Causality

Probally not a good idea to read further chapters without understanding this one. This chapter refutes the constructivist theory.

 I start at the same place as Rene Descartes , the father of modern philosophy. In his “Meditations”, he also wanted a foundation of beliefs. He, understanding the possibility that everything could be a deception (think The Matrix), tossed everything, EVERYTHING away, and started from scratch. Descartes, with usage of pretty and elaborate language, quickly moved from the fact that he existed to the Platonic truths of mathematics (to which is later  explained betterby Immanuel Kant, which I will go into detail in just a bit).

Nobody has ever really gone into detail over the self. We feel content with “I think, therefore I am”, and that we are a body that is extended in space. Even this basic statement is still an assumption. Before we can attach "I" to "think", we must define "I". David Hume states in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that “the less forcible and lively (perceptions) are commonly denominated Thoughts or Ideas”. He goes on to say that Impressions are more lively. Moreover “when we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however compounded or sublime, we always find that they resolve themselves into such simple ideas copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment” (Section II). David Hume, understands the self as something that is completely antecedent to impressions.

In fact, I too, when thinking of the self, see it as something that develops over time, caused by perceptions. But wait! I haven’t even proved that cause and effect is even possible yet!!! David Hume, too, was unable to prove Causality because he found it to be circular reasoning. He wanted to prove it, but struggled; he found he could only inductively prove Cause and Effect because it is something that he only witnessed, and didn’t know for sure. That is the problem with inductive reasoning, it can never be 100 % proven true, because it can be only known by being witnessed (it could still be a deception). Humans think, “Well if its happened this many times, then it will happen again”. Therefore, we believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but only because that’s what we’ve always seen, and not because we have a mathematical theory that derives Physics in our Universe.

Toguh dilemma, eh? All humans ever seem to do is base their lives on cause and effect: With every breath that is inhaled, a human assumes she can exhale, with every step a human takes, she assumes that she will stay standing, because that’s how the universe works, we wouldn’t be able to get by without it.

And that’s the key to understanding cause and effect. It by no means has to exist, but from a human understanding, we have to have it in order to perceive and have some sort of significance in the world. If the universe were without consequence, then from a human perspective, life would have no meaning and all would be possible, which would in turn make human experience and understanding impossible. Try to understand existing in a world where anything is possible. Would you have freedom? Absolutely, but so would everything else, the laws of time and space and physics would be broken so many times over and timelines and histories would change so much that existence would be chaotic to the point of being completely outrageous. Human perception would be impossible because it would constantly change, end, and begin again for just one individual. This is possible, and probally true for us. But not as far as our perception in this world goes.

 

We could also say, "Okay, maybe causality usually works but sometimes it doesn't". This is a route  for the constructivists. I would say to these people that they can surely claim this, with the consequence of being self-refuting, that they are destroying the significance of their own truth by claiming that there is none. Then again, they don't neccasarly believe in consequence, but then again, they don't believe in anything. The hypocrasy in that statement is quite evident. They are making a claim that truth doesn't exist. But there is inherant truth in their claim, truth that in the very same argument, they refute. The act of being human enables us to judge what is and what isn't, but both must use the concept of "is". Take the simple concept, "I run". Run means that when a person sends signals from their brain to their legs, they move them. Causality is inherent. Causality is inherent in every other verb, the meaning of a verb implies causality. How can we possibly then turn around and say causality isn't true. 

 

I think the beauty of being human is that we believe in things, that we have that faith that makes up the significance in our world. Granted, we often speak of miracles, and we have spiritual faith. I have that too, but I place that in the world beyond this one. Maybe at times these two oppositional worlds interact, but it will serve no purpose to make claims on that world of no law, other than to prove its existence. I also feel I should oppose that world, or I will lose my significance in this one.

 

And so, I write this, perceiving in a consistent and causal manner. I must rely on cause and effect. From my perspective, I cannot live in a world without destiny.

Conclusion # 1: A human who believes in truth must live in a universe where cause and effect can be their only reality.

What about the truth of that prior mentioned world that is beyond us? This is the only time that I will speak of the world beyond us. This is it's only truth. (I like this argument, it’s quite amusing actually). I am using a different format to present it, because it is best understood in a mathematical, logical kind of way.... And  I wanted to make it fun.  :)  Here is how it works:
 

It is self-evident that I live in a universe, simply by the definition of existence, the universe exists,
Universe as we know it, in this present state in time = U.
Theory of Cause and Effect = C

If C = True, then U = must be caused…. But from nothing….
Error! Impossible, If Cause and Effect exists then something cannot come from nothing.
Counterpoint: U has existed for all eternity.
…. No possible counterpoint…

Premise 1: U is perceived as in a state of change.
Premise 2: IF U = in a state of change, then something must have caused it to change. (One can go back to Aquineus).
Premise 3: The thing that caused U to change had to have come from nothing, or the Universe will have caused itself, which is proven unsound.
Conclusion: Something came from nothing.

This contradicts C! Even if God is said to have created the world, he still would have to be caused by nothing, which isn’t possible if C = true.

Therefore, from the Universe perspective, Causality DOES NOT EXIST! How utterly wondrous for a Foundationalist such as myself.

Conclusion #2: Cause and Effect does not exist beyond the human realm of understanding. Beyond us, all is possible, and all exists…. ALL exists, including this universe, this perfect dimension that is formed in such a way that a human can perceive in it.


A wise friend of mine once told me that everything exists in some dimension or other. This comes from the mathematical theory of the <a href " http://www.tenthdimension.com/" > Ten Dimensions. What do I mean by everything? I mean that in some realm there is a place where purple spotted elephants are flying above the clouds and drinking hot chocolate. If anything can be anything, because causality does not exist, then no one can ever truly be wrong about anything, which sort of makes my whole Manifesto kind of trivial, because here I am making claims on truth, when everything is true to the point that my truth has no significance.

However! That’s all well and good that beyond the human realm everything exist, but I have said earlier, I am concerned about the human realm of perception, where I live my days in this scientific universe based on the beautiful mathematical structure of cause and effect. Let’s get back to Earth, and see if we can draw anymore conclusions in our OWN freaking universe.

Reviews

[Timothy Morris]

Admittedly, I'm not normally a fan of things that are non-fiction; but this manages to read easily without making me want to sleep =). The flow is nice, but you may want to google the rules for citing references; I'm not sure if it should be italics or underlined when you reference another philosopher's book. When the whole thing is in print, you can sign me up for a copy.

[J. Marc]

First of all, thank you for daring shaking our fundamentals, we do need some thinking from time to time, just not to feel driven by events and not understanding them. I also like what “Constance” has noticed about your text: “ Many times, throughout the recorded history of Mankind, the ones who embraced their spiritual nature became the men with the most significance”.

[Constance]

Hmm... this is fascinating, really. Quite a philosopher you are indeed.
Let's dissect this piece, shall we? (It's very good, and therefore worthy of my time in dissecting it bit by bit. Don't take my dissection to mean I don't like it, because I certainly do!)
I first of all must argue with this statement: "Nobody has ever really gone into detail over the self." Several people have gone into detail over the self. Most people who think go into detail over the self. Gautama Buddha, Gandhi-- only some famous examples. I go into the self all of the time too, in my thoughts. I'm sure that many others do as well. You did, after all. :)
I also must say that it seems evident to me that sometimes we are more than what our perceptions have made us- which goes into the argument of just how much of our character, personality, and mental acumen we are born with. Not to mention, we all perceive things differently, and that difference has to come from somewhere beyond experience. Therefore, we have to be born with tendencies, leanings, and predispositions which help to shape our perceptions, by often altering them completely from what is considered "normal" (which is a word I detest).
Now I see a typo in the first word of the fourth paragraph. Easy to spot, that. I'll mention grammar any time I run into it...
The Fifth paragraph begins with a fragment. It would be so simple to change that first "sentence" to make it more grammatically sound, without losing meaning. There is also a grammar problem here: "This is possible, and probally true for us. But not as far as our perception in this world goes." not to mention the mistyping of the word probably.
6th paragraph- spelling, hypocrisy and these sentences: "They are making a claim that truth doesn't exist. But there is inherant truth in their claim, truth that in the very same argument, they refute." should be combined. Also, you have inherent right later in the paragraph. This must have been a quick typo. The paragraph's last statement is also a direct question, and should be punctuated as such. (I am a grammar geek. So sue me.)
Now this statement seems a bit unreasonable to me, for several reasons : "Granted, we often speak of miracles, and we have spiritual faith. I have that too, but I place that in the world beyond this one. Maybe at times these two oppositional worlds interact, but it will serve no purpose to make claims on that world of no law, other than to prove its existence. I also feel I should oppose that world, or I will lose my significance in this one." Who ever said there is a lack of order and law on that other plane of existence that most of us believe in? And why should one oppose that world, or deny its validity, when it may be just as real, or more-so than our current Universe? If our bodies area shell housing an ever living soul, it tends to make more sense to become aware of that part of our self, when one really digs into and discovers the self. Maybe, just maybe, it is THAT part of us that makes us perceive differently than one another, thereby forming who we "are" here on Earth? Many times, throughout the recorded history of Mankind, the ones who embraced their spiritual nature became the men with the most significance. While one, if dwelling solely in that other realm, mentally, does become detached from this one... to become detached from that other realm completely is also a grave error. If we are body AND soul, we must feed and nourish both. I think the path to significance in this world lies in a balance of body, mind, and soul. To quote your own work here, " Before we can attach "I" to "think", we must define "I"." I certainly must mean more than a body with a brain attached to it. In that case, in order to explore who "I" is in order to form a definition, we must think of our spiritual existence as well, not merely the physical.
And should be removed from the 8th? paragraph, the first sentence. If you simply start with So, It will be grammatically correct. The point you made her is very clear, succinct, and nicely done, though. I like this short paragraph.
Your conclusions... #1- oh no, now we get into that chicken vs egg dilemma. I hate that one. There seems to be no way out of that puzzle. This question is indeed the bane of thoughtful existence. There is always a counterpoint from either side. I have no idea why you see no counterpoint at the end, there...
Now I am unconvinced that causality does not exist by that last bit. I want more proof. :)
#2- I'm very well aware of the theoretical existence of several "realities" or dimensions, all at once. Sometimes, paranormal phenomena seems to be more easily proven if you take this approach. (My father is intensely interested in the paranormal, and I spend many hours discussing possibilities of this nature with him.) I love your conclusion here, the ultimate in irony: "If anything can be anything, because causality does not exist, then no one can ever truly be wrong about anything, which sort of makes my whole Manifesto kind of trivial, because here I am making claims on truth, when everything is true to the point that my truth has no significance." Very nicely done, here, and almost made me chuckle for a moment. Your piece is so seriously driven, until you said this. This changed the manner in which I perceived all you had written before it- in a delightful way.
Check your grammar in the last paragraph there... exist has to be plural unless you change the surrounding words. I've delved into this to a point where I can't go on to the next chapter until later, but I know that I will. You're doing a wonderful job with this so far. Bravo.