Apikorus

Kenny, this entire subject of causation seems fraught with difficulties.

You proffered that Q might be the path a particle takes, and p its potential energy function. But even in Newtonian mechanics there is not a unique relationship between the two. Newton's laws are second order ODEs, so one must also specify initial position and velocity for each generalized coordinate. Perhaps we can add initial data to the potential to fix up your proposal for p, but it seems to me that, ironically, this should only satisfy you if you are a scientific instrumentalist like me, since it is based on Newton's laws. What makes them true to begin with? Why isn't it necessary to specify three initial data for each generalized coordinate? And what did you really mean by the "potential" anyway? Is the potential energy an actualized entity or only a mathematical artifice?

Ditto for your proposal of nonlocal hidden variables. (Why didn't you just choose an initial data set for the Schrodinger or Dirac equation?) Do you presume those variables evolve deterministically?

It seems to me that your notion of causation in the physical world is directly related to physical law. In that case, though, I think that relativistic physics provides a more satisfying definition, namely that an event P is influenced by all events within its backward light cone.

"Mental events" surely do influence physical reality. There are tiny electromagnetic fields in our brains which are capable of interacting, however weakly, with charged particles. Noone, so far as I know, has been able to demonstrate any extravagant feats of "mind power" along the lines of telekinesis.

Even classically, events/states of affairs do not have unique reasons. For example, what is the reason that the Arizona Diamondbacks are now World Series champions? Is it because Luis Gonzalez hit a single off Mariano Rivera in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7? Is it because the Diamondbacks scored more runs than the Yankees in that game? That they won more games? Is it because the results were certified by the Commissioner of Baseball? Or is it because of the initial positions and velocities of every particle in each of the bodies of all the players and officials at the start of the series or baseball season? Etc.

Incidentally, as a scientific instrumentalist, I, too, want to know "as much as possible about what is going on in the world".

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Kenny

Notice that I did not say that the potential was an instance of P (capital letter), which is defined as a sufficient reason, but only an instance of p (lower case letter), which is simply defined as a reason. I tried to be very careful in this respect, because I know full well that the potential alone does not specify the path that the particle will take, and even if we were to add in the initial conditions such that the particle’s path is exactly specified according to Newton’s laws, I would not regard that as a full explanation, because, as you pointed out, we would still be left with the question of what makes those laws true to begin with. As stated, I think we can recognize instances of p, but that it is not within our abilities to fully characterize P – we can know some of the reasons why and event occurs but we cannot ever have a full explanation for why that event occurs.

My notion of causation includes physical law, but it is definitely not limited to it. As a Christian, I believe that everything in our world, including physical law, finds its ultimate explanation in the councils of God (and that’s definitely not limiting things to physical law!). My notion of causation is related, ultimately, to finding explanations for why things as they are, and physical law is a part of this, but not the end of it.

All of the above. Each one of these things are reasons which, when conjoined together with all the other reasons involved, logically entail victory for the Diamondbacks. Some of these reasons are known to us; others are not.

Sorry, poor wording on my part.

God Bless,
Kenny

Apikorus

Kenny, if as you say we can never have a "full explanation" of why any given event occurs, why should it be particularly troubling that we have no full explanation for the Universe itself? Perhaps it was uncaused, or perhaps it can be said that it was its own cause. (Intuition perhaps makes one bristle at the suggestion that something could be its own cause, but since the BB itself was a singular event, our intuition might not apply.)

Also, to open a can of big slimy worms, what is the cause of my own free will?

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Kenny

There’s a huge difference between saying that we cannot know the full explanation for any event and saying that there are certain events which have no explanation. I hold to what philosophers have called the principle of sufficient reason: that for any fact, p, there is a sufficient reason why it is the case that p as opposed to the case that ~p; and I would argue that the principle of sufficient reason is a necessary presupposition for the seeking of rational explanations of the phenomena we experience. Ultimately, my faith in the principle of sufficient reason, however, is grounded in my faith in God; since I believe that God has created and planned the world, and, in His wisdom, has sufficient reasons for everything He does. As I sated earlier, Christianity is a philosophical starting point for me, not a conclusion. Nevertheless, all this is straying for from the initial thread topic. My intention in discussing these conceptions of causality was merely to defend the notion that it is meaningful to conceive of God as a causal actor and of God also transcending time. If causality primarily reflects logical relationships, or even if this is a meaningful way to conceptualize causality that is consistent with the other things we know to be true of the world, then causality need not be considered time dependent and my work in that respect is done.

Since I do not believe in infinite causal regressions, I do believe that there comes a point when explanation stops in something that is a sufficient reason unto itself. More precisely, I believe that explanation stops in something which holds its properties necessarily. This "something," whatever it is, holds its set of properties “P” for the reason that it is impossible that it should hold any properties included in the set ~P. I believe that this something is God, but I have not argued in this thread that it could not be the universe, nor do I intend to.

You are (directly anyway). I already opened this can of worms <a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000276" target="_blank">here</a>, however, and discussed it in some detail and see no need, at the moment, to discuss it again.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Apikorus

Kenny, this is fun. You've thought deeply about many of these issues. Care to answer some more questions?

Is there a reason for the "principle of sufficient reason"?

Is there a reason for God?

By forming the set-theoretic union of God with myself and my own free will actions, do I create a set that is in any sensible way "greater than" God alone? Is it possible to conceive of God as independent of me?

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Kenny

Koy,

I said: God doesn’t “move” in and out of various moments in time.

Would you care to explain how this follows from what I said; in light of the entire discussion up to the point you posted this?

In classical Christian theology, God, as the ground of all being, upholds all other things in their existence such that they could not exist without His sustaining power. God also providentially guides all things by imposing order and regularity on the universe. Without God’s sustaining activity, nothing else could be; without his providential activity, all would be chaos.
If Augustine’s conception that God created the universe with time rather than in time is correct, then instead of Creating the universe at just a single point in time, there is a sense in which God’s act of creation extends to every moment; since this would mean that God created the entire space-time manifold of our universe “at once.” In this sense, God’s Creating and Sustaining activity can be thought of as very closely related, perhaps even identical in some senses. Since God created every moment in time “at once,” every moment in time exists as it does through the direct result of God’s action. As such, God acts in every moment without being time-dependent.

Both; as I said, all reality. That is what it means to be omniscient after all.

Such perspectives result from limited perceptions; as such, they have do not apply to how God perceives since God’s perception has no limitations. God perceives every detail of reality perfectly, from the large to the small.

You should know by now that orthodox Christian theology does not hold that God is a corporeal being. The Bible nowhere says that God looks just like us. At times it speaks of God with anthropormorphic metaphors, but once again, such language is understood in orthodox Christianity to be metaphorical (and with good reason from a literary standpoint).

Yep

If God transcends space-time, it is a category mistake to refer to Him as being “large” in a spatial sense. As far as being made in God’s image is concerned, you should also know by now that orthodox Christianity understands that to mean that we reflect within ourselves God’s moral, intellectual, and spiritual capacities, not that we resemble His physical likeness (since He has none).

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

Yes, I’ve enjoyed this discussion as well, but I am reluctant to wonder too much farther from the original thread topic. My main reason for sticking with the discussion on causality is that it directly pertains to whether causality is meaningful in the absence of time.

It is grounded in God’s rational nature which is an aspect of God’s necessary being.

God is necessary being; as such, God’s nature entails that He exists in all possible worlds.

No

Yes; God exists necessarily. You exist contingently. You depend on God for your existence but God in no way depends on you.

God Bless,
Kenny

Imhotehp

There are are plenty of problems with the idea of a "timeless" god.

First "timeless" means basically "without time". Can God be timeless? sure he can. but for that to be true, he must also be unchanging and immuteable. For god to be able to change, he must experience the time before he changed, the time he is in the process of change, and the time after his change. Without the ability to experience time, to him, there would be no difference between these moments, which is why he cannot change. A "Timeless" God is also severely handicapped. he cannot do anything. Just like the previous example, it would be impossible for god to experience the sequence of moments involved with actions(before, during, after)necessary to carry out said actions.

If God fit this definition of "timelessness" then he would be unchangeable, immuteable and inanimate: a cosmic statue.

The second most popular definition of a timeless god is one who exists infinitly into the past. This god too is also severly handicapped: he must traverse an infinite series of past events before he could do anything in the present!

For it to be possible for god to do anything, he must be able to experience time and exist in a place where it is possible to experience time.

Kenny

Which are both classical attributes ascribed to God.

I have already argued here that God need not be temporal in order to be conceived of as a causal actor and that causality need not be thought of as time dependent. Do you have any problems with my arguments up to this point?

The fact that God transcends time does not mean that He cannot be related to the various locations in space-time in different ways. For instance, God can rejoice in the good that my neighbor is doing and be grieved by the evil that I am doing, even if those actions are occurring at the same point in time. Likewise, He can rejoice in the good that I am doing in one set of space-time locations and be grieved by the evil that I am doing in another set even though, subjectively, God experiences both of those sets of locations “at once.” I think this reconciles the seemingly contradictory notions that God transcends time and also reacts to changing events. God does indeed relate differently to the various moments within space time, but not from a time-bound perspective such that God perceives time “passing” in any sense.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Imhotehp

plenty. Causality is a fundamental part of time. If you cannot experience time, you cannot experience causality or the moments of time that are nessecary to carry out actions. you cannot do anything. In order for god to be able to do anything(brush his teeth, destroy the world, create the universe) you must be able to experience time and exist in a place where it is possible to do so.

Irrelevent. There are a sequence of moments involved in taking actions, those same moments you claim he does not experience. You are in effect saying, "a timeless god experiences time" which is a contradiction. The only way for him to do those things you mentioned is if he could experience time and exist in a place where it is possible to experience time.

God cannot experience anything. in order to experience anything anywhere, like the sequence of events in your example, you have to be able to experience time, something you claim god is not capable of.

For god to be able to do anything, he has to experience time. In order for him to carry out actions, he has to be able to experience the moments involved in actions. You are saying time does not pass for god, then you are also saying that he cannot do anything, because to be capable of doing anything, time would have to pass for him.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Imhotehp ]</p>