Consider I've been arguing for a more general picture of causality that doesn't, the fact that you just keep asserting "No, causality is temporal." is somewhat frustrating.
When we say "X causes/caused Y", we mean that the truth of Y is somehow a consequence of the truth of X. There is no need to invoke time on this view.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had argued causality is not temporal. I guess that wasn't clear to me from your posts.
My reading of bakgat's original argument, however, is that he is talking about temporal causality:
Well their is a great deal of them that think the universe can come into existence uncaused. You are a philosophy student maybe you have heard the maxim somewhere in your studies that whatever begins to exist needs a cause as explanation for its existence.
I understand "come into existence" to mean a temporal change from not existing to existing. I don't mean to put bakgat's words in your mouth, but given that it was his point I was originally responding to, you can see why I thought that's what we were discussing.
If you're not talking about temporal causality, I guess I don't understand how your points are a relevant counter to my objection to bakgat's point. I'm saying that asking about the universe "coming into existence" is foolish, because the universe has existed "for all time" since time begins with the universe (including being merged with other dimensions in the Planck Epoch, as you point out). Do you disagree with that analysis?
Einstein also held to a static universe until the day that he died. I think it fair that Einstein had some ulterior motive to hold to a static universe even though the Background Radiation was already discovered and if we are allowed the privilege of speculation I would say that he knew the religious implications of a finite universe and he was not willing to accept such a position.
Also how exactly did Einstein prove causality wrong? Seems me to be rather the basis for the study of the material world.
Also how exactly did Einstein prove causality wrong? Seems me to be rather the basis for the study of the material world.
When I speak of Einstein and Planck in this context, I mean Einstein's discovery of the photoelectric effect which led eventually to Planck's discovery of spontaneous emission, which is one of many discoveries that were made during the quantum revolution which cast doubt on classical physics.
These phenomena demonstrate that there are real physical systems whose behavior is dominated by quantum, rather than classical mechanics -- and that in those systems, classical causality is wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Here is two quotes from a well known British Empiricist that I think aids this discussion
Ooh, out-of-context quotes. Read the rest of Hume. As I already said in this thread, he takes a cleaver to the whole idea of causality. (There are, in fact, hints of the direction he intends to go with it even in the quotes you provided, if you care to read them with open eyes.) And even if he didn't do this, we would not be obliged to take his "maxims" as unquestionable truth, because philosophy is not a religion.
Einstein also held to a static universe until the day that he died. I think it fair that Einstein had some ulterior motive to hold to a static universe even though the Background Radiation was already discovered and if we are allowed the privilege of speculation I would say that he knew the religious implications of a finite universe and he was not willing to accept such a position.
That's not true (he eventually called the cosmological constant his "biggest mistake"), it's not fair to Einstein even if it were true (if he had any bias, it was in favor of classical causality and God - "God does not play dice"), and it's not relevant to this discussion even if it were fair. You're trying to discredit one of a scientist's theories on the basis of a completely unrelated one which turned out to be incorrect, attributing to him an unscientific motive. That's an ad hominem fallacy in at least two different ways.
TO begin with the first question concerning the necessity of a cause: 'Tis a general maxim in philosophy, that whatever begins to exist, must have a cause of existence. This is commonly taken for granted in all reasonings, without any proof given or demanded. 'Tis supposed to be founded on intuition, and to be one of those maxims, which tho' they may be denied with the lips, 'tis impossible for men in their hearts really to doubt of. But if we examine this maxim by the idea of knowledge above-explained, we shall discover in it no mark of any such intuitive certainty; but on the contrary shall find, that it is of a nature quite foreign to that species of conviction.
- Hume's full paragraph (emphasis mine)
So yeah. Hume is presenting a naïve intuition about causality because he wants to question it. And again, even if Hume were not inclined to question this intuition, there would still be nothing preventing us from questioning Hume. Indeed, we would be very poor philosophers if we didn't question him when he openly admits that his claim is unproven. Don't think just because you've been taught to read the Bible credulously and uncritically that you can approach real philosophy with the same attitude.
Here is another quote I'm probably taking out of context. It is from his wiki page.
A common problem that i see with people that have an entrenched world view is the recognition of quotes and/or science that supports their world view and the ability to not even notice the quotes or facts that contradict their world view.
I do not know hume's work so i might be corrected shortly by one of the many well versed philosophy user on this site. What is hume was agnostic towards the claim that everything that has a begining has a cause. What if hume did not accept or fully reject the premise. Then you do a disservice when you do not provide that context. You are looking for the quotes from hume that support your entrenched belief and ignoring the quotes that that challenge your entrenched belief.
Here is another quote I'm probably taking out of context. It is from his wiki page.
For the third time, the point I'm trying to get across to you is that what Hume believes does not matter. One philosopher's opinion one way or the other does not constitute a "law of philosophy". The only thing that matters is what he can prove, through sound and objective argument with valid inferences and true premises. You certainly have not quoted him as proving the necessity of causation, and I happen to know that you will not find him doing so anywhere in his metaphysics (because he thinks it's impossible). No proof, no law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Isn't this kind of the whole point of Hume (regarding causality); that Knowledge is based upon empirical evidence and we cannot prove causality empirically. Thus the notion of causality is really more of a psychological assumption of ours to help us get by/understand the world.
Regarding other things:
I'm still not clear on what the supposed "laws of philosophy" are.
Logical assumptions: such as the Law of non-contradiction? I'm assuming something like that. Assumptions that work as operatives for guiding logical thought and thus argumentation which yields some sort of certainty if it follows these laws?
I think bakgat meant we should accept causality as an philosophical law. Scientists are breaking that law by accerting the universe is uncaused (which is incorrect I guess. Noone know if the universe is caused or not as far as i know).
Doesn't accepting a limited time already breaks Hume's causality ? I mean, if the universe started in an certain momment how can something cause it once for something to cause it would requires it to happen before time started ?
A being outside of time creating the universe breaks causality just like a uncaused event. Because causality assumes one event can only cause the other if they happen in different time, so something sitting outside of time would never cause anything (causality in Hume's sense). * So i think Hume isn't a great reference for the Thomists*
And even if God is the first cause, why is he what he is ? I mean, even assuming only a inteligent being would be able to start a the chain of events, why this being is good ? Why does he hold the uppermost moral ? (even if Aquina's first way is correct i still gotta see a good explantion of the forth).
Sorry if i'm talking non-sense, not a philosophy student (just a occasional reader).
I find it difficult to assert causality in a time where time does not exist and in a place where space does not exist. Causality should be explored as an option, but it seems to me that once you assert that it 'has to apply' in unfathomable conditions, you have just lost credulity. Especially if you assert with no evidence that a sentience must exist in this vacuum by virtue of necessity like Dr. Craig would have one believe... If one were to assert causality, would it not be equally as valid to say that thermodynamics should apply as well? This would lead me to more of a multiverse hypothesis.
Just my unprofessional 2 cents. Only read the first page. Sorry if this irrelevant at this point.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had argued causality is not temporal. I guess that wasn't clear to me from your posts.
My reading of bakgat's original argument, however, is that he is talking about temporal causality:
I understand "come into existence" to mean a temporal change from not existing to existing. I don't mean to put bakgat's words in your mouth, but given that it was his point I was originally responding to, you can see why I thought that's what we were discussing.
If you're not talking about temporal causality, I guess I don't understand how your points are a relevant counter to my objection to bakgat's point. I'm saying that asking about the universe "coming into existence" is foolish, because the universe has existed "for all time" since time begins with the universe (including being merged with other dimensions in the Planck Epoch, as you point out). Do you disagree with that analysis?
Einstein also held to a static universe until the day that he died. I think it fair that Einstein had some ulterior motive to hold to a static universe even though the Background Radiation was already discovered and if we are allowed the privilege of speculation I would say that he knew the religious implications of a finite universe and he was not willing to accept such a position.
Also how exactly did Einstein prove causality wrong? Seems me to be rather the basis for the study of the material world.
When I speak of Einstein and Planck in this context, I mean Einstein's discovery of the photoelectric effect which led eventually to Planck's discovery of spontaneous emission, which is one of many discoveries that were made during the quantum revolution which cast doubt on classical physics.
These phenomena demonstrate that there are real physical systems whose behavior is dominated by quantum, rather than classical mechanics -- and that in those systems, classical causality is wrong.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Ooh, out-of-context quotes. Read the rest of Hume. As I already said in this thread, he takes a cleaver to the whole idea of causality. (There are, in fact, hints of the direction he intends to go with it even in the quotes you provided, if you care to read them with open eyes.) And even if he didn't do this, we would not be obliged to take his "maxims" as unquestionable truth, because philosophy is not a religion.
That's not true (he eventually called the cosmological constant his "biggest mistake"), it's not fair to Einstein even if it were true (if he had any bias, it was in favor of classical causality and God - "God does not play dice"), and it's not relevant to this discussion even if it were fair. You're trying to discredit one of a scientist's theories on the basis of a completely unrelated one which turned out to be incorrect, attributing to him an unscientific motive. That's an ad hominem fallacy in at least two different ways.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A common problem that i see with people that have an entrenched world view is the recognition of quotes and/or science that supports their world view and the ability to not even notice the quotes or facts that contradict their world view.
I do not know hume's work so i might be corrected shortly by one of the many well versed philosophy user on this site. What is hume was agnostic towards the claim that everything that has a begining has a cause. What if hume did not accept or fully reject the premise. Then you do a disservice when you do not provide that context. You are looking for the quotes from hume that support your entrenched belief and ignoring the quotes that that challenge your entrenched belief.
For the third time, the point I'm trying to get across to you is that what Hume believes does not matter. One philosopher's opinion one way or the other does not constitute a "law of philosophy". The only thing that matters is what he can prove, through sound and objective argument with valid inferences and true premises. You certainly have not quoted him as proving the necessity of causation, and I happen to know that you will not find him doing so anywhere in his metaphysics (because he thinks it's impossible). No proof, no law.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Regarding other things:
I'm still not clear on what the supposed "laws of philosophy" are.
Logical assumptions: such as the Law of non-contradiction? I'm assuming something like that. Assumptions that work as operatives for guiding logical thought and thus argumentation which yields some sort of certainty if it follows these laws?
Doesn't accepting a limited time already breaks Hume's causality ? I mean, if the universe started in an certain momment how can something cause it once for something to cause it would requires it to happen before time started ?
A being outside of time creating the universe breaks causality just like a uncaused event. Because causality assumes one event can only cause the other if they happen in different time, so something sitting outside of time would never cause anything (causality in Hume's sense). * So i think Hume isn't a great reference for the Thomists*
And even if God is the first cause, why is he what he is ? I mean, even assuming only a inteligent being would be able to start a the chain of events, why this being is good ? Why does he hold the uppermost moral ? (even if Aquina's first way is correct i still gotta see a good explantion of the forth).
Sorry if i'm talking non-sense, not a philosophy student (just a occasional reader).
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Just my unprofessional 2 cents. Only read the first page. Sorry if this irrelevant at this point.
Sales
Legacy
Punishing Depths :symg::symu::symr:
Faithless Dredge :symb::symu::symr::symw::symg: