The Law of Cause and Effect.

[shunyadragon]

Your use of the word "because" implies causation. They share the root word.

Does not "imply" causation in this case.

 

[Willamena]

Does not "imply" causation in this case.

Only because it is an appeal to the authority of nothing.

Edit: I'm not arguing for causation, I am arguing for relationship. Causation is undoubtedly a relation, and to argue otherwise, even with an appeal to "it just is," is unconstructive.

 

[shunyadragon]

Only because it is an appeal to the authority of nothing.

Edit: I'm not arguing for causation, I am arguing for relationship. Causation is undoubtedly a relation, and to argue otherwise, even with an appeal to "it just is," is unconstructive.

Not all relationships are the result of causation.

 

[Willamena]

Not all relationships are the result of causation.

None are.

That causation is a relation should tell you that no relations are a RESULT of causation.

Logically.

 

[Skwim]

Not all relationships are the result of causation.

Got an example of an uncaused relationship?

.

 

[Skwim]

None are.

That causation is a relation should tell you that no relations are a RESULT of causation.

Logically.

So the relationship of a child to its parents is uncaused?

.

 

[LukeS]

Three are deductive nomological laws (eg. if I drop the apple it will fall, this can be deduced from gravitation) and inductive statistical laws (there are storm clouds, so probably it will rain).

 

[joe1776]

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?
What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

A few random thoughts on the topic:

Causes and effects are events that are linked in a chain of events. If we had enough information, we could follow the cause-and effect chain of all observed effects back to the Big Bang but that would be a pointless exercise because it would change nothing. Usually, we look for causes in order to change something.

When something bad happens, we try to trace the observed effect back to the most immediate changeable event. When Charlie drives his car into the rear of the car ahead, we don't need to trace the cause-and-effect chain back to Charlie's birth. We only need to go back to his talking on the cell phone which distracted him. This is the most immediate changeable cause.

Goals are wanted effects. If Charlie wants contentment, he's looking for the actions that will cause that wanted effect. He could trace the cause of his current state of unhappiness back to genetic inheritance or the way he was raised but that would be a pointless exercise because he can't change them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Got an example of an uncaused relationship? .

I already did:

Problem; E=mC2 is the relationship between matter and energy. There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor the cause of this relationship, because it simply exists.

Theists propose the cause is Creation, but this a Theistic assumption without objective verifiable evidence.

It gets worse, as previously described, when we try and deal with cause and effect in the Quantum world,

 

[Polymath257]

Three are deductive nomological laws (eg. if I drop the apple it will fall, this can be deduced from gravitation) and inductive statistical laws (there are storm clouds, so probably it will rain).

Since all scientific laws are inductive also, but not all are statistical, this is clearly not a complete list of possibilities. Furthermore, the deductive laws are dependent on the inductive ones.

 

[Polymath257]

A few random thoughts on the topic:

Causes and effects are events that are linked in a chain of events. If we had enough information, we could follow the cause-and effect chain of all observed effects back to the Big Bang but that would be a pointless exercise because it would change nothing. Usually, we look for causes in order to change something.

When something bad happens, we try to trace the observed effect back to the most immediate changeable event. When Charlie drives his car into the rear of the car ahead, we don't need to trace the cause-and-effect chain back to Charlie's birth. We only need to go back to his talking on the cell phone which distracted him. This is the most immediate changeable cause.

Goals are wanted effects. If Charlie wants contentment, he's looking for the actions that will cause that wanted effect. He could trace the cause of his current state of unhappiness back to genetic inheritance or the way he was raised but that would be a pointless exercise because he can't change them.

So, in this case, the only causes that are interesting are those we have conscious control over? Are you saying that the cause of life on Earth would not be an interesting thing to find out?

To what extent does having a cause require a consciousness?

 

[shunyadragon]

So, in this case, the only causes that are interesting are those we have conscious control over? Are you saying that the cause of life on Earth would not be an interesting thing to find out?

To what extent does having a cause require a consciousness?

Theists claim the chain of cause and effect begins with Creation, but that is a theistic claim based on belief and the necessity of a first cause in the chain of cause and effect. Based on the present evidence the chain of cause and effect ends with the Quantum World and the underlying Laws of Nature, which have no known cause based on the objective evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

A few random thoughts on the topic:

Causes and effects are events that are linked in a chain of events. If we had enough information, we could follow the cause-and effect chain of all observed effects back to the Big Bang but that would be a pointless exercise because it would change nothing. Usually, we look for causes in order to change something.

What is the connection between links in this chain? How do we determine that two events are linked in this way? What does it mean to be linked in this way?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Whether a connection can be identified or not, none need be identified apart from the temporal relationship that one phenomenon consistently precedes another. If so, we can call one "cause" and the other "effect."

It seems to me that more is required. So, the fact that You posted before I went to the store doesn't mean your post caused my going to the store.

Which suggests that the temporal ordering, while necessary, is very far from sufficient for causality.

I agree that a single pair of events occurring in succession does not establish that they are causally related.

What I am saying is that if one event is consistently followed by another, we call them cause and effect, and are justified in doing so. We would like to see a connection between the two, but even if we can't identify one, if this relationship consistently and predictably manifests.

Of course, we may need to do a little probing to determine causality. Perhaps my alarm clock goes off every morning at 6 AM, I awaken, and this is consistently followed by a sunrise within two hours. I may need to see if my alarm can awaken me and make the sun rise within two hours of other times of day, or if the sun will rise in the morning when my alarm isn't set and I oversleep.

After a little testing - perhaps setting the alarm to go off at midnight - we might discover that the alarm is only consistently followed by my awakening, but not of the sun rising. We would then call the alarm the cause of the one but not the other. What else do we need to know?

We don't have to be able to show the connection between the sound waves emanating from the clock and the arousal of my nervous system. We don't have to have a concept of sound waves at all - just sound.

Nor do we need an understanding of the physiology of hearing or arousal - just that people sleep and awaken. We are still justified in calling these two cause and effect.

How about if we discovered that the last 1000 times I submitted a post, you immediately popped up and went to the store? There is no apparent connection between those events, but if I discovered that when I post, you shop - every time - I would say that I caused you to go shopping even without an apparent connection.

The existence of a predictable, reproducible correlation between a particular type of prior event and a particular type of subsequent event is all that is required to call them cause and effect. We assume a connection between them exists, and if we're hard pressed to find one as with posting and shopping, we will begin hypothesizing. We may begin considering ideas that we hadn't had to take seriously in the past such as some kind of telepathic connection.

 

[shunyadragon]

None are.

That causation is a relation should tell you that no relations are a RESULT of causation.

Logically.

Only because it is an appeal to the authority of nothing.

Edit: I'm not arguing for causation, I am arguing for relationship. Causation is undoubtedly a relation, and to argue otherwise, even with an appeal to "it just is," is unconstructive.

The above two statements are contradictory. Needs clarification. It is true that relationships do not represent a cause and effect relationships. There are chains of causes and effects that do represent relationships, but of course not all as referenced.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Problem; E=mC2 is the relationship between matter and energy. There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor the cause of this relationship, because it simply exists.

Your use of the word "because" implies causation. They share the root word.

Yes, the word because implies causation, but I would suggest that it doesn't belong in shunyadragin's comment, which could have been written, "There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor for this relationship. They simply exist" without any loss of meaning.

 

[joe1776]

So, in this case, the only causes that are interesting are those we have conscious control over? Are you saying that the cause of life on Earth would not be an interesting thing to find out?

Of course it would be interesting. I used the word "usually" to allow that there were exceptions.

To what extent does having a cause require a consciousness?

As far as we're concerned -- always. But outside conscious reality, who knows?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the word because implies causation, but I would suggest that it doesn't belong in shunyadragin's comment, which could have been written, "There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor for this relationship. They simply exist" without any loss of meaning.

That is ok, but anal grammarians are like finger nails on the black board, I do not believe 'because' always implies causation.

"because - informal; used to introduce a word or phrase that stands for a clause expressing an explanation or reason."

 

[joe1776]

What is the connection between links in this chain?

I don't know.

How do we determine that two events are linked in this way?

We determine that two events have a causal link when our reasoning faculties see the same or similar patterns repeated.

What does it mean to be linked in this way?

I don't know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When something bad happens, we try to trace the observed effect back to the most immediate changeable event. When Charlie drives his car into the rear of the car ahead, we don't need to trace the cause-and-effect chain back to Charlie's birth. We only need to go back to his talking on the cell phone which distracted him. This is the most immediate changeable cause.

Proximate cause may be the term you're looking for:

• "A proximate cause is an event which is closest to, or immediately responsible for causing, some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level ultimate cause (or distal cause) which is usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred." Proximate and ultimate causation - Wikipedia