand what you mean here by:

 

entailment

probing entailment

natural entailment

formal entailment

 

...and many other words that you seem to be using as a concept that I haven't heard of. Should you not, then, explain simply the concepts you are using, the fields in which these concepts arise that you are interested in, because I have a suspicion that there is more than one, in which case we would have an added conceptual issue, make your argument/discussion very clear so that anyone and not just those educated in this specialised field of interest can participate in it, and treat BAA with the same courtesy that he showed you, ie. coming to this discussion openly, honestly, and with integrity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh

 

I am being as open as honest as I can be. I don't know how I'd be any more honest.

 

Let us consider the entailments associated with your last post Puddin'. Perhaps that will jar some things loose.

 

We can probe its entailments, by asking...

 

Why does Puddin's last post (#17) exist?

 

I am open to suggestions here. I don't pretend to know all the answers to this question. Can we find out together? If we do then I think it will be a specific exploration of causality. We can discover the causes associated with the post.

 

 

Edit: And can we please lighten up on the accusations? I don't believe they are helping matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, I went back and reread post #7 with new eyes.

 

Please forgive me. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I feel really bad now. I am going to go back and address it in detail. That was my mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, I went back and reread post #7 with new eyes.

 

Please forgive me. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I feel really bad now. I am going to go back and address it in detail. That was my mistake.

 

Not a problem Legion. smile.png

 

I'd much rather have you as a friend, ally and co-explorer, than as somebody I have a problem with.

 

Please take as much time as you need and get back to me whenever's good for you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.

Could you explain what you meant when you said that Noggy was trying to change the context [of the OP, I presume]? Changing it from an Aristotlean (macroscopic) paradigm to a different one, one that takes quantum-level probability into account? Is that what you meant? Or something else?

 

2.

Assuming that it's a given that quantum events do affect the processes of cause-and-effect in reality, shouldn't we therefore try to account for these effects, when exploring Causality?

(If it's not a given... why is that? I don't mean to be combative on this, I'd just like to know, ok?)

 

3.

It seems to me that often we have to ask the right question, before we can get a useful answer. Therefore, we should try not to fall into the trap of the Theists, who usually ask questions based upon the assumption that there is a God. (I'm currently taking this approach with Aaron, in the Lion's Den.) So, I have to ask a difficult one of you Legion?

 

Do you think that maybe Aristotle's definitions of Causes are inadequate because they don't seem to factor in what we now know about the quantum aspects of reality?

Okay, this strikes me as being incredibly complex BAA. I hope I can give some feel of my thoughts here.

 

I suspect quantum mechanics is very good at modeling certain aspects of causality, especially the causes associated with mechanisms. I believe its formal language (the math it employs) will support the analogs of material, efficient, and formal causes.

 

If you wish, we could look into Newtonian mechanics and examine the notion of state and state transitions. Perhaps if we tried to cast it in the language of categories we could gain some insight here. But this would definitely be a stretch of my current capabilities.

 

In any case, I have an eye towards biology, and causality as expressed through organism. I think organisms have some things to teach us about causality. This brings us in contact with a number of things and among them is a false dichotomy which exists between mechanism and vitalism. I believe there is at least one more option, called complexity. This complexity is characterized by loops of entailment. We know them as natural paradoxes or in math as impredicativity. These paradoxes are made possible by final causes.

 

So in short, I felt that Noggy was trying to look at causality within the context of mechanism rather than complexity.

 

I wish I had not misinterpreted you on that first reading BAA. I hope what I've said here comes at least somewhat close to addressing your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm...

 

as NOMAD said to Captain Kirk... (robotic voice) "There is much to consider here."

 

Don't fret Legion!

I'm not about to unleash a plasma bolt in your direction. GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

 

Nope. It'll just take a little while for me to digest what you've written - that's all.

 

I'll get back to you soon.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

http://images.wikia....anru_hybrid.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Back again Legion!

 

1.

Could you explain what you meant when you said that Noggy was trying to change the context [of the OP, I presume]? Changing it from an Aristotlean (macroscopic) paradigm to a different one, one that takes quantum-level probability into account? Is that what you meant? Or something else?

 

2.

Assuming that it's a given that quantum events do affect the processes of cause-and-effect in reality, shouldn't we therefore try to account for these effects, when exploring Causality?

(If it's not a given... why is that? I don't mean to be combative on this, I'd just like to know, ok?)

 

3.

It seems to me that often we have to ask the right question, before we can get a useful answer. Therefore, we should try not to fall into the trap of the Theists, who usually ask questions based upon the assumption that there is a God. (I'm currently taking this approach with Aaron, in the Lion's Den.) So, I have to ask a difficult one of you Legion?

 

Do you think that maybe Aristotle's definitions of Causes are inadequate because they don't seem to factor in what we now know about the quantum aspects of reality?

Okay, this strikes me as being incredibly complex BAA. I hope I can give some feel of my thoughts here.

 

I suspect quantum mechanics is very good at modeling certain aspects of causality, especially the causes associated with mechanisms. I believe its formal language (the math it employs) will support the analogs of material, efficient, and formal causes.

 

Ok then, let's see...

That's three out of the four types of Cause, Final being excluded. Is that significant?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, going back to this...

 

Log = Material Cause.

Chainsaw = Efficient Cause.

Application of Chainsaw = Formal Cause.

Intended Function = Final Cause.

 

...we had a log (Material), which was changed by the use (Formal) of a chainsaw (Efficient) into a chair (Final), which was it's intended function. Applying a little logic here and working backwards - without the Final, there is no need to invoke the Formal, the Efficient or the Material because the log never changes from it's original state. Thus, without the conscious intervention of a person to initiate these changes, the log stays as a log. And experience seems to agree. We never seem to see logs transforming themselves into chairs without human intervention.

 

Right, that appears sound (to me, at least). You?

 

If you wish, we could look into Newtonian mechanics and examine the notion of state and state transitions. Perhaps if we tried to cast it in the language of categories we could gain some insight here. But this would definitely be a stretch of my current capabilities.

 

Uh...no thanks.

These are still very early days and I reckon the simpler we keep things, the better. Anyway, such a 'stretch' might not be worth the effort if we can gain an understanding of Causality by, other less exhausting means. Small movements, eh? Does that sit well with you?

 

In any case, I have an eye towards biology, and causality as expressed through organism. I think organisms have some things to teach us about causality. This brings us in contact with a number of things and among them is a false dichotomy which exists between mechanism and vitalism.

 

Freeze frame!

 

Sorry Legion, but the word, 'vitalism' is a technical term that's new and unfamiliar to me. You've just used it without adequately explaining to me what it means or how it fits into the context of our dialog. Could you please do so or point to where I can find out about it? Thanks.

 

I believe there is at least one more option, called complexity. This complexity is characterized by loops of entailment. We know them as natural paradoxes or in math as impredicativity. These paradoxes are made possible by final causes.

 

And again!

 

'Loops of entailment' and 'natural paradoxes / impredicativity'.

I'm still struggling to surround the concept of the four types of Causes, so there's no way that I can leap forward to where you are and know...

A. What these things are.

B. How they work.

...and C. How understanding of their workings can be applied to organisms and complexity.

 

I also suspect that you're using the word, 'complexity' in a somewhat technical way and it actually means a lot more than the way we use it in everyday language. Is that so?

 

I'm not trying to be difficult here - it's just that I've got a lot of catching up to do and I'm also in an equally brain-stretching thread with the A-Man.

 

So in short, I felt that Noggy was trying to look at causality within the context of mechanism rather than complexity.

 

Legion, I hope to arrive at an understanding of what you meant by the above sentence. I just can't do it right now. These are my first tentative steps.

 

I wish I had not misinterpreted you on that first reading BAA. I hope what I've said here comes at least somewhat close to addressing your questions.

 

Well... Yes and No. That's being entirely honest, btw.

 

Yes, I see that you've explained some things, but you've also run ahead of me a little too.

 

Looking forward to reading your reply. smile.png

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, I am learning here too. I don't fully understand all this either. So, I appreciate the opportunity you provide for me to clarify my thoughts and hopefully spot errors in them.

 

I strongly suspect that entailment is a critical concept for us, so let us please back up and return to it. As I have come to interpret it, entailment is associated with the question "Why?" and the answers "because...."

 

If a chair exists, which we just finished fabricating from a log, then we may ask "Why does this chair exist?" When I look for answers then I see that the chair exists because of the log, and because of a particular process of fabrication. We could write this as...

 

c.fabrication ==> (log ==> chair)

 

In English, chair fabrication entails that a log entails a chair. If we had chosen to fabricate a statue then this would have required a different fabrication process, which we could write as...

 

s.fabrication ==> (log ==> statue)

 

These two fabrication processes are differentiated through a person applying a chainsaw to the log in different ways. If the person had used a set of instructions or blueprints to guide them, then some people would call the instructions or blueprints the formal cause of the chair or statue. I don't know though. I think of the fabrication process here as some sort of amalgamation of efficient and formal causes. An efficient cause gives rise to a material transformation, and formal cause dictates how the efficient causes are applied. If we expand upon the fabrication process we might write...

 

a person using a chainsaw over time to remove wood in a specified way ==> (log ==> chair)

 

I tend to think of the chainsaw's removal of wood as the locus of chair's efficient cause, and the specified way of removing wood as the locus of its formal cause. If that makes sense.

 

Final cause differs from the other three causal categories in the following way. When we ask "Why does the chair exist?" and we look for material, efficient, and formal causes of the chair, then we are looking at the chair as an effect asking "What entailed the chair?" However when we look for final causes, then we are looking at the chair as something which gives rise to effects and asking "What does the chair itself entail?" Well, we know that chairs provide something to sit on. So "something to sit on" is a final cause of the chair (i.e. chair ==> something to sit on).

 

I strongly urge you not to trust all of my thinking here, because I am still sorting through this myself. However I am fairly certain that entailment is a key concept for us. And I hope I've not made too many mistakes in thinking about it, and expressing my thoughts about it. If you see that what I've said here does not agree with your own reasoning, please let me know.

 

I am going to try and address your other questions later.

 

Thanks BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, let me get to some of these other questions BAA.

 

Roughly, vitalism is the belief that organisms have an "elan vital", a living essence, or a soul which confers living properties to organisms. Some people think that if we question the adequecy of mechanistic explanations in biology then we must be vitalists by default. In other words, these two options, mechanism or vitalism, are often presented as being the only options available to us. However a growing number of people think that there is at least one more option called 'complexity'.

 

This brings us to your next question. Yes, my tendency is increasingly to use the word 'complexity' in the same manner as developed by theoretical biologist Robert Rosen. According to this use, the word implies many things. Among the most important, in my mind, is that complex systems manifest loops of entailment. In nature, these are causal loops and are exemplified by such paradoxes as chickens and eggs, or self-fulfilling prophecies. We might cast these paradoxes in the following way...

 

Chickens transform environmental inputs into eggs. Under growth and development eggs are transformed into chickens.

 

or...

 

chickens ==> (environmental inputs ==> eggs)

growth and development ==> (eggs ==> chickens)

 

With a self-fulfilling prophecy we might say that through anticipation, a predicted event gives rise to behavior. And behavior causes circumstances to be transformed into the predicted event.

 

or...

 

behavior ==> (circumstances ==> predicted event)

anticipation ==> (predicted event ==> behavior)

 

Cast in this manner, both of these natural paradoxes follow the cannonical form of...

 

f: A --> B

Phi: B --> F

 

... which represents Rosen's 'metabolic-repair' model of organisms. He asserted that such loops of entailment were characteristic of both complexity and living systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.