Causation is a leap of faith into an anti-faith idea…it’s for those that have no faith in logic. 
I’ll get my coat…
Causation is an ontology based on defined concepts that are logically coherent.
Cause = a situation that logically demands a change (it cannot be what it is and also remain what it is).
Effect = the change in situation demanded by a situation.
.
[size=50]
…[/size]
.
Causation rests on the assumption that the starting point of “the whole” can be divided into two or more distinct entities, in order to provide predictive/useful meaning.
Even then, a cause is just another effect. It’s just an effect that seems to precede another effect reliably and consistently enough relative to other things that don’t seem to precede as reliably and consistently.
Since dividing lines within “the whole” have no physical existence, and prediction of future experience can only rely on past experience, it is indeed a leap of faith to attribute causation to anything.
It is only an “anti-faith” idea in the minds of those who refuse the above described faithful elements needed for such a concept. These people do not consider logic as something that requires faith, so you could say that causation is for those that have no faith in logic, though it’s only through their lack of philosophical reflection on the matter.
It isn’t an “assumption”, but an ontology. Time is the ontological element relating a before situation to an after situation, “change”.
The alternative ontology requires that nothing can be explained or predicted = useless ontology except for making the mind a useless tool.
Call it what you like. Time is very similarly an example of two or more elements being abstracted from “the whole”, despite the lack of physical existence of any dividing lines between two abstracted events.
I never said that either causation or time were not useful. In fact I explicitly said that causation was useful (to those with certain value sets), and I would say the same about time.
But neither causation nor time are as fundamental as the whole that has to be dissected in order for them to be conceivable.
And who cares?
“1+1=2” is just someone’s defined understanding.
Yes, and…??
“It isn’t Truth. It is just understanding.”
That is a necessarily false statement. The “whole” is necessarily less fundamental than any sub-component of it, merely by definition.
Faith - okay.
No faith - okay.
What could anti-faith possibly be?
Isn’t it like banana, no banana, and anti-banana ? There’s no such thing as an anti-banana.
A monkey.
I think of the anti- as everything that is not identified as the , e.g. its surroundings. Though, again, dividing lines between the two have no physical existence.
Anyone who wants to get to the bottom of metaphysics, beyond things like rationality. Not you, for example.
Merely by your definition.
You want to start from components and add them together. I want to start from what you would call the result, and break it down into components.
Neither of us is necessarily correct, though mine is more representative of the progression of human experience, to the human.
Subscribed.
When and if you ever “get to the bottom”, you will find my footprints and under-standing.
Already got there, mate. I experienced footprints such as yours on the way there, and continued to experience beyond “under”-standing, overstanding or any kind of standing to the point where there was just “experience”. You are only interested in rationality, and so I don’t expect to meet you there - though I do expect to continue to be frustrated by your claims that “meaingful existence” is more fundamental than unqualified (or unquantified) existence, and your complete ignoring of “meaningless existence” that would round off your understanding of existence - since you are so entrenched in your own value set that you cannot see others.
You haven’t even begun.
“There are far greater things in reality, than in your philosophies.”
And
“There are far greater dangers in reality than in your fantasies.”
Uh huh.
And yes, thanks for letting me know that real stuff happens as well as stuff you think. You’re way ahead of me. Enough of this already.
Glad to see that you recognized it at least.
But check back at its actual origin before you go further into more presuming of guilt.
Someone needs to buy a dictionary. Or think. That would work too.
I actually think this is pretty clever. Too bad everybody skipped over it for some bizarre pissing contest. Are you equating the laws of physics with logic here though?
“anti” means “against”.
Materialists tend to believe that their idea is a true reflection of reality, rather than a faith in its reflection.