Causality

[yar]

I've just started reading OPAR after having finished Atlas Shrugged recently, and I'm not entirely sure I understand the line of argument as to why causality is logically necessary (in chapter 1).

I've read and completely agree with the section establishing the axioms of existence, consciousness, identity. As I understand it, the argument is that any attempt to disagree with the axioms must necessarily use the axioms (they are entailed in the statement "there is something I am aware of"), and I agree.

The explanation of why identity entails causality is somewhat less clear to me.

In order to explain an object's action (movement) as a function of something other than it's own properties and the properties of the objects it interacts with, I suppose you would have to say that its movement is caused by something, and if that something isn't a finite set a physical objects, then it would have to be something outside the physical universe, ie. "God" or "randomness".

Is the Objectivist position that any statement which cannot be explained in terms of consciousness and a finite set of physical entities is meaningless, because there is nothing in our self-evident facts of existence that such a statement refers to?

Given that, is the argument for causality that: to even conceive of something outside the bounds of the physical universe is irrational and nonsensical, and therefore the only factors that could possibly decide an object's movement are its own physical properties and the physical properties of objects it interacts with?

Does anyone have anything to add to what I just wrote, as to why causality is necessary?

On a somewhat different topic, are there any Objectivist physicists here who have considered to what extent our accepted laws of physics must hold in any possible universe? Is conservation of mass and energy logically required in any possible universe? Would a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics be contradictory?

[BurgessLau]

When you say "... the line of argument as to why causality is logically necessary..." -- what do you mean by "necessary"? As opposed to what?

Likewise, when you say "... in any possible universe ..." -- what do you mean? Possible as opposed to what?

[yar]

When you say "... the line of argument as to why causality is logically necessary..." -- what do you mean by "necessary"? As opposed to what?

Likewise, when you say "... in any possible universe ..." -- what do you mean? Possible as opposed to what?

By "logically necessary" I meant, why there would be a contradiction in the possibility that a physical object's movement could be random in some way.

By "any possible universe" I meant any conceivable reality, any universe which can be described coherently. I suppose even that's not all that clear. More specifically what I meant was that by the scientific method as traditionally understood, conservation of mass/energy isn't proven, just very well established. Since I saw some threads in which people were discussing physics earlier, I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on whether it's possible that conservation of mass/energy could be violated at some point, or if that's flat out impossible.

[AisA]

The explanation of why identity entails causality is somewhat less clear to me.

In order to explain an object's action (movement) as a function of something other than it's own properties and the properties of the objects it interacts with, I suppose you would have to say that its movement is caused by something, and if that something isn't a finite set a physical objects, then it would have to be something outside the physical universe, ie. "God" or "randomness".

The notion of an action whose cause is outside existence is a contradiction. Nothing is outside existence. Existence exists, and only existence exists. That which does not exist cannot affect existence in any way.

The notion of an action without a cause, i.e. the notion of random actions, is arbitrary. Are you familar with the Objectivist concept of the arbitrary?

Is the Objectivist position that any statement which cannot be explained in terms of consciousness and a finite set of physical entities is meaningless, because there is nothing in our self-evident facts of existence that such a statement refers to?

It would be more accurate to state that the Objectivist position is that nothing can be explained by reference to non-existence (i.e., by reference to something allegedly outside existence) and that nothing can be explained by asserting that there is no explanation (i.e. by claiming an action is random).

Does that help?

[Hal]

More specifically what I meant was that by the scientific method as traditionally understood, conservation of mass/energy isn't proven, just very well established.

What do you mean by this? If conservation of energy hasnt been proven, then what physical theory do you think has been proved? 'Proof' in science is very different from proof in (eg) mathematics or philosophy.When we take conservation of energy to be a fundamental principle of science, we dont mean that we've managed to find some mathematical/philosophical proof saying that energy 'has' to be conserved in the same way that we can find a mathematical proof saying that there cannot be a largest prime number. We just mean that there is a great deal of evidence (empirical, theoretical, and mathematical) supporting the conservation of energy, and no evidence showing that it gets violated (except under very specific conditions in quantum mechanics where it ceases to apply).

Assuming that I'm not misinterpreting your post, you seem to be asking whether its possible to derive scientific laws/theories like the conservation of energy from basic philosophical axioms like that of non-contradiction. The answer here would be no - that's precisely what makes them scientific rather than philosophical.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Hal

[yar]

Thanks for the responses.

AisA, your explanation was much less convoluted than mine.

With the thing I said about conservation of energy, I was just thinking of what relation the philosophical idea that "something can't be created from nothing" might have to conservation of energy when anything we call "something" must consist entirely of mass and energy. So I thought in that way it might possibly have a closer relation to philosophy than other scientific theories. But more importantly, I have no idea what I'm talking about and should be ignored . Science is doing just fine without me trying to derive it philosophically.

Edited November 14, 2005 by yar

[FeatherFall]

I have nothing to add to the scientific aspects of this discussion, but I would like to add something regarding causality: Causality is the identity of process.

[jrs]

... whether it's possible that conservation of mass/energy could be violated at some point, or if that's flat out impossible.

I have heard that there is a proof that the conservation laws follow from certain symmetries. Specifically, conservation of energy is a consequence of the invariance of the equations of motion under translations thru time, i.e. that the same laws of physics apply at all times. Conservation of linear momentum follows from the invariance under translations thru space, i.e. that the same laws of physics apply everywhere. Conservation of angular momentum follows from the invariance under rotations, i.e. that the same laws of physics apply regardless of the orientation. Unfortunately, I have not seen the proof and do not remember the name of its author.

The notion of an action without a cause, i.e. the notion of random actions, is arbitrary.

"Arbitrary" means that there is no evidence either of the assertion's truth or its falsity. So if a proposition is arbitrary, then its negation must also be arbitrary. So if it is arbitrary to say that objects can act randomly, then it is also arbitrary to say that objects cannot act randomly. Right?

[AisA]

"Arbitrary" means that there is no evidence either of the assertion's truth or its falsity.

No, not exactly. An arbitrary proposition is one offered without any supporting evidence; one may well be able to find evidence against it, if one wishes to go to the effort. But as Peikoff points out, one is never under any obligation to do so. One may dismiss an arbitrary proposition with no further consideration. (See OPAR pages 164 – 167.)

So if a proposition is arbitrary, then its negation must also be arbitrary.

No! The opposite of an arbitrary proposition may well be true. It is certainly not automatically arbitrary.

For instance, consider the assertion, "The universe was created by God". That statement is arbitrary and may be dismissed outright. If one wishes, one can prove that the universe is eternal and was not created by god (or anyone else). Then we can say that the statement is false – but this is an optional exercise. The mere utterance that “god created the universe” does not create an obligation on our part to refute it.

So if it is arbitrary to say that objects can act randomly, then it is also arbitrary to say that objects cannot act randomly. Right?

No. The statement that "Objects cannot act randomly" is supported by the totality of every action we observe: they all have causes. There are no grounds for calling this statement arbitrary.

We can go further and show, as Peikoff does, that causality is a self-evident corollary of identity (see OPAR pages 12 - 17). Then we can declare the notion of causeless action to be not merely arbitrary but false.

[DavidOdden]

No, not exactly. An arbitrary proposition is one offered without any supporting evidence; one may well be able to find evidence against it, if one wishes to go to the effort.

Hang on, I think there are two questions at play here. An arbitrary proposition is one offered without any evidence ("devoid of evidence", OPAR p. 163, "An arbitrary claim is one for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual" p. 164). Ordinarily, a person proposing something does not then procede to give the refuting evidence, but if they did, the proposition would not be arbitrary, it would be false. If evidence were offered, it might support or it might refute the proposition, so you could equally say that one may be able to find evidence in support or evidence against, but it's not your responsibility to do so.

The question is what "evidence" is. As far as I understand the concept, "evidence" is knowledge, something grasped by a mind, something that is presented in the context of an argument as having a relationship to a conclusion. This is distinct from "fact", which just is, whether or not you know it. It is true that in ordinary language you might say "There may well be additional evidence for this theory (or against this theory), which we just haven't found", but I strongly disapprove of such usage, and will persist in saying that evidence must be evident.

[AisA]

Hang on, I think there are two questions at play here. An arbitrary proposition is one offered without any evidence ("devoid of evidence", OPAR p. 163, "An arbitrary claim is one for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual" p. 164). Ordinarily, a person proposing something does not then procede to give the refuting evidence, but if they did, the proposition would not be arbitrary, it would be false.

I agree.

If evidence were offered, it might support or it might refute the proposition, so you could equally say that one may be able to find evidence in support or evidence against, but it's not your responsibility to do so.

Good point, it works both ways.

The question is what "evidence" is. As far as I understand the concept, "evidence" is knowledge, something grasped by a mind, something that is presented in the context of an argument as having a relationship to a conclusion. This is distinct from "fact", which just is, whether or not you know it. It is true that in ordinary language you might say "There may well be additional evidence for this theory (or against this theory), which we just haven't found", but I strongly disapprove of such usage, and will persist in saying that evidence must be evident.

I agree completely. Unless there is some reason to think that additional evidence might be uncovered, the mere possibility of such evidence is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything. "Evidence must be evident" -- I'll have to remember that phrase.

[Hal]

Unfortunately, I have not seen the proof and do not remember the name of its author.

Noether's theorem. But again, this doesnt show the sort of mathematical necessity which (I think) the original poster was referring to. Edited November 16, 2005 by Hal