The important point to grasp is that causality is a corollary of identity – the ball rolls (instead of, say, walking) because it is a ball (and not a dog). If one pushed on a pillow, the pillow would not roll. If one pushed on a blade of grass, it would not roll. The ball rolls because it is a ball, and one observes this directly and observes the action of rolling directly. One abstracts out the action from the entity to form the concept “rolling” (after several instances integrated together). Concepts of actions are abstract from concepts of entities; that’s where the corollary comes from, when it is directly observed.
While the grasp of cause from having pushed the ball, makes sense here, it is the application of ones grasp of cause in this sense, directly to the ball causes the rolling, sets the context of the corollary of causality as Objectivism portrays it. Would this be accurate?
I’m not clear on what you want to conclude here. Something about personal causation and impersonal causation? Dr. Peikoff makes the following (paraphased and condensed) comment in his lecture course on Induction :
Impersonal vs. Personal distinction must be learned. Default tendency is to construe personal experience outward and anthropomorphize motives onto inanimate (or animal) entities. This is the epistemological root behind animism and theism. Impersonal perspective was a Greek innovation and follows upon the law of identity. “Impersonal metaphysics”
That would be the distinction I am trying to clarify. Thanks.
Many people, when they speak of causality are using it to identify what I’m understanding to be causal process. The bat hit the ball, causing the ball to fly through the air. While the bat hit the ball and caused it to fly though the air, the “fly through the air” is the action of the ball, which I take to be more in line with the law of causality as a corollary of the law of identity. It seems difficult to communicate that distinction to someone who view the bat as the sole cause.
As someone who’s interested in Objectivism, I’m having trouble understanding the logic of causality in an eternal universe. In the thread of another forum, I was given the following response to my questioning whether the objects of existence could be intentional creations, i.e. caused by a creator, as opposed to resulting from some distant unknown, but presumed to be non-creative source of causality:
“The correct position is that something always was and that everything that exists was caused by something that existed previously.” ~ Betsy Speicher, Administrator for THE FORUM for Ayn Rand fans (from thread title: “Proving a negative”, pg 2)
I was eventually ejected from that forum for “causing” a heated exchange with the Objectivists there, by continuing to ask for the apparent need for a first cause within causal existence, and whether that cause was necessarily an unconscious action. What I’m looking for here is, according to the Objectivist position stated by Betsy Speicher (and rigorously defended by other members of her forum), doesn’t this avoid accounting for, what appears to be, a necessary first cause for causality to occur? If not, can someone provide a concise reason why causality dosesn’t imply a first cause??
The philosophically naive and incorrect understanding of causality is to categorize everything as a cause or an effect or in other words everything is an action of some type, which means that in ontological terms all that exists is action. From the premise that everything is action it is all too easily deduced that there must be a first action. This is an error because being comes before acting.
Consciousness itself is action, the act of awareness that produces some correspondence between subject and object. Again, the subject and object must be before one can be aware of the other.
Actually, I would not agree with Betsy Speicher’s response to you, and she and I have gone round and round on this topic for years. In Objectivism, the term “causality” does not refer to something coming into being or getting into motion by something else. Your whole premise is based on the assumption that everything was at one time at rest or at one time didn’t exist and was either brought into being or set into motion by something else. However, there is no evidence that everything was once at rest and therefore need a first mover, nor is there any evidence that everything once didn’t exist and therefore needed a first creator. Causality refers to the fact that an entity acts according to its nature (not according to something acting on it). Aristotle’s efficient cause has many applications – i.e. the que ball caused the eight ball to go into the corner pocket – but this is not the final word on causation and does not cover everything. Causation simply means that an entity will act a certain way given its nature, whether it was pushed by something else or is self-propelled. So, basically, it is your false conception of causation that is leading to your conundrum.
This is an error because being comes before acting.
Does the primacy of existence then imply that the natural state of existence is inert? It’s my understanding that motion isn’t a property of matter… is this correct??
However, there is no evidence that everything was once at rest and therefore need a first mover, nor is there any evidence that everything once didn’t exist and therefore needed a first creator.
I think the “existence” of a creator presumes the primacy of existence, but an ever expanding universe in motion suggests a kind of perpetual or eternal motion, which I believe science disputes. If there’s no evidence of everything coming to movement from a state of rest, doesn’t that imply perpetual motion? I think that’s the area I’m having the most trouble with… existence appears to be sustained in motion, but science dismisses perpetual motion. Is there another rational option??
Does the primacy of existence then imply that the natural state of existence is inert? It’s my understanding that motion isn’t a property of matter… is this correct??
The primacy of existence acknowledges the relationship between consciousness and existence with no stand as to its ‘natural state’. Motion (action) requires that which moves (matter). Does it make any difference if matter has been moving all along, or if there are periods of time where some or any matter is inert? Even motion/inertness (both concepts of relationship) requires a point of reference to establish if it is moving or not. If everything is moving at different rates of speed relative to everything else, can it be determined what, if anything is actually inert, or vice versa?
Does the primacy of existence then imply that the natural state of existence is inert?
No. As far as we know everything is always acting and interacting in one way or another.
It’s my understanding that motion isn’t a property of matter… is this correct??
That is not correct. Motion cannot exist apart from some matter having that attribute. Action cannot exist apart from what exists and acts. That is what “being comes before acting” means.
No,it wouldn’t be perpetual motion, because that term is delimited to a specific machine, let’s say, that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy (primarily due to friction). This concept does not apply to the universe as a whole. Motion (or momentum) is conserved – that is, while one thing is slowing down the lost energy is being transferred to something else. So, it is not as if you can have a universe with all of the entities slowing down at once because where would all that energy go? What would it be transferred to? If you have a roller skate and push it, it will continue to roll until friction stops it, but that motion is not lost, it was transferred into the concrete sidewalk in the form of heat (the molecules of the concrete get more agitated). Similarly, if, due to the interaction, of say, the Earth and the Moon, the Moon began to slow down, either the Earth would have to speed up or the energy would have to go somewhere else and that thing would speed up. The universe as a whole was never at rest and as a whole will never be at rest, if one is talking about things inside the universe being in motion relative to one another.
No,it wouldn’t be perpetual motion, because that term is delimited to a specific machine, let’s say, that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy (primarily due to friction). This concept does not apply to the universe as a whole. Motion (or momentum) is conserved – that is, while one thing is slowing down the lost energy is being transferred to something else. So, it is not as if you can have a universe with all of the entities slowing down at once because where would all that energy go? What would it be transferred to? If you have a roller skate and push it, it will continue to roll until friction stops it, but that motion is not lost, it was transferred into the concrete sidewalk in the form of heat (the molecules of the concrete get more agitated). Similarly, if, due to the interaction, of say, the Earth and the Moon, the Moon began to slow down, either the Earth would have to speed up or the energy would have to go somewhere else and that thing would speed up. The universe as a whole was never at rest and as a whole will never be at rest, if one is talking about things inside the universe being in motion relative to one another.
Thank you all for responding. I’m trying to draw off your comments as a group to ask the following:
So motion is a property of matter, i.e. a ball rolls because its nature is to roll, is this correct?
Is a ball at rest an illusion then, or is its apparent inactivity non-existent in a universe where “we know everything is always acting and interacting in one way or another”?
Does an expanding universe imply that matter (or something) is contracting inversely?
A ball has some attributes that are entirely intrinsic and other attributes that are relative to other existents. One of the ways in which even a motionless ball is always acting and interacting is by gravitationally attracting every other thing in the universe and being attracted by them. Scientists have inferred an intrinsic attribute of matter called mass from the relative attribute which is the attractive force measured between two bodies with mass. The weight you feel when holding a ball in your hand is not entirely due to the ball’s intrinsic attribute of mass but also due to the planet Earth’s mass which attracts it. It is further known that the distance between the ball and Earth is factor that changes the observed weight. The conclusion from this is that relationships are real and must be counted among the existents (things that exist) even while they are not ‘things in themselves’ . A ball at rest is not an illusion, it is actually at rest relative to some observer even while some other observer measures the ball (and first observer) as in motion.
Intrinsic and relative attributes affect our understanding the concept of identity. A ball has some attributes that are entirely intrinsic and other attributes that are relative to other existents, but all of the attributes constitute a particular ball’s identity. As Aristotle correctly asserted only particulars exist. There are no free-floating abstractions or ‘types of things’ in existence. Therefore the habit of mind of considering only the intrinsic attributes or ‘things in themselves’ as the whole of identity is an error because it leads to regarding relations as independent things in themselves, as heat was once theorized to be a substance called phlogiston, and as you were left considering causality affecting motion apart from things that move.
An expanding universe does not imply anything is contracting. See the wikipedia article Metric expansion of space
I’ll have to reflect on this information a bit more, but I really appreciate what’s been offered so far. I’ve gone back to the beginning twice to try to understand these ideas. For my own clarity, I gather that Objectivism considers causality to be the behavior of being, and that a first (or primary) cause isn’t valid because there could never have been a moment of being where no behavior existed…
… at least that’s what I think is being expressed here. Thanks for your efforts to enlighten me.
Existence appears to be sustained in motion, but science dismisses perpetual motion ~ re-posted
No,it wouldn’t be perpetual motion, because that term is delimited to a specific machine, let’s say, that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy (primarily due to friction). This concept does not apply to the universe as a whole. Motion (or momentum) is conserved – that is, while one thing is slowing down the lost energy is being transferred to something else. So, it is not as if you can have a universe with all of the entities slowing down at once because where would all that energy go? What would it be transferred to? If you have a roller skate and push it, it will continue to roll until friction stops it, but that motion is not lost, it was transferred into the concrete sidewalk in the form of heat (the molecules of the concrete get more agitated). Similarly, if, due to the interaction, of say, the Earth and the Moon, the Moon began to slow down, either the Earth would have to speed up or the energy would have to go somewhere else and that thing would speed up. The universe as a whole was never at rest and as a whole will never be at rest, if one is talking about things inside the universe being in motion relative to one another.
I wanted to be sure I understood your comment… Are you saying the universe cannot be viewed as a closed system (mechanism) of perpetual motion because it would require the input of new energy, or that the universe is slowing down and there’s no evidence where the energy is being transferred? What’s confusing to me is the reference in your 1st sentence, “that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy”, which appears to me at odds with the definition of ‘perpetual motion’ as, “the motion of an ideal mechanism that could continue to operate indefinitely without drawing upon an external source of energy” ~ Merriam-Webster
Perhaps I’m just missing something more obvious in your last comment??
Yes, you insist on applying a *delimited concept* to the universe as a whole. The reason the roller skate slows down above is due to friction with the sidewalk and the fact that the sidewalk takes up some of the energy of the skate.This cannot happen to the universe as a whole as it is not “rubbing” against anything. We do not live inside a box and the galaxies et al rub against the sides of the box and will thus slow down. Ain’t happening and never will happen, because that is not the nature of the universe. Again, within the universe, as one thing slows down something else speeds up.There is no way to stop everything.
So your objection to applying a “delimited concept” (perpetual motion) to the universe as a whole, is that the universe (by definition) isn’t inputing or outputing energy, unless I’m totally missing it…
…but is the definition of ‘perpetual motion’ delimited to open-ended systems, as opposed to self-sustaining systems? When I Google “definition perpetual motion” I get:
_ per·pet·u·al mo·tion _
Noun:
-
A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
-
The motion of a hypothetical machine that, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
Given there is no force external to the universe, how does an eternally active universe not meet the definition? If I’m wearing your patience, I’ll let it go. I just can’t seem to grasp the Objectivist view on this.
So your objection to applying a “delimited concept” (perpetual motion) to the universe as a whole, is that the universe (by definition) isn’t inputing or outputing energy, unless I’m totally missing it…
…but is the definition of ‘perpetual motion’ delimited to open-ended systems, as opposed to self-sustaining systems? When I Google “definition perpetual motion” I get:
_ per·pet·u·al mo·tion _
Noun:
A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
The motion of a hypothetical machine that, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
Given there is no force external to the universe, how does an eternally active universe not meet the definition? If I’m wearing your patience, I’ll let it go. I just can’t seem to grasp the Objectivist view on this.
Thomas has a background in physics and assumed you meant perpetual motion machine of the kind that are impossible due to the violation of the firstlaw of thermodynamics (which is the conservation of energy). The Universe as a whole is closed, so considered as a perpetual motion machine that cannot lose energy then your comparison would be correct if there were nothing else to know about the subject. But wait, there is more to know! There are perpetual motion machines of the first kind and second kind, explained at Wikipedia. The Universe has the property called entropy which is always increasing (and is possibly related to the expansion of the Universe) so it will run down and stop changing eventually, so it will not be in perpetual motion. It won’t stop existing though because that would violate the first law about the conservation of energy.
None of this discussion about perpetual motion machines is particularly Objectivist or even in the field of metaphysics, it is standard physics.