Where a cause becomes an effect which is itself a cause. The flux, where phenomena are the manifestations of constant change and interaction of reality.
I do not state a dichotomy between cause/effect; these are merely abstract conceptualizations applied to observed phenomena by an observer and have no value in themselves - they exist as a convenience for interpretation, nothing more.
If causality is an absolute, then it is an infinite chain of causes and effects, of phenomenal interaction and manifestation.
If causality is not an absolute, this implies The Beginning or The End, where an effect exists without being caused, or a cause exists without an effect. Which further implies that phenomena are capable of manifesting into and out of existence without instigation, or that phenomena can be their own cause; that phenomena can exist, before existing, in order to bring themselves into existence.
I find this nonsensical and regard the universe as being an infinite causal chain. A position which regards there being no 1st cause, or God.
One idea that immediately comes to my head is the effect of such an “absolute” on the idea of ‘free will’. If all effects (ex. reactions, inclinations, decisions, judgements, etc.) are no more than a historical chain of events leading up to the point of a particular cause or effect, then all influences in our lives have been predetermined in a sense. With all of the influences being predetermined, this would only allow us a finite number of choices and opportunities in life. That is not exactly our idea of ‘free will’ as I understand it. Furthermore, if we presuppose that we can predict future events, then even the subjective choices and opportunities could be argued predetermined.
I think this is an excellent point, and one I have never quite conceptualized the way you did. Both ends of “eternity”, beginning and end, could not possibly exist under a cyclical law of cause and effect. That is to say one cannot exist without the other, and, since we already seem to be in the ‘cycle’ (as it were) we could only deduct that no end is possible.
Though I did consider a couple other possibilities…
I suppose that your’s could be argued a subjective perception of “cause & effect”, which it inevitebly must be. That being said, suppose the chain of “cause & effect” could possibly be linear rather than cyclical. A finite beginning and end, respectively, where the “beginning” is the first cause and the end being the last “effect”.
Theories like eternal recurrence, from what little I know, seem to infer that a real “oblivion” as we would conceptualize does not exist. Perhaps there is no completely still, black, empty “oblivion”, no real “end” in the sense that there is not absolute ceasation of ALL. Rather, “all”, as we know it, is ever-present; just in different forms at different times. For example, suppose that while the ultimate “end”, as we see it, is the destruction of everything we know, it is not necessarily the ceasation of the existance of the atomic/sub-atomic matter that composes everything. Rather, the ‘destruction’ of our “all” is an utter dispersement of said atomic matter in such a way that the matter is then free to react and bind with new elements, in new ways, to form a new variation - and, thus, a new “existence”.
I don’t know how or whether this affects your broader point, but the way I see causality is more like this:
…ause:effect v
…cause:effect>cause
…use:effect ^
i.e. where two (or more) effects converge to create a cause. Of course, it’s more multidimensional than that, but that the point being, thought in terms of a mindful causation dimension (cf. free will), there emerging the question of dealing with many effects, but needing to unite combinations of them in order to a/effect a particular (desired?) cause, which in turn is united with other effects, into other causes. Nevermind whether effects might split intwo. And this all, of course, assumes that temporal motion/direction is possibly observed correctly. In a circle, every point is also (a) beginning-end (again). The point being, again:
The question as to whether there are persistent vertextual (cf. self) determination points operating on an observational level (ontological status unclear), is where the question(s) of begendings inned-out ar(is)e(s).
Indeed it is complicated, I find… and yet it seems to happen so naturally, almost without (my) will…
Pardon me if I’ll just intrude here. I would like to add a little piece to the puzzle here. The word ‘causa’ has a double meaning in this I think. It means to start something with the aim to result in that cause. So, the word cause implies cause AND effect. One might wonder what exactly this has to do with the question at hand. Well, if one observes the infinite regress of the causal chain one can only concluse that something went wrong with the reasoning beacuse an infinite regress explains nothing (an interesting read on this matter might include the Münchhauser Trilemma). Because nothing is explained one might conclude that something else is going on, in other words: the understanding one has of the matter was flawed.
Seeing as the infinite regress contains the problem that any first cause cannot be the first cause a paradox emerges. Paradoxes consist of the misplacement of a thought in a wrong ‘level’, in this case a wrong ontological level. Basically this proves that causality takes place on one ontological level, while the process which is responsible for that takes place on another ontological level. In that sense the word ‘causa’ has a lot more meaning: that which takes place in causality (CAUSE AND EFFECT). The process which is responsible for this is something else however.
An examination of this ‘solution’ might reveal that the causality is a result of our sensory information and the cause for this is a priori (the form of all thought-objects). The question therefore remains if this also exists as a noumenon, instead of just as a phenomenon…It could be this is just an examination of the workings in our mind…then again, I am an idealist…
Indeed, I have had this discussion before on the forum which I moderate (sig).
The issue was in supposing that causation (or determinism) was imposed upon one, rather than conscious awareness, will and the capacity to act being the consequence of contributory factors themselves.
For instance, the mind is an effect of the brain; awareness an effect of biological processes; the capacity to choose is the effect of the awareness of difference, of the capacity for motivation, of discriminating taste; of ones predisposition when it comes to subjective choice of a particular course of events. And these causal factors themselves regress further; infinitely.
Otherwise, if one assumes absolute free will, one is left with the problem of something-from-nothing: that there are no reasons for your actions; meaninglessness. That Will is something dualistic to reality which cannot be influenced.
“Freedom” in my estimation is a relative term. Relative to a particular restriction. Like all absolutes, freedom is meaningless when taken to an extreme.
Again, I stated that cause/effect were human conceptualizations that don’t mean much in themselves. A phenomena is a manifestation of interaction; we invent distinctions between a phenomenal interaction (cause) and the result of that interaction (effect) for the sake of convenience, of easy conceptualization, of ease of communication.
This “effect”, however remains a phenomena in itself which is capable of interaction in turn and thus of classification as a “cause”.
the first cause is an uncaused cause. I have explained elsewhere why I find this concept nonsensical. Same with the “last effect”; something from nothing or nothing from something.
Eternal Recurrence in my understanding implies a closed system; a loop of causality which repeats.
This does not seem to imply that the loop was uncaused itself or will not eventually come to an end: how was the loop possible, of what is it a consequence?
It seems that the loop is a thing-in-itself, which nobody has thought outside of.
You are having a problem with the absolutes of cause and of effect.
As I explained to statiktech, these concepts are simply concepts and do not have a value in reality; they are classifications, often arbitrary, of phenomenal interaction.
I am not attempting to explain anything in particular, merely that observed phenomenal interaction has never led to nothing-from-something. Therefore one can conclude that the reverse is equally unlikely.
Thus, infinite regression.
The infinite regress disproves the notion of first causes, therefore there is no need to suppose a paradox.
Any concept that we create is as a result of human perception and resulting interpretation of phenomena.
From this kind of observation, causality and the infinite regress of such, is justified.
I fail to see how this disproves the first law of thermodynamics. Quantifications are, after all, merely a transformation of energy.
The regress disproves the notion of first causes on the same ontological level: it proves an error in reasoning.
I agree with that, and I think you should ponder the consequences of this thought.
It is justified in HUMAN THOUGHT, not as a conclusion on what actually is taking place.
It seems to me we are talking from different methodologies. It seems fairly obvious to me that you are taking an empirical point of view. I have a transcendental idealistic outlook on things, as you may have noticed. From an empirical point of view the regress seems the final answer in a way because of the fact that a form of gravity well sucks in everything not on the same ontological level.
You are probably aware of the fact that empiricism cannot function without a ‘first’ thought being present, but have judged that reasoning as untrue, but I am going to try to point to some information for you anyway:
Check out Gödels incompleteness theormes. It is logical proof for the fact that no system can envelop everthing. The point werethe theorem shows inconsistency in the sense that for every system there exists a statement that is true, but not proveable by the system. The paradox is easily visible here.
I would like to point to this simularity:
empiricism<==>transcendental idealism
causality<==>quantum mechanics
plurality<==>al-oneness
etc.
I truly am!! Man, you don’t know the half of it… I just can’t get it in my head, if you know what I mean. Are you saying that classifications of phenomenal interaction do not have value in reality?
Would you mind ellaborating a bit on this? I’m not sure I totally follow. Why is something-from-nothing a “problem”? We don’t know the origins of many things incorporated into “existence”, yet they hold meaning. Perhaps the ‘something’ is, or holds, the “meaning”. Why does knowledge of cause or origin dictate “meaning”? I don’t know where the sun came from or why, but i know it’s purpose to humanity - is that not meaning?
Totally agree. Of course all things are both relative and subjective in the sense that all conclusions are directly based on the situation and the personal view point the respective actor or observer.
That is somewhat like the point I was trying to get across. Could it be that the first “cause” was both “cause & effect”? Like the idea of an apple causing an apple - seems ridiculous to conceptualize, but apples do, in fact, cause more apples. That is where I began thinking about concepts like eternal recurrence…
I think the term “Eternal” kind of speaks for itself in terms of the theory. This kind of implies that ideas like “beginning & end” are not applicable, since eternity is “forever” (as far as we can conceptualize at least). That, in my opinion, seems to take emphasis off of the possibility of an end - being that the loop is “eternal”. However, I will admit that we are still left with the question of how this “recurrence” became, or got stuck in, a loop, and why. Although, the term “loop” does, in a sense, imply the absence of a beginning or an end - just a circular flow, which is to say that the “loop” ‘always has been’ and ‘awlays will be’ I suppose.
Speaking from practical experience I can say that a loop usually has a discernable cause or beginning, and also have a tendancy to eventually end when the loop is thrown off track (so to speak). I never considered these loops eternal though…
I wouldn’t want to imply that the cosmological explanation goes down easily with me, either.
Cause and effect are our names for observations that appear to be consistently (throughout time) linked to each other (through time). That which comes first we call cause, that which comes next we call effect. An effect can also be a cause of something else, they are tags we apply to order events. Standard disclaimers about not knowing the current state of quantum physics apply here - but even so, strange results that make us uncomfortable only really highlight the assumptions we make in our language.
The universe extends, as far as we know and can perceive, in at least four dimensions, one of which is time. If the universe came into being, and time is not folded in on itself to a loop, then at its first existence, time as we understand it started. It makes no sense to talk of that initial event as an effect; there is no “before”, as “before” didn’t exist, it is a concept we use due to being immersed in time. “Cause” has associations with will, of course, so it pays to be careful in thinking and speaking - it was an event, which we would label as a cause because of the way we treat language.
There are two things would like to bring under your attention, which seem very closely related.
Causality seems so very omnipresent at …uuh… times. However, there is no actual evidence of time existing. We, humans, can compare thought-objects to eachother (one of a cup falling when doing the dishes and one of a broken cup). Out of this comparison we, humans, postulate time. In that sense time is merely the an expression of the form of understanding of humans. It might be that this exists ouside our minds as well, but it could be so that that which exists outside our heads is something else entirely, simply percieved by us as time.
This reminds me of Immanuel Kant’s works. He points to the difference between the phenomenon and the noumenon. Time however he reserved for the form of our thought-objects. Time (or the effects thereof) in that sense is real to all humans, but not necessarily exists outside of our minds. Kant had a theory in which the noumena consist of a sort of ‘vapor’, out of which our mind constructs all sorts of perceptions. This vapor relates closely to the ‘quantum field’ of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics time does not exist. Hence the seperation between causal sciences and quantum mechanics.
The problem with taking time completely out of the discussion is in using language that’s sprung from time and is saturated in its assumptions. If time doesn’t exist, does the cup exist? In what form? Is time simply a system of numbering the many forms and arrangements of events in the universe, which of which we experience a small subset and place into our experience in some consecutive order? And if so, isn’t that ordering system just… time? To go back to your comparison of thought-objects - we can’t compare thoughts in our head with thoughts we haven’t had yet. Otherwise I could answer this point far better, I’m sure
It’s a problem challenging any Weltanschauung, to an extent, and not to be avoided just because of that. But whereas some cultures don’t distinguish blue from green, for example, they can learn to do so - all cultures have words for colour, though, and concepts of time, some or all of which are bound up in our biological development and survival. Colours below red and above violet aren’t colours, because we don’t experience them as such and don’t talk of them as such, there was never a mutation concomitant with a selection pressure to allow us to see radio waves or ultraviolet.
If time is something else entirely, and only perceived by us as time, then what we call “time” is that perception of an Other Thing. The Other Thing, that time really is, will remain a term in a physics equation, abstract and distant. The way we perceive and speak of time day-to-day is not adequate to talking of time on vast scales at high speeds, or the tiny scales of quantum mechanics, and common sense makes this confusing; it’s possible that there is an Other Thing, or that we perceive The Thing we think we perceive in an imperfect and limited way. I can’t discount the former, but favour the latter - I think we can only perceive things in an imperfect and limited way. Other Things remain abstractions; useful tools.
I’m not sure I understand “In quantum mechanics time does not exist” - it’s a fundamental field variable, isn’t it? Albeit different from the laboratory time we experience at our scale of living, and different again from the relativistic effects that are sensible at yet another scale. In any case, while relativity and quantum theory don’t align (and vastly more learned and intelligent physicists than I seem to think that time is an important factor in this), I am hesitant to think they describe Underlying Reality.
I must admit, I’m not really up to speed on phenomenon and noumenon insofar as they differentiate from signified and referent in linguistics; the former are to me the tools our minds use to deal with the latter, but the latter refer (at least in the case of nouns) to things that we have arranged in a useful way. Pick up a cup and all of the atoms associated with what we label “cup” move with it. Atomise it, and the cup no longer exists; the concept “cup” simplifies and enables us to cope with a chaos of matter and energy. Is the cup phenomenon or noumenon? What defines the thing-in-itself?
(Edit: sorry, quote tags all messed up. Need more coffee)
Using capitals is an affectation to denote the single example, rather than a general class, as (in English) you generally do for proper nouns. It’s what people tend to do when talking of Things-in-themselves (or “in the beginning was the Word”). So there’s a cup on this table, and it has cuppy qualities, but in and of itself it is This Cup, separate and unique from all other Cups, with an ontological individuality and a destiny all to itself, unknowable, isolated, remote from all else. And so on, and so forth.
In that case you’d probably not find this one entertaining…
I was not aware of that. Thanks for the information.
To get back to your previous post:
If time would exist as such in Quantum Mechanics the thought-experiment ‘Schrödinger’s Cat’ would be quite useless. Although I agree with you that we have inperfect perceptions of things I think time is an expression of a different problem. We cannot actually observe time you see, we postulate it.
QM is based upon the thepry that everything is of influence to eachother. The human mind is supposed to influence any process. In that sense Kant’s idea of time (as an a priori intuïtion) would fit the bill perfectly. That fundamental field variable would merely consist of the which observes the process.
I tried finding a good description of ‘fundamental field variable’ by the way, but I was unable to find one. Could you help me out?
Ah, I missed that one. I shall reread it later when I have the time to think it through…
But “time” is completely tied in to the assumptions of what observation is. The effect of observation in QM is to collapse probability functions at the time the observation is made - Schrödinger’s cat is half-alive until the observation is made. You are correct in that it is not directly observed, but it is a necessary part of the framework you use to develop the theory as far as observation and postulation.
As I understand it, and the jury may still be out on this, QM does not require a mind per se, but an observing instrument. Obviously, the outcome of any experiment requires a mind to verify it, but the same could be said of Newtonian mechanics! For example, in communications you can send a superposed signal that will collapse if it is intercepted (observed), thereby knowing whether your communications are safe; the observation only needs to be the possibility of observation, some instrument that can detect the wave state. You can know your communication has been observed, but not whether a human mind has seen the data.
Also, note the use of the past tense in that last sentence. Time gets everywhere. Or is that everywhen?
Sorry, I was unclear. The quantum field equation is the application of the action principle to quantum electrodynamics. I don’t know if this is any help: universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#fieldeq
Without the postulation of time, we wouldn’t have the maths to predict quantum behaviour.
