Lessons on Causality

I would distinguish those as “actual” vs “theoretical”.

Perhaps you need to start with the understanding of what intelligence is. The purpose of intelligence is quite simply to choose the best guess regarding some future observation. That’s what it is (even when it concerns itself with the question of what was in the past, because the reason we ask what was in the past is in order to form a better idea regarding what will happen in the future so that we can prepare ourselves in advance.) The purpose of intelligence isn’t a vague “in order to understand how the universe operates”. The universe DOES NOT operate. To say that the universe OPERATES is to impose a strict form on sensory information. It is to say that sensory information can only take CERTAIN form and that to take any other form is IMPOSSIBLE. In other words, it is to FILTER THROUGH sensory information. It is to make reality boring, repetitive, formulaic . . . which is why every creative person despises determinism. There is much more variety to reality than simple causal chain of events. In other words, sensory information can take any form whatsoever. That sensory information presents itself in a single form consistently through time does not mean that it will present itself like that for all eternity.

So yes, the purpose of intelligence is to predict, not to discover how “the universe” operates. It builds formulas or models which are basically generators of predictions. And it builds them, if it truly is intelligence, by generalizing from sensory information. Formula, in fact, is nothing but a compressed form of sensory information. And different sensory information compresses differently i.e. different formulas/models for different sensory information. Some formulas/models involve the strict concept of causality, some don’t. And these formulas/models, I have to repeat, once again, do not describe how the universe works. The universe DOES NOT operate according to the rules of our formulas/models. Formulas/models merely describe the compressed version of our individual (personal) sensory information (that is if they are grounded in sensory information and not merely in our imagination.)

In short, the universe does not operate according to a set of rules (a Divine Plan of some sort.) The universe does not determine events. There is no mechanism that calculates what event will follow what other event. Rather, it is our brains that determine our guesses regarding what’s going to take place in the future.

I didn’t say there aren’t causal relations (or at the very least correlations.) I said that just because some events have causes does not mean that all events have causes. I have also stated that many scientific fields do not think in terms of causes. The more advanced a scientific field, the less it concerns itself with the strict concept of causality.

I think that you’re incapable of differentiating between formulas/models and sensory information.

Magnus Anderson

Apologies in advance for cutting in . . . I read an article that mentioned correlation implies causation - QM related.

I am curious as to what events would not have causes.

The scientific fields that do not think in terms of causes, simply have no need for that - I would say because they are focusing on a smaller field of knowledge - id est more specialized. When you say more advanced, do you actually mean more focused? In other words - more specialized.

I am in need of clarification of what you mean - I am not intending on a debate with you. I just find the way we express ourselves these days is a little loose and some of the intended meaning is lost on the receivers end. I hope that makes some sense.

What is the cause for that? Don’t do that. Stick around, even if we disagree, especially if we disagree. Echo chambers are boring.

Urwrongx1000

Why make this your last thread?

I just want to say that I do not understand where you are coming from on a lot of things but I would hate to see you go. Are you not going to be posting at all on ILP?

I know you do things on you own terms and I have no problem with that - but you get people communicating, which I commend you for. I still remember a post you made in a thread of mine that I thought was quite well written. I don’t care if you think you are better than me - I would hate to see you leave.

Maybe I am reading things the wrong way - but if I am not then I am at least glad I have spoken up on this occasion.

I have theories people would consider crazy - but I have no intention of leaving.

Serendipper

I am glad somebody else agrees . . .

My thoughts exactly - thank you for speaking up Serendipper, as you say, echo chambers are boring.

:smiley:

Glad we agree :slight_smile:

I like your sensitivity:

That’s good stuff! I’ll have to copy you :wink:

Serendipper

Very kind of you . . .

Sure, what ever I post here is for everyone. Copy away . . . I particularly like what you said - especially if we disagree - to me if the person who is disagreeing is legitimate in their disagreement then there is cause for re-evaluation on the receivers end - if the receiver is still agreeing to his or her own premise or whatever then the premise or whatever can be strengthened in the receivers mind - causing stronger arguments.

Urwrongx1000 has some ideas about pride that I disagree with, however I am still very interested to see where Urwrongx1000 is going to take these ideas regarding pride - the results might prove useful to me or anyone else and for different reasons.

What particular events don’t have causes is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that there are people who say that every event has a cause regardless of what our experience (i.e. what we normally call reality) says.
Perhaps we do not see a cause of some event X but think that it is very probable that if we made an effort to explore reality using certain approach that we would find the cause of that event X within some period of time.
I don’t deny the validity of such a thought so as long the probability of successful discovery is grounded in our experience.
This is, however, different from people who say that every event has a cause no matter what our experience says.
It is different because it is an empirical generalization i.e. it is dependent on experience.
Whereas what these people express is a claim that is based on their personal preference i.e. it is independent from experience.
There is a cause behind every event not because reality suggests so but because we like it that way.

Again, sensory information can take any form.
You can search for causes for hundreds of years – say if you’re very long lived – and still find no causes.
There must be a point at which you have to stop and say “okay, enough, there simply aren’t any causes here”.
This isn’t an absolute claim. Just a claim based on personal experience.
It might turn out that you are wrong.
But you can be wrong about anything.
You can even be wrong about being wrong about thinking that the event has no cause.

When I say “there is no God” I am not making an absolute claim.
It is not an unconditional claim i.e. a claim that is independent from experience.
Someone or something might prove me wrong in the future.
It’s a claim that is dependent on evidence.
Today I have no evidence that God exists so I have no choice but to conclude that God does not exist.
But tomorrow I may have evidence that God exists and then I will have no choice but to conclude that God does exist.

They say that the idea of “uncaused events” is illogical.
This is non-sense.
They don’t think that non-existence of God (and anything else) is illogical but they think that non-existence of causes is illogical.
Ridiculous.
I don’t know what else to say but ridiculous.

Magnus Anderson

Everything you said up to your last paragraph made perfect sense to me. Thank you for clearing things up.

Hmm . . . perhaps you have a point here - I mean looking for a cause for each event is abstract in itself given that if cause is indeed ubiquitous then everything would be part of a causal chain. An infinite causal chain that had no initial cause - humans single out events for convenience to help them understand the event - the event is merely part of a “no event” if there was no initial cause. But then a “no event” would seem not to have taken place.

I wonder if we are still ill equipped to deal with causality/non-causality - much like zero/infinity.

Urwrongx1000

A distinction between logic and physical reality can be made.

Is that really the presumption that James is making?

I meant I’ll have to copy your demeanor and consideration for people. If we disagree on something, that is good because then we have something to talk about. The bad part about disagreeing is when people don’t have respect and consideration for the other’s point of view. I can imagine that displaying consideration is especially hard for most guys to do, not because they’re inconsiderate, but showing emotions in any form other than anger is difficult. Anyway, it’s good to have a role model around to teach us :wink:

How do you think the universe came to be? I’m just curious.

I don’t understand how uncaused events can be logical. Logic is “if A, then B” at its core. How can we have B with no A? It seems like a whole new branch of logic. What could be the rules of this new system? Once events don’t require a cause, then there can be no if/then because ‘then’ can happen without the ‘if’.

Prediction of “the future” is only one aspect of intelligence. You’re too focused on one particular aspect instead of the whole of intelligence. Intelligence represents ability and efficiency of cognition, of all mental processes together. While you are blinded by “the future”, there are also other portions of time called “the present” and “the past”. Intelligence uses them all, not just one. After all, what is “the past” except collected memories? And what is “the present” except the synthesis of experience into memories?

For you to be so locked into “the future” demonstrates that you don’t have a complete understanding of intelligence.

There are Natural Laws, science, the premises of physics, discovered, rediscovered, and collected by philosophers for thousands of years. Maybe your ancestry has no roots in human civilization and cultivation of sciences. It’s very obvious that you’re wrong on these points. What is a Natural Law, except, humanity’s best theories and hypotheses with regards to exactly how “the universe operates”. There are laws of locomotion, conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. Energy is neither subtracted nor added ex nihilo.

So you obviously do not have a basic, elementary knowledge of physics. If you had then how could you make such huge errors of reasoning?

There is no “set of rules”, yet, how else would prediction be successful, in any limited way? Prediction works precisely because there are “sets of rules” to follow. Jump off a cliff, what do you predict, to fall or to fly? That is the “law of Gravity”. Do you disagree??? Can you fly?

Tell me some events, things, or descriptions about existence that are “uncaused”, that have no cause nor correlation to anything else. Tell me about some absolute vacuum of space, Nothingness, Ex Nihilo. Isn’t that what you believe?

That there are things uncaused in existence? Tell me about that. What is “not caused”? Tell me what is an “accident” or “totally random”.

Not my problem…

I’ve been wasting my time, like planting a crop, watering it, but only producing weeds. Time to move onto other pastures. Maybe my seeds can take to new soil and climate. This place is infertile.

Magnus, the idea was not for you to collapse from objectvism into solipsism. Both are moronities.

Yes…

Logic and rationality represent the synthesis that any individual, mind, brain, cognition can complete regarding mental abstractions of causes and events with “the real world”. It’s also represented by the difference between Experience and Memorization. How else does memorization occur in existence except that a mind and its senses observe events, and attempt to ‘copy’ them or solidify them, as a camera takes a photograph of a scene? Each human, and almost every evolved lifeform, have abilities to memorize existence as an aspect of the nervous system and general intelligence. Without the ability to memorize, organisms literally become lost and confused. They cannot navigate the world, environment, or existence. It would be like walking aimlessly through a maze, ultimately leading to doom. Organisms that cannot memorize, have no capacity for memory, are preyed upon by organisms that do have extensive memories.

Memory is a survival mechanism, a core aspect of cognition and intelligence.

Memories are imperfect, because human senses and perspectives are limited. Humans only have two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, etc. Imagine having many eyes or ears. Imagine seeing in multiple directions at once, instead of face-forward. Some insects and animals do have eyes on the other side of their heads, like Avians. It creates a problem and challenge with synthesis, to merge multiple sensory perceptions into “one” mental abstraction, resulting in a “memory”.

The whole cause and purpose behind “logic and rationality” is to correctly, accurately, and efficiently synthesize reality and existence, into mental abstractions, so that they can become stored and memories. Even ‘genes’ are forms of memory, over time, beyond generations, as means and methods of passing upon behavioral instructions from one generation to the next.

Magnus is stuck on the idea of an “uncaused” event, representing any hypothetical “accident” or “randomness”.

But what can be called “random” is what beyond human cognition, specifically, by the human mind’s inability to calculate extreme probabilities. For example, a computer can calculate the rolls of a dice, whereas a human cannot. Thus the computer can make sense of “causes” that a human does not.

What appears “random” to one person, is not to another, therefore subjective. But randomness is based on intelligence anyway. Intelligence is limited. Magnus doesn’t seem to realize, or perhaps accept this, yet. Perhaps Magnus is ignorant of his own mental limitations. That is an important philosophical lesson, to become aware of your cognitive “blind spots”. Every single human has blind spots, limitations, of reasoning, of intellect, of ascribing causes in existence.

Evolution, on the other hand, raising the intellect, is the challenge. Isn’t it possible “to learn”, to understand, to become smarter, more knowledgeable, wiser??

Where are you going? Can I visit? :slight_smile:

I’m going to move over to youtube, sure, I’ll send you a link when I make progress.