I'm not sure about the universe as a whole, but physics is giving up on causation in the physical sense - a lot now is more like logical causation. In general relativity, a big mass, like the Earth, curves space, and that gives the illusion of a force of gravity, but there is no such force in physics anymore. And there is no mechanism for how the mass manages to curve space. Similarly in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger wave equation does not let the electrons in an atom collapse into the protons in the nucleus, even though no force is created to oppose the electrical attraction pulling them in. How does an equation accomplish that? Sounds more like logical causation to me. — Gary Venter
Exactly! What we call "Causation" is not a physical or mechanical Force, but a logical inference from observation of sequential physical changes.
Your post metaphysically caused me to question how Matter can produce the sensed Effect we call "Gravity". Einstein's E=MC^2 formulation implies that the Energy constituting a physical object can be transformed (somehow) into intangible mathematical Mass, which we sensibly experience as Gravity. Similarly, the Brain (somehow) processes neural Energy into the metaphysical Experience we call "Mind". Chalmers was posing an equivalent question of Causation in asking how a lump of matter could produce the intangible-but-sensible*1 effect (feeling) we call "Mind". Is it magic, or physics, or metaphysics?
For the same reason, I conclude that the First Cause of the on-going changes in our world is not a physical force, but a metaphysical Potential with Actual physical effects. Aristotle provided a philosophical definition of the "Potential" principle*2.
*1. Sensible :
Sensible heat is literally the heat that can be felt.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Sensible_heat
*2. Aristotle's Potential Principle :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form separate from matter, eternal and immutable.)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Today we might call that "actualizing factor" of Causation the Power to Enform, i.e. Information. Matter is the substance acted upon, but EnFormAction is the cause of all changes.
TPF : First Cause arguments
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
Let me give you an example. Lets say that space has always existed. What caused space to always exist? Nothing. Therefore space is a first cause. It is something within causality that itself was not caused. So no, an eternal universe does not preclude a first cause. Why is the universe eternal opposed to not? What caused it to be that way? Nothing. — Philosophim
↪ucarr seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. If so, the postulated Multiverse would be either infinite in parallel, in the sense of Many Worlds, or a serial re-incarnation of a single self-existent 'Verse.
On the other hand, ancient thinkers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Taoists, and Torah writers, seemed to assume that a perishable world (Death follows Life) of serial causation could not be self-existent*1. Even Plato's less-than-perfect workman --- demiurge --- follows a pre-existing plan. So, they reasoned that some non-perishable outside force or principle was necessary to jump-start the world of cycling causes & effects*2. Some postulations for The Eternal Creative Principle were : Forms, Logos, Tao, and the nameless eternal creator of Genesis*3.
*1. Craftsman vs Creator :
‘The nature of things’ examines Plato's understanding of the natural world. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the creation of the world as work done by a divine Craftsman, who does the job by reference to a model — a system of rational principles. The real world is not, as we uncritically take it to be, the world around us that our senses report to us; it is rather what we grasp in thought when exercising our minds in abstract philosophical argument, in particular arguments which lead to what Plato calls Forms — the Forms which function as patterns for the Craftsman as he makes our world. . . .
Plato's God is a workman who does the best he can with the materials he has to work with; he creates order from chaos, but he does not create the original materials from nothing.
https://academic.oup.com/book/391/chapt ... m=fulltext
Note --- In this scenario the demiurge obtained his materials from the principle of Chaos, which was merely Generalized Potential (Causality), but not organized into Matter or Energy. So the Prime Cause must include both Potential (power, energy) and Plan (laws, designs). Neither of which correspond to the mundane energy & matter of the physical world.
*2. On the First Cause :
"Our Stoic philosophers, as you know, declare that there are two things in the universe which are the source of everything — namely, cause and matter. Matter lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion. Cause, however, by which we mean reason, moulds matter and turns it in whatever direction it will, producing thereby various concrete results. Accordingly, there must be, in the case of each thing, that from which it is made, and, next, an agent by which it is made. The former is its material, the latter its cause." ___Seneca, Stoic philosopher
https://monadnock.net/seneca/65.html
*3. Nameless First Cause :
The Tao [Way] that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display ... 4-00006490
↪ucarr seems to be reasoning from the assumption that the physical universe --- space-time, matter, energy --- could possibly be self-existent, hence no need for a First Cause or Creator. If so, the postulated Multiverse would be either infinite in parallel, in the sense of Many Worlds, or a serial re-incarnation of a single self-existent 'Verse.
On the other hand, ancient thinkers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Taoists, and Torah writers, seemed to assume that a perishable world (Death follows Life) of serial causation could not be self-existent*1. Even Plato's less-than-perfect workman --- demiurge --- follows a pre-existing plan. So, they reasoned that some non-perishable outside force or principle was necessary to jump-start the world of cycling causes & effects*2. Some postulations for The Eternal Creative Principle were : Forms, Logos, Tao, and the nameless eternal creator of Genesis*3.
*1. Craftsman vs Creator :
‘The nature of things’ examines Plato's understanding of the natural world. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the creation of the world as work done by a divine Craftsman, who does the job by reference to a model — a system of rational principles. The real world is not, as we uncritically take it to be, the world around us that our senses report to us; it is rather what we grasp in thought when exercising our minds in abstract philosophical argument, in particular arguments which lead to what Plato calls Forms — the Forms which function as patterns for the Craftsman as he makes our world. . . .
Plato's God is a workman who does the best he can with the materials he has to work with; he creates order from chaos, but he does not create the original materials from nothing.
https://academic.oup.com/book/391/chapt ... m=fulltext
Note --- In this scenario the demiurge obtained his materials from the principle of Chaos, which was merely Generalized Potential (Causality), but not organized into Matter or Energy. So the Prime Cause must include both Potential (power, energy) and Plan (laws, designs). Neither of which correspond to the mundane energy & matter of the physical world.
*2. On the First Cause :
"Our Stoic philosophers, as you know, declare that there are two things in the universe which are the source of everything — namely, cause and matter. Matter lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion. Cause, however, by which we mean reason, moulds matter and turns it in whatever direction it will, producing thereby various concrete results. Accordingly, there must be, in the case of each thing, that from which it is made, and, next, an agent by which it is made. The former is its material, the latter its cause." ___Seneca, Stoic philosopher
https://monadnock.net/seneca/65.html
*3. Nameless First Cause :
The Tao [Way] that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display ... 4-00006490
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
A lot here but very interesting. It does remind of Hume's argument that we do not observe causation, just a sequence of events, but we impose it on to the experience, more or less conceptually. — Gary Venter
Gravity (pulling action without material connection) was a mystery to Newton, and a mathematical/logical concept to Einstein. His immaterial notion of causation may be related to his incredulous "spooky action at a distance" characterization of quantum entanglement, which involves sharing Information. In the 21st century, scientists have correlated Causal Energy with Knowable Information*1.
*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy
Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. . . . the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. — Gary Venter
What is warped by Gravity is not just space, but Space-Time, which seems to include everything in the universe ( Space : matter ; Time : energy ). The quantum fields (17 types???) are not material objects, but Mathematical/Logical relationships between infinite "quantum oscillators" --- whatever that is. For my own philosophical purposes, I imagine the Quantum Field as Aristotle's eternal Potential, which when Actualized into space & time (matter & energy) becomes everything in the world that we can sense (i.e. Reality).
a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. . . . they are waves of information — Gary Venter
Einstein's E=MC^2 equation related invisible Energy and mathematical Mass to a dimensionless logical constant, which together we humans experience as Matter. Plato also related "rational principles" (Forms) with the creation of physical matter. Was he on to something, that took centuries to be expressed in a simple T-shirt equation?
conscious potential . . . the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same — Gary Venter
Your comments remind me of my own Information-based philosophical worldview. We seem to be thinking along the same lines.
My personal thesis, Enformationism, postulates that the essence of physical Matter & Energy, and of metaphysical Consciousness, is the Principle of Potential that I call EnFormAction (power to give form to the formless). That's similar to Plato's First Cause (Form), and Aristotle's Prime Mover (Energy).
I'd like to compare notes, to see where you got your ideas about Quantum Physics & Information. Mine probably originated in John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" conjecture.
Gravity (pulling action without material connection) was a mystery to Newton, and a mathematical/logical concept to Einstein. His immaterial notion of causation may be related to his incredulous "spooky action at a distance" characterization of quantum entanglement, which involves sharing Information. In the 21st century, scientists have correlated Causal Energy with Knowable Information*1.
*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy
Physics has no theory of how matter can warp space-time. . . . the quantum field is what is fundamental and that in itself actually creates space through informational effects. — Gary Venter
What is warped by Gravity is not just space, but Space-Time, which seems to include everything in the universe ( Space : matter ; Time : energy ). The quantum fields (17 types???) are not material objects, but Mathematical/Logical relationships between infinite "quantum oscillators" --- whatever that is. For my own philosophical purposes, I imagine the Quantum Field as Aristotle's eternal Potential, which when Actualized into space & time (matter & energy) becomes everything in the world that we can sense (i.e. Reality).
a lump of matter is built up from something pretty non-material. . . . they are waves of information — Gary Venter
Einstein's E=MC^2 equation related invisible Energy and mathematical Mass to a dimensionless logical constant, which together we humans experience as Matter. Plato also related "rational principles" (Forms) with the creation of physical matter. Was he on to something, that took centuries to be expressed in a simple T-shirt equation?
conscious potential . . . the essential nature of matter and consciousness are the same — Gary Venter
Your comments remind me of my own Information-based philosophical worldview. We seem to be thinking along the same lines.
My personal thesis, Enformationism, postulates that the essence of physical Matter & Energy, and of metaphysical Consciousness, is the Principle of Potential that I call EnFormAction (power to give form to the formless). That's similar to Plato's First Cause (Form), and Aristotle's Prime Mover (Energy).
I'd like to compare notes, to see where you got your ideas about Quantum Physics & Information. Mine probably originated in John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" conjecture.
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence. — Philosophim
According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's provenance is a matter of Faith, or Reason.
Ancient Materialism (e.g. Atomism) was a hypothetical solution to a philosophical question. But sensible modern Materialism seems to be primarily an alternative to religious answers to "Why?" questions*1. Apparently, it assumes that philosophy is impotent (decorative) to answer any questions about Reality. Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical.
Although you seem to be trying to evade the implication of "spiritual beings", by limiting the discussion to logical reasoning, not religious doctrine, even your First Cause is --- by definition of Materialism --- un-real, and non-sensible, therefore implausible. In Materialism, what is Real, is what is sensible*2.
Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works.
Those invisible and intangible features of Reality, are accepted because they allow us to predict physical behavior. But most of those predictions are logical extrapolations from known rules of Nature. And how do we know those regulations of physical behavior? By rational inference, as expressed in terms of a> philosophical Epistemology, or b> scientific Natural Laws, or c> religious Supernatural beliefs. None of which are empirical observations, but unlike First Cause, some do have practical applications in the Real world.
The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. A belief, not a fact; just like an unexplainable quantum Field --- Scientists like to think it's a fact, "because it works". The Prime Mover only works in the beginning of world-making, not during its mundane operations. Like Plato's world-creating Craftsman, the First Cause does its work, then disappears into the work itself as ongoing Causation : e.g. Energy.
*1. What is the metaphysical theory of materialism?
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ialism/v-1
*2. Sensible :
a> based on or acting on good judgment and practical ideas or understanding
b> practical and functional rather than decorative.
*3. Is the Quantum Field real? :
For generations, physicists argued whether those quantum fields were actually real, or whether they were simply calculational tools. Nearly a full century later, we're certain that they're real for one unambiguous reason: they carry energy.
Note --- Both QF and Energy are logical inferences, not observations
Provenance :
a> the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
b> the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.
↪ucarr
According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's provenance is a matter of Faith, or Reason.
Ancient Materialism (e.g. Atomism) was a hypothetical solution to a philosophical question. But sensible modern Materialism seems to be primarily an alternative to religious answers to "Why?" questions*1. Apparently, it assumes that philosophy is impotent (decorative) to answer any questions about Reality. Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical.
Although you seem to be trying to evade the implication of "spiritual beings", by limiting the discussion to logical reasoning, not religious doctrine, even your First Cause is --- by definition of Materialism --- un-real, and non-sensible, therefore implausible. In Materialism, what is Real, is what is sensible*2.
Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works.
Those invisible and intangible features of Reality, are accepted because they allow us to predict physical behavior. But most of those predictions are logical extrapolations from known rules of Nature. And how do we know those regulations of physical behavior? By rational inference, as expressed in terms of a> philosophical Epistemology, or b> scientific Natural Laws, or c> religious Supernatural beliefs. None of which are empirical observations, but unlike First Cause, some do have practical applications in the Real world.
The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. A belief, not a fact; just like an unexplainable quantum Field --- Scientists like to think it's a fact, "because it works". The Prime Mover only works in the beginning of world-making, not during its mundane operations. Like Plato's world-creating Craftsman, the First Cause does its work, then disappears into the work itself as ongoing Causation : e.g. Energy.
*1. What is the metaphysical theory of materialism?
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ialism/v-1
*2. Sensible :
a> based on or acting on good judgment and practical ideas or understanding
b> practical and functional rather than decorative.
*3. Is the Quantum Field real? :
For generations, physicists argued whether those quantum fields were actually real, or whether they were simply calculational tools. Nearly a full century later, we're certain that they're real for one unambiguous reason: they carry energy.
Note --- Both QF and Energy are logical inferences, not observations
Provenance :
a> the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
b> the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.
↪ucarr
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
I'm recalling from memory you citing Hume re: causation. The gist of your point is that causation, in his view, is an inference from observed patterns of apparently connected changes in states of being within the world. His conclusion, as reported by you, states that the concept of causation stands upon empirically-derived impressions of the world. In closing, you said these impressions are generally understood to fall short of a proof of the concept of causation. — ucarr
I would prefer that you quote the assertions you are responding to. I don't remember exactly how I worded the comments on Hume's causation. But I wouldn't say that "the concept of causation stands on empirically-derived impressions". Empirical typically implies recorded & confirmed scientific evidence. But up until Hume's day, the notion of Causation (by some invisible entity) was taken-for-granted by most people, as a reasonable-but-untested inference from sensory observations. Therefore, Hume was philosophically & scientifically critical of that presumption.
The connection between sequential causal events (what we now call Energy) was invisible & intangible. There was no discernible difference between the putative "cause" and the presumed "effect". And 17th century Natural Philosophy had no formal concept of Energy, but the ancient notion of Spirit persisted. So he, not I, said the commonsense belief in Causation --- perhaps as a manifestation of heavenly Spirit acting in the world --- "falls short of" empirical proof. Where Kant spoke of "consult not experience", I'm guessing he was referring to what we now call Empirical Science.
David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Hume's theory of causation states that causality is formed from the relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. However, because knowledge comes from experiences, assumptions of causality are intrinsically flawed and cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html
Kant and Hume on Causality :
And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tye or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. . . .
Thus, although Kant does not explicitly mention Hume in Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, the parallels with Hume’s Enquiry are striking indeed
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects? — ucarr
Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? Or explain your terms in more detail. For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference, not a spiritual force, in the world. Instead, the term Energy now covers physical actions that used to be attributed to Spirits.
I would prefer that you quote the assertions you are responding to. I don't remember exactly how I worded the comments on Hume's causation. But I wouldn't say that "the concept of causation stands on empirically-derived impressions". Empirical typically implies recorded & confirmed scientific evidence. But up until Hume's day, the notion of Causation (by some invisible entity) was taken-for-granted by most people, as a reasonable-but-untested inference from sensory observations. Therefore, Hume was philosophically & scientifically critical of that presumption.
The connection between sequential causal events (what we now call Energy) was invisible & intangible. There was no discernible difference between the putative "cause" and the presumed "effect". And 17th century Natural Philosophy had no formal concept of Energy, but the ancient notion of Spirit persisted. So he, not I, said the commonsense belief in Causation --- perhaps as a manifestation of heavenly Spirit acting in the world --- "falls short of" empirical proof. Where Kant spoke of "consult not experience", I'm guessing he was referring to what we now call Empirical Science.
David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Hume's theory of causation states that causality is formed from the relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. However, because knowledge comes from experiences, assumptions of causality are intrinsically flawed and cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html
Kant and Hume on Causality :
And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tye or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. . . .
Thus, although Kant does not explicitly mention Hume in Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, the parallels with Hume’s Enquiry are striking indeed
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects? — ucarr
Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? Or explain your terms in more detail. For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference, not a spiritual force, in the world. Instead, the term Energy now covers physical actions that used to be attributed to Spirits.
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
What I presented comes from Deacon. — ucarr
The phrase --- "Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects?" --- is over my head. So I can't agree or deny. If you say so, I'll assume it makes sense to Deacon.
Is it correct to say you see causation -- structurally speaking -- as a generalization in parallel with the specific energy-and-change relationship with respect to an invisible agent that causes transformation from one state-of-being to another state-of-being? — ucarr
Again, above my pay grade. But yes, as I understand Causation, the agent of "transformation" is invisible, and is knowable only by inference from observations of state A (before) and state B (after) the physical changes noted. The "invisible agent" is called by various names by scientists : energy, inertia, mass, photon, potential, etc. When a cue ball hits a stack of billiard balls, some unseen something seems to have been transferred from the moving cue ball to the stationary eight ball. We still don't know what-it-is, in material terms, but we do know a lot about what it does, its physical actions & reactions.
In my personal thesis, I follow the implications of cutting-edge physics --- which is also over my head --- to draw philosophical inferences about Causation, Transformation, and Information. The term "information" originally applied only to ideas in a human mind. But now it is being used to describe all kinds of Transformations*1. Physicists tend to think of physical Energy as fundamental, but some philosophers view Information as the primitive of Causation*2. Studies of complex systems, such as biological entities, have been enhanced by treating Information as an analog of Energy*3. So you can call that "invisible agent of transformation" Energy or Causation or Information or Spirit, depending on the context, and your own proclivities.
*1. Does Energy = Information? :
Energy is a mysterious force that causes things to move. Energy is not information but it is required to transfer information
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/t ... ve.122587/
*2. What is information? :
Information philosophy extends that study to the communication of information content between material objects, including how it is changed by energetic interactions with the rest of the universe.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
*3. Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information :
They connect the natural sciences to the science of computation, and they characterize the emergence of classical physics from the quantum realm in the early universe.
https://www.sfipress.org/news/complexit ... nformation
The phrase --- "Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects?" --- is over my head. So I can't agree or deny. If you say so, I'll assume it makes sense to Deacon.
Is it correct to say you see causation -- structurally speaking -- as a generalization in parallel with the specific energy-and-change relationship with respect to an invisible agent that causes transformation from one state-of-being to another state-of-being? — ucarr
Again, above my pay grade. But yes, as I understand Causation, the agent of "transformation" is invisible, and is knowable only by inference from observations of state A (before) and state B (after) the physical changes noted. The "invisible agent" is called by various names by scientists : energy, inertia, mass, photon, potential, etc. When a cue ball hits a stack of billiard balls, some unseen something seems to have been transferred from the moving cue ball to the stationary eight ball. We still don't know what-it-is, in material terms, but we do know a lot about what it does, its physical actions & reactions.
In my personal thesis, I follow the implications of cutting-edge physics --- which is also over my head --- to draw philosophical inferences about Causation, Transformation, and Information. The term "information" originally applied only to ideas in a human mind. But now it is being used to describe all kinds of Transformations*1. Physicists tend to think of physical Energy as fundamental, but some philosophers view Information as the primitive of Causation*2. Studies of complex systems, such as biological entities, have been enhanced by treating Information as an analog of Energy*3. So you can call that "invisible agent of transformation" Energy or Causation or Information or Spirit, depending on the context, and your own proclivities.
*1. Does Energy = Information? :
Energy is a mysterious force that causes things to move. Energy is not information but it is required to transfer information
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/t ... ve.122587/
*2. What is information? :
Information philosophy extends that study to the communication of information content between material objects, including how it is changed by energetic interactions with the rest of the universe.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
*3. Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information :
They connect the natural sciences to the science of computation, and they characterize the emergence of classical physics from the quantum realm in the early universe.
https://www.sfipress.org/news/complexit ... nformation
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
...as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven. — ucarr
I would question what you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd. — Philosophim
Perhaps Gnomon can elaborate so rules of inference governing formal proofs not yet satisfied by reasoning about causation. — ucarr
Hey, I'm just accepting David Hume's reasoning, about the universality of cause & effect. I'm not an expert in these matters, so you can argue with him.
Today, we associate the word "Energy" with physical changes in the world. Yet it is defined, not as a physical thing, but as an "ability" or "capacity" or "efficacy" or "potential" which are no more empirically provable than "causation". Personally, I take predictable physical determinism for granted, for pragmatic reasons, and make no attempt to prove it, logically or empirically. I assume that's what Hume meant by "certitude".
David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Causation describes a cause-and-effect relationship, where one thing causes another to occur. However, Hume argued that causation is not always empirically sound because it cannot be proven because experiences are subjective and flawed.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html
David Hume: Causation
Once more, all we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction. Of the common understanding of causality, Hume points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
Is it ever possible to actually 'prove' causation? :
You can prove 'causation' with respect to one context and one event but never on a universal canvas of time where you can explain all things at the same time. You will necessarily make some assumptions. So proof of 'causation' will come with that baggage of unexplained assumptions.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ever-possib ... -causation
I would question what you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd. — Philosophim
Perhaps Gnomon can elaborate so rules of inference governing formal proofs not yet satisfied by reasoning about causation. — ucarr
Hey, I'm just accepting David Hume's reasoning, about the universality of cause & effect. I'm not an expert in these matters, so you can argue with him.
Today, we associate the word "Energy" with physical changes in the world. Yet it is defined, not as a physical thing, but as an "ability" or "capacity" or "efficacy" or "potential" which are no more empirically provable than "causation". Personally, I take predictable physical determinism for granted, for pragmatic reasons, and make no attempt to prove it, logically or empirically. I assume that's what Hume meant by "certitude".
David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Causation describes a cause-and-effect relationship, where one thing causes another to occur. However, Hume argued that causation is not always empirically sound because it cannot be proven because experiences are subjective and flawed.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html
David Hume: Causation
Once more, all we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction. Of the common understanding of causality, Hume points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
Is it ever possible to actually 'prove' causation? :
You can prove 'causation' with respect to one context and one event but never on a universal canvas of time where you can explain all things at the same time. You will necessarily make some assumptions. So proof of 'causation' will come with that baggage of unexplained assumptions.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ever-possib ... -causation
Re: TPF : First Cause arguments
For an explanation supporting the reality of causation, I'm inclined to cite the second law of conservation: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. In conjunction with this, I'm inclined to propose that matter and energy are continually changing form and position via self-organizing dynamical systems across time and space. In a complicated way, causation is about shape-shifting. So, causation tells us our world is thoroughly networked. — ucarr
Your description of Causation sounds similar to my own thesis of Enformationism. It takes the Power to Transform (EnFormAction : energy + form + action) as the fundamental fact of the world. Physicists tend to refer to it as a Universal Quantum Field, from which all kinds of Matter may emerge. Like Energy though, EFA is not a material thing, but a dynamic Potential to cause changes in physical constitution and in metaphysical form : "changing form" ; "shape-shifting".
My unconventional notion of Causal Information can be traced back to quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulation. It's also indirectly related to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. In my blog posts, I often refer to EnFormAction (power to transform) as a "shape-shifter". And that concept of "changing form" is exemplified in Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of causal Energy with sensible mathematical Mass, which we experience as real tangible Matter.
This unorthodox mash-up of physics & metaphysics is hard to grasp, but once you get-it, that understanding of how the world is "net-worked" by Causation will explain a lot of philosophical mysteries.
Self Organization :
It is as though, as the universe gradually unfolds from its featureless origin, matter and energy are continually being presented with alternative pathways of development: the passive pathway that leads to simple, static, inert substance, well described by the Newtonian thermodynamic paradigms, and the active pathway that transcends these paradigms and leads to unpredictable, evolving complexity and variety.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
The many forms of Information :
But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html
The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Your description of Causation sounds similar to my own thesis of Enformationism. It takes the Power to Transform (EnFormAction : energy + form + action) as the fundamental fact of the world. Physicists tend to refer to it as a Universal Quantum Field, from which all kinds of Matter may emerge. Like Energy though, EFA is not a material thing, but a dynamic Potential to cause changes in physical constitution and in metaphysical form : "changing form" ; "shape-shifting".
My unconventional notion of Causal Information can be traced back to quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulation. It's also indirectly related to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. In my blog posts, I often refer to EnFormAction (power to transform) as a "shape-shifter". And that concept of "changing form" is exemplified in Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of causal Energy with sensible mathematical Mass, which we experience as real tangible Matter.
This unorthodox mash-up of physics & metaphysics is hard to grasp, but once you get-it, that understanding of how the world is "net-worked" by Causation will explain a lot of philosophical mysteries.
Self Organization :
It is as though, as the universe gradually unfolds from its featureless origin, matter and energy are continually being presented with alternative pathways of development: the passive pathway that leads to simple, static, inert substance, well described by the Newtonian thermodynamic paradigms, and the active pathway that transcends these paradigms and leads to unpredictable, evolving complexity and variety.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
The many forms of Information :
But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html
The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest