Easy Truth

I tried to understand what "metaphysical primacy" means, I still don't get it.

If all entities act, and all actions are interactions, then all entities interact. Is this right? and the next one If existing is an action, then action is not always a change and all changes are actions but not all actions are changes. If existing is not an action, then action is change. Is this right?

I have several questions based on your post but I will start by one. It seems the proper thing to say is that "all entities can act", they have that potential. There is no entity that is missing that potential. I am leaning toward thinking that the action is not the best word, that I should use the word "interact" instead of "act". Because actions don't happen in a vacuum in a sense. An entity causes the action and the action seems to have a linkage to a "subject of the action". The dog eats (eats what?)

So a table is not "acting" when it is "preventing" a glass from hitting the floor. After all, the table is just being. But it has an effect on things around it. It has this stopping power that it is exerting. It seems to be interacting with the things on it.

I have a question about the concept action ... Is "Existing" an action? Because actions are aspects of the entities that act, the actions are part of the identity of the entity from https://atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/LSO Binder.pdf That implies that not all entities act. But if "being" or "existing" is an action, that would imply that ALL entities act.

The proof that David Kelly mentioned in his talk about Causality is this .. It links entity with action of the entity ... If a thing a under conditions c produces a change x in subject s_the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is. It could only act differently, if it were different. As long therefore as it is a, and stands related under conditions c to a subject that is s, no other effect than x can be produced; and to say that the same thing acting on the same thing may yet produce a different effect, is to say that a thing need not be what it is. But this is in flat contradiction to the Law of Identity. A thing, to be at all, must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connexion between a and x implies that a acts as it does because of what it is: because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be. It is from a book "An Introduction to Logic" by someone name Joseph

Yes I do.

Ah, so "some" entities can cause other entities. That is a huge misunderstanding on my part. Let me go through that then. I thought that since there is a causal link between entity and action, there was none between entity and entity. It turns out that the universe is a special case, eternal don't have a cause. Sources are the standard ones, the books, the lexicon and Peikoff's course on the history of philosophy. I also saw the formal proof that is used to prove the direct linkage between entity and action, Kelly brought that up. I did not see a proof regarding entities and other entities. Okay, I have to go back and reformulate.

Because it is far too abstract and the context has to be carefully explained first. If I say, it the way you said it, I could see people say "Why are you wasting my time with something that obvious?". For instance, I have seen objectivists say "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action." in midst of one of those meetings and the people's eyes glaze over. It is meaningless in a conversation. I have to bring it to life, make it educational, make it simple. In the context of explaining why the universe has a rhyme or reason and is not all chaos, being the way it is, the Objectivist explanation of causality is great. But when it comes to explaining what caused something in a person's daily life, either it is not applicable or the application is hard. It is like being given a field theory and trying to explain a particular interaction. Like knowing the laws of economics and expecting to determine if the stock market will go up or down the next day. I am starting to think that I have to preface my explanation with the fact that it is not as applicable as thinking that events cause events but that it is what is real and it explains why entities don't have to come from non existence.

Eiuol said The important point is that there is not -only- a one way relationship and that there is no such thing as a "pure" action. So you can't wave your arm in a vacuum. Granted, but we are speaking abstractly here, how else can we get to the bottom of this. I would agree that entities act on each other and that it is common knowledge. But, I think the point that the objectivism wants to make is that entities don't cause other entities, philosophically speaking. Is the argument against it that If that if entities could cause other entities, then something could cause the existence of something that did not exist, out of nothing? My understanding is that the absolute necessary factor which is required is for an action to be "determined" by an entity, the entity's state at that moment. By state I mean is qualities, properties, attributes, basically its identity.

Then I could take the billiard table as a group of balls (plural) and everything that happened on the table is the action (singular). I have to go through this tedious drilling down to come up with a simple example. This is in order to get every step of the way right. So, it is not that an entity causes an action but also that entities (plural) cause an action(singular).

Ok, so change happens. The law of causation is what prevents really weird things from happening. Without the concept of cause and effect, things would happen/change in ways that are not imaginable. A cat turns into a dog into a table that burns and becomes a flower. This would be the world that does not limit change by some laws. So causality implies that things don't happen arbitrarily, without any reason. But it does not tell you what "cause" means! So, to find the reason for something happening, you have look at the changes and identify the entities involved? That is not how I do it intuitively. I look at the change and through experimentation find the one factor that without it, the change does not occur. That problem is at first glance, and maybe final glance, the one factor can be an attribute or an action. "pressing" causes the "shining" in the light - if I don't press the light does not come on "throwing" the ball caused the dog to "yelp" - if I don't throw, the dog does not yelp I think that is how most people identify cause intuitively. If "the factor that is necessary" is the definition of cause, It is hard for me to make a case that the action is not the cause. Mainly because from a practical standpoint people don't need to identify the entity behind it. It is only when you need to prove that there is no necessity for a "first mover" and highly philosophical arguments that this precision is necessary. I suppose I could make the case that the way that you (event causation believer) see it would not explain why the world is orderly and not arbitrary. There is no connection between an event and another except saying there is probability or likelihood that the sun will come up unless you look at entities and their identities and limitations on their actions. I expect them to retort by saying: Without telescopes and science, as primitives in the jungle, what should someone say? "I am not sure why the sun comes up?" or based on the experience of having seen it before, there is the likelihood of seeing it again. I think I am getting closer, the conversation has helped.

Then what is the definition of causation?

I absolutely agree that the ball (entity) rolls (act). That the rolling is caused by the ball, that it is based on what the ball is. Now, this ball rolls and collides with a dog. When it hits the dog, the dog yelps. My understanding is that the dog (entity) causes yelps (action). It bothers me that I am limited to saying that. You can connect the rolling of the ball with the yelping of the dog using event causation. How do you do it using Entity-Action. Based on my current understanding, "chain of causation" is not applicable to the Objectivist definition of causation. Otherwise, I don't see any examples I have seen are simply something does something. That's it, no more. I need more to be able to prove my point to non-objectivists.

Sorry, I meant Objectivist and non Objectivist. Like when you go into a philosophy discussion group and most have never heard of Ayn Rand. Most everyone is interested in causation. They want to know what will happen in the future. Causal connections are the key, non-Objectivists believe that too. Knowing causal connections allows you to be able to plan, to survive. It is a practical and important issue to people. Most people think of a cause being something that HAS TO proceed something else. This is very different from Ayn Rand's "meaning".

Also, found this from Grames: The point of emphasizing that entities are causal primaries is to prevent or rebut the error that causality means actions cause actions. Attributes and relationships are not actions. This is informative for me using this formulation we are saying that causation has a definition, and it does not contain the idea that an event causes another event. That an event is the "why" of another event. This is where non Objectivists have a very difficult time. They see even objectivists say this action caused that action or this attribute cause that entity or even this entity caused this other entity. He goes on to say: The "only entities are causal primaries" principle does not work against attributes and relationships because the attributes and relationships are the identities of the entities involved in any particular scenario. So the hotness of the sand is the sand. The "being functional" of the light bulb is what the lightbulb is. But I don't know how this can show how to incorporate "a chain of causation" to explain something.

But what about, chairs, tables, roads, floors. They just are, but they seem to do something. A road (don't know the proper word) "holds, carries, supports" cars. A table "holds, carries, supports" cups and spoons and glasses just by being. It in a sense "allows them to me". Is allowing an action? Or maybe this comes across as action, epistemologically speaking, meaning that we consider it doing something when it is not metaphysically changing at all.

Thinking about it more, I think that the lamp turned on. That is the connection between the entity, its nature and the action in the most basic form. One can PROVE logically that the lamp caused the lighting on. LIghting on CANNOT happen without the lamp. To consider lighting to happen without the lamp causing it, we have a contradiction. But "lighting on" cannot happen with out a Lamp that is powered. "Powered" is an attribute, right? I ask this because in some circles it is an action. Also, "lighting on" cannot happen with out a Lamp that is functional. "Functional" is an attribute. I think we all agree with that. If this were a chain of causation, then there have to be multiple causal connections. I pressed the switch -- I (entity) pressed (action) I don't know where button fits in, it has no deductive causal connection to "I". The button is not part of my nature. The button (entity) closed (action) the connection. The lamp (entity) turned on (action) "turned" seems to be the action, "on" seems to be an attribute Here my explanation falls apart. I don't know how to create the chain. I only know how to connect the action with the entities. It seems like actions cause changes in attributes of entities.

Agreed. And I would love to be able to give examples using what you call "broadly speaking" entities. I want to talk to people who don't know about electronics, or physics etc. I want to keep it at the perceptual level as much as I can. My communication and my proofs would be much easier. In fact, I invite you to give examples that would show causality using the entity-action model that I could use.

Yes, I agree, depends on who the audience is/the purpose. To look at it in an objectivist way has a purpose and is a particular perspective. Most people are okay with action causing an action, it is practical and used all the time. But when it comes to proving that existence does not require a cause, the objectivist way of formulating cause and effect is a major help. Event causation, for instance, requires a first mover. The problem is being able to explain to the layperson that cause and effect, looked at in terms "the law of identity applied to action". I have seen objectivists say that to lay people and I can see that it is not understood. So then you have to give examples and there are no good ones. I am looking for good, explanatory, educational examples!

It is: with how I think about and expresses my understanding of (or confusion about). I see Objectivists around me use event causation without realizing it. But I have had a hard time correcting them. I think at this point the best way is to get as many concrete examples as possible and I can abstract an understanding out of it. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act When people bring up an example, I have trouble determining what the action was. Entities fill my description of actions. Like: I pressed the switch and turned the light on. I caused the light to go on. Is that correct, or the switch caused it, that is what switches do base on their nature. If people can respond by saying it is correct or not, it will allow some learning to be done by me.

Because the only one to one, causal, identity-based relationship is between an entity and its action.

Let me go with that ... That means there is an absolute connection between an entity and its action. There is a one to one correspondence. It is based on deduction. So there is a connection between "dog" and "barked" in - the dog barked. The cat jumped when he heard the dog bark, my understanding is that there is a direct connection between The cat and Jumping. The cat Jumps when hearing a sudden noise, it cannot bark. But If I say the barking caused the cat to jump up, that is using event causation. Bypassing entities. Fixing that and saying that the dog barking caused the cat to jump implies Humes induction, further more it is not an entity and its own action. Hume will object I have seen this a hundred times and I expect it to go this way. So where is the deductive explanation using cause and effect? Using Objectivist terminology I don't know how to connect what the dog did and what the cat did. I don't know how to connect taking into account the "interaction" because the interaction is going to be shot down by Hume saying that it is induction. In other words, the law of identity can be applied to "dog" and "bark". It can be applied to "cat" and "jump" Maybe it can be applied to "cat and dog" and "interacted". That implies the law of identity applied to entities and their interaction. That certain entities can only interact a certain way. I have taken her rule literally with the word entity (singular). Is that my mistake?

From Dreamweaver With two billiard balls, the nature of the first billiard ball interacts with the nature of the second billiard ball. Substituting a soap bubble or an egg (did he mean raw, soft-boiled, hard-boiled, et, al) for one of the billiard balls, the nature of the resulting action would be caused and determined by the nature of the entities that are acting. Ok, Ball A is a billiard ball, Ball B is a soap bubble. They collide. The only deductive cause and effect that I see is the soap bubble "bursts". That is the resulting action. But ... the cause is the soap bubble. Why because that is what soap bubbles do under certain conditions. Now if I explain what the conditions were, I may say that when it is "collided with" by a hard object, it will burst. That is part of its nature. And in this case, it was "collided with" the billiard ball A. Now does that mean that the action "collided with" was the cause, or does that mean that billiard ball A was the cause or does it mean the soap bubble was the cause ... of the burst. The other question it brings up is: is "collided with", an attribute of the soap bubble, in other words, there are soap bubbles that are not "collided with" and there are those that are "collided with". They act differently. because that is what the nature of the soap bubble dictates. So can an action "collided with" be an attribute?

Thanks softwareNerd An action causing an action "wearing out" and "dying". I thought that is not how it goes, you have to only have an entity action combination. Am I wrong?