is there a viable alternative to causality?

Question

I was wondering is there another way of explaining ‘why things happen’ – without resorting to god or chaos theory? I think quantum physics suggests (and please correct me if i'm wrong) that when you break down atoms they don't necessarily behave in a cause and effect way - so there must be a viable alternative? Right??

Answer 1

The choice between God and chaos theory are not the only alternatives to explaining causality in metaphysical terms. There are others. For instance there is Hume's explanation of causality as a pychological habit of seeing regularities in the way events happen or the way objects act. There is Kant's explanation of causality as a structuring principle of our perceptions-he called it one of 12 categories of our understanding. Then there is Aristototle understanding and explanation of causation as 4 kinds or aspects of what is a cause and the effects from the cause or causes. Causality is a metaphysics and science concern. QM, has with its explanation of quantum world phenomena, offered a new view of causality that differs from the Newtonian simplifications based on force analysis and Einstein's general relativity considerations. The simple axiom that "every cause necessarily produces a unique effect" was always an oversimplified rule give the ongoing multicausal understanding of how phenomena happens at both the micro and macro levels. As I see it good investigative science research is slowly unraveling and improving our understanding of causality as a statistical phenomena akin to ,for example, our understanding of quantum & subquantum phenomena, fluid turbulence by fluid dynamics, or the earth's climate dynamics including human activity as a factor. I think the distinctions made by Aristotle still manage to apply for explaining ordinary human bodily and mental experience, just like Newtonian physics still applies to explaining human experience of nonrelativistic physical activities and phenomena. All this taken into consideration, my Q to your A would be this: humans will chose the causality descriptions that fit the phenomena and quantitative stastistical(probabilistic) descriptions will be more useful and preferable to qualitative descriptions. Causality is a fundamental metaphysical issue that linguistic solutions like those of pragmatists, and logical empiricists only gloss over leaving it to investigative science to decipher. THX for the metaphysics and philosophy of science Q.



I hope this helps put the Q in a context that permits further questioning because no answer can be completely comprehensive or satisfying under this YA Q&A format.

Answer 2

Yes.

And different 'schools' or universities or emeritus professors want it to be viabley their way;For after-all,we are talking here of a theory PRECEEDING the actual facts(especially as i think you suggest).

And so what? For the (so-called) chaos theory could well have been better than a rival theory,whatever it was.But now...Chaos

theory doesnt explain enough of the facts;And the actual things 'going on', when atoms break down,are not really or effectively described within Chaos theory.



Causality is a general,umbrella-type theory which groups all these together;And its likely a mistake to believe that this can be superceeded-and the likely mistake occurs where a smaller,covered theory like Chaos is shown or agreed to be suspect,whereupon 'causality' itself becomes suspect also.

So,when an experiment or experimental findings show that a rival theory(to Chaos)has more relevance/fits-the-experimental-facts better,then this rival may take its place as the presently important one; (and not The One; As i strongly advise that-in the science you describe-causality itself need not be challenged)).

Answer 3

Good, powerful and striking poem Your dad says right now is not the time. Your question is a tough one to answer. I believe in my heart - No. However, there are situations where I certainly understand, and if faced with the same scenario, I may think about it as well. I will say this, because you see all the time when this happens that "the person was troubled." That is: Any sane person can be confronted with this alternative, and at that moment follow through with ending ones life. You have a nice, uniform poem here, 5-8 words per line, good rhymes. I like stanzas of four lines each. Is there a reason you did not do that, or is it personal preference? I don't know, just curious. Thanks Bri

Answer 4

Good question. I hope you pursue it.



In my estimation, the very concept of cause and effect may be a petite anthropomorphism. Don't be put off by that. What I mean is, a childish over-simplification, an indulgence that relieves us from some of the starkness of our lack of knowledge.



It is COMFORTING to think we know what causes a thing or "why" a thing happens, because that is the first step in relief away from the terrifying prospect that "there are things happening around here, including things deadly to me and us, that I have no control over".



The first step in gaining control over things is to know what causes them. "causes" them. What do we mean by "causes"?



We mean that when this one thing happens, then this other thing follows. The one thing causes the other. If I clap my hands together, there will be a sound. And there will.



But that may be true only here, or only now. Or only because some other unknown force interacts with what we did. All we can really collect is OBSERVATIONS, not a true understanding of WHY a thing happens.



Furthermore, just because we observe a thing a million times doesn't mean it will ever happen again, and just because we've never observed a thing doesn't mean it won't happen for the first time in the next five minutes and then never shut off.



Causality is a comforting notion that I am not at all sure is as real or solid as we'd like to think it is. As to an alternative, as always, the dark abyss of not knowing.

Answer 5

See calculus of distinctions. A non-numerical system that allows us to understand how a distinction of this and or that leads the to causality paradigm.

Basically there is an infinitely continuous whole of reality and existence that we impose distinctions upon that have nothing to do with the complete entirety of existence as a whole but more to do with our perception. You are more then correct at its most indivisible state matter and energy does not exist prior to observation but is only a no history, no location, set of probabilities or a "maybe cloud" if you will. Then when you "look" at the cloud it collapse into matter or becomes energy. check out the delayed choice two slit experiment as an example of no history aspect of quanta and for an example of how nothing at that level has a real location see quantum entanglement and the aspect experiment.

Answer 6

Yes, there is a viable alternative...I guess...in a way...



But, maybe a better way to ask the question would be, "Is / Are there conjunction(s) to causality?"



One obvious conjunction is the inherent randomness associated with "choice". The random ongoings do to "choice" operate in concert with causality. My personal belief is that there is a correlation of "choice" to the non-cause & effect behavior of sub-atomic activity. Both "choice" and sub-atomic activity are observed as exhibiting similar phenomenal activity which is correlated to, but cannot be explained by, causality. And this is just one quick example.



By the way, I can't help but point out that time can actually exist...and not be just an illusion. If time was just an illusion, "choice" would not exist because "choice" requires increments of time to occur.



So, to draw an analogy, your question is like asking, "Is there an alternative to this black cat?"

The guy at the pet store says, "Yeah, of course...we've got different colors of cats. We've got dogs, hamsters, lizards, fish...there are many alternatives."



But the black cat is still there too...Right???

Answer 7

Yes there is a way of looking at it that precludes causality but it is difficult to put into words so it is difficult for most people to wrap their heads around the idea. Essentially causality is viewed only as a function of time.



Even without God there are many different disciplines that see time as being sort of an illusion, An illusion that only exists to bring order to a time space mass reality.



This idea is not simple to grasp but once you do get it, it starts to answer a lot of questions. The idea is that at a non-material level of reality, that is at the sub atomic energy level time does not exist because it simply has no function.



Some mystics have observed that at the level of eternity all things essentially happen at the same time. The idea of eternity is often assumed to mean endless time but this is not quite the case. It is more like no time. If we think of eternity as time without measure we are missing the point. If time is an illusion like it appears that it is, eternity and everything that has ever or will ever happen could happen in a billionth of a second. In effect everything has ever or will ever happen happened at the same time.



In this situation causality fails to logically explain events because they all appear to be happening at once. So we have introduced the illusion of time as a function of the intelect to bring some semblance of order to the things that are happening.



I told you that it was not easy to understand. Words designed to describe a time space mass reality fail us miserably when it comes to defining subatomic nonmaterial reality. It is more a function of understanding that remains just out of reach when we try to put it into words.



Love and blessings Don

Answer 8

No, you are just restricting the term 'causality' to something that operates under the heading of law. A thing might be so simply by Divine fiat. Right ?

Without God, it would seem that things are under strict determinism. Where would the freedom come from.

With God, there is only primary and secondary (etc) causes.

Answer 9

Just because a famous philosopher tried to tell us that because we cannot "sense" the natural laws that make an effect from a cause, does not mean you have to believe that only seeing is believing.

If you can't see the cause of one marble moving another when they bump; if you can't see the cause-and-effect behavior of atoms breaking down--it doesn't mean causality does not exist. It means the philosopher who said "laws" must be sensible used an irrational epistemology, i.e., incorrect logic, to determine that.

WHY ought natural laws be "sensible"? No one said they had to be; but because he correctly said they were not, he concluded cause and effect was impossible to count on or predict.

One does not follow from the other: "The laws of nature are not sensible" does not lead to "Friction cannot be proved to be the cause of some forms of heat."

Answer 10

so you're looking for something not caused by any'thing' else and not casued by a higher destiny.



I don't know of anyhting that is not either 'real' or 'outside of reality'. those two sets cover all possibilities.



at a sub atomic level you are correct particles do not exist in a linear form in time and it cannot be predicted when a particle will dissapear and or reappear ( luckily enough of a table for instance continues to exist so that an object won't fall apart due to lack of particles) . That's sounds like an indicator of intelligence to me so i describe particles as "preferring to not exist " whan referring to non-linear nature of particles and dark matter



I consider it a possibility that the sum of all the particles choosing not to exist at any time while not special in themselves could be called out of existence by some unknown pattern and constitute something 'higher' while they are 'not exisitng'. partly why this area if study is so radically interesting to some.

Answer 11

There is no alternative to causality. Free will is just necessity seen through the filter of consciousness.

Answer 12

Equilibrium! If nothing is happening, then all is at equilibrium. No god, no chaos, no nothing! It just is!

Answer 13

i prefer ER. you could try that.