Every Event has a Cause as Metaphysics
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 17, 2012, 11:03:59 AM6/17/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
In his book An Essay on Metaphysics in Part IIIc Causation, Collingwood
has considered what could mean that every event must have a cause. This
could be interesting for a discussion on free will, as Collingwood shows
that causation presupposes free will. In other words, if free will is to
be abandoned, then causation must be abandoned as well.
Below all quotes are according to R. G. Collingwood, An Essay on
Metaphysics (Revised Edition with an Introduction and additional
material edited by Rex Martin).
I will start with a quote from Function of Metaphysics that nicely shows
that 'Every Event has a Cause' happens not to be self-evident.
p. 409 "We are accustomed nowadays to say that every event must have a
cause. When we say this, we are speaking as metaphysicians. We are
saying something which fully expressed would run thus: our ordinary or
scientific thinking rests on the presupposition that every event has a
cause. Speaking as scientists, i.e. in so far as we are engaged in
ordinary thinking as distinct from reflecting on it or studying it
historically, we should not say that every event has a cause, we should
only presuppose it. Now, suppose someone were to reply to our remark
that every event has a cause, by saying 'You may be right, but of course
remember that Newton didn't think so. He divided events or states in
nature into two classes, uniform motions, or states of rest, and
accelerations or decelerations; and he thought that the second class had
causes and the first not. Newton thus held that some events have no
causes'. On hearing this, most people, I think, would be at first
incredulous. They would say 'but surely it is self-evident that all
events must have causes, and Newton can't have failed to see it. He
can't have thought that the uniform motion of a body through a certain
tract of space had no cause. He must have thought, as we do, that it had
a cause, viz. the same body's previous movement through an adjacent
tract of space.' When we had overcome this incredulity by studying the
text of Newton for ourselves, incredulity would be replaced by
indignation. We should say 'I am now convinced that Newton did think
that some events have no causes. But it was stupid of him. It isn't
true. Actually all events do have causes, and if Newton thought
otherwise, he was wrong'."
Collingwood has shown that what we find nowadays as self-evident has
started with Kant only (just a bit more than 200 years ago).
p. 328 "(a) That every event has a cause,
(b) That the cause of an event is a previous event,
(c) That (a) and (b) are known to us a priori."
Collingwood has started with three different senses of the term 'cause'.
p. 285 "Sense I. Here that which is 'caused' is the free and deliberate
act of a conscious and responsible agent, and 'causing' him to do it
means affording him a motive for doing it.
Sense II. Here that which is 'caused' is an event in nature, and its
'cause' is an event or state of things by producing or preventing which
we can produce or prevent that whose cause it is said to be.
Sense III. Here that which is 'caused' is an event or state of things,
and its 'cause' is another event or state of things standing to it in a
one-one relation of casual priority".
He has referred to these senses as the historical sense, the sense of
the practical sciences of nature, and the sense of the theoretical
sciences of nature respectively.
p. 289 "That the relation between these three senses of the word 'cause'
is an historical relation: No. I being the earliest of the three, No. II
a development from it, and No. III a development from that."
XXX. Causation in History
-------------------------
p. 291 "This is a current and familiar sense of the word (together with
its cognates, correlatives, and equivalents) in English, and of
corresponding words in other modern languages. A headline in the Morning
Post in 1936 run, 'Mr. Baldwin's speech causes adjournment of the
House'. This did not mean that Mr. Baldwin's speech compelled the
Speaker to adjourn the House whether or no that event conformed with his
own ideas and intentions; it meant that on hearing Mr. Baldwin's speech
the Speaker freely made up his mind to adjourn."
XXXI. Causation in Practical Natural Science
--------------------------------------------
p. 296 "The question 'What is the cause of event y?' means in this case
'How can we produce or prevent at will?'.
This sense of the word may be defined as follows. A cause is an event or
state of things which it is in our power to produce or prevent, and by
producing or preventing which we can produce or prevent that whose cause
it is said to be."
p. 297 "The search for causes in sense II is natural science in that
sense of the phrase in which natural science is what Aristotle calls a
'practical science', valued not for its truth pure and simple but for
its utility, for the 'power over nature' which it gives us: Baconian
science, where 'knowledge is power' and where 'nature is conquered by
obeying her'".
p. 299 "Here are some examples. The cause of malaria is the bite of a
mosquito; the cause of a boat's sinking is her being overloaded; the
cause of books going mouldy is their being in a damp room; the cause of
a man's sweating is a dose of aspirin; the cause of a furnace going out
in the night is that the draught-door was insufficiently open; the cause
of seedlings dying is that nobody watered them."
p. 304 "The principle may be stated by saying that for any given person
the cause in sense II of a given thing is that one of its conditions
which he is able to produce or prevent."
p. 309 "Sense II of the word 'cause' is especially a Greek sense; in
modern times it is especially associated with the survival or revival of
Greek ideas in the earlier Renaissance thinkers; and both the Greeks and
the earlier Renaissance thinkers held quite seriously an animistic
theory of nature."
p. 310 "To sum up. Sense II of the word 'cause' rests on two different
ideas about the relation between man and nature.
1. The anthropocentric idea that man looks at nature from his own point
of view; not the point of view of a thinker, anxious to find out the
truth about nature as it is in itself, but the point of view of a
practical agent, anxious to find out how he can manipulate nature for
the achieving of his own ends.
2. The anthropomorphic idea that man's manipulation of nature resembles
one man's manipulation of another man, because natural things are alive
in much the same way in which men are alive, and have therefore to be
similarly handled."
p. 312 "Among natural scientists to-day it is orthodox to take the will
for the deed. For the historical metaphysician it is a question how far
this anti-anthropomorphic movement has been successful. The continued
use of the word 'cause' in sense II is prima-facie evidence that its
success has not been complete."
Conclusion
----------
Finally Collingwood has analyzed the sense III of the term 'cause' as
well as causation in Kantian philosophy. He has shown that the sense III
brought problems with it:
p. 332 "The logical incompatibility of these two suppositions does not
prove that they were not concurrently made; it only proves that, if they
were concurrently made, the structure of the constellation that included
them both was subject to severe strain, and that the entire fabric of
the science based upon them was in a dangerously unstable condition."
I will not describe Collingwood's analysis. In my view, it is simpler
just to browse The Metaphysics of Causation on SEP
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
Here one can choose a viewpoint one likes, provided one finds it.
For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs that
every event has a cause. Provided one assumes the Theory of Everything,
nature should mere evolve according to it. Why one would need effect and
cause in this case?
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/every-event-has-a-cause.html
has considered what could mean that every event must have a cause. This
could be interesting for a discussion on free will, as Collingwood shows
that causation presupposes free will. In other words, if free will is to
be abandoned, then causation must be abandoned as well.
Below all quotes are according to R. G. Collingwood, An Essay on
Metaphysics (Revised Edition with an Introduction and additional
material edited by Rex Martin).
I will start with a quote from Function of Metaphysics that nicely shows
that 'Every Event has a Cause' happens not to be self-evident.
p. 409 "We are accustomed nowadays to say that every event must have a
cause. When we say this, we are speaking as metaphysicians. We are
saying something which fully expressed would run thus: our ordinary or
scientific thinking rests on the presupposition that every event has a
cause. Speaking as scientists, i.e. in so far as we are engaged in
ordinary thinking as distinct from reflecting on it or studying it
historically, we should not say that every event has a cause, we should
only presuppose it. Now, suppose someone were to reply to our remark
that every event has a cause, by saying 'You may be right, but of course
remember that Newton didn't think so. He divided events or states in
nature into two classes, uniform motions, or states of rest, and
accelerations or decelerations; and he thought that the second class had
causes and the first not. Newton thus held that some events have no
causes'. On hearing this, most people, I think, would be at first
incredulous. They would say 'but surely it is self-evident that all
events must have causes, and Newton can't have failed to see it. He
can't have thought that the uniform motion of a body through a certain
tract of space had no cause. He must have thought, as we do, that it had
a cause, viz. the same body's previous movement through an adjacent
tract of space.' When we had overcome this incredulity by studying the
text of Newton for ourselves, incredulity would be replaced by
indignation. We should say 'I am now convinced that Newton did think
that some events have no causes. But it was stupid of him. It isn't
true. Actually all events do have causes, and if Newton thought
otherwise, he was wrong'."
Collingwood has shown that what we find nowadays as self-evident has
started with Kant only (just a bit more than 200 years ago).
p. 328 "(a) That every event has a cause,
(b) That the cause of an event is a previous event,
(c) That (a) and (b) are known to us a priori."
Collingwood has started with three different senses of the term 'cause'.
p. 285 "Sense I. Here that which is 'caused' is the free and deliberate
act of a conscious and responsible agent, and 'causing' him to do it
means affording him a motive for doing it.
Sense II. Here that which is 'caused' is an event in nature, and its
'cause' is an event or state of things by producing or preventing which
we can produce or prevent that whose cause it is said to be.
Sense III. Here that which is 'caused' is an event or state of things,
and its 'cause' is another event or state of things standing to it in a
one-one relation of casual priority".
He has referred to these senses as the historical sense, the sense of
the practical sciences of nature, and the sense of the theoretical
sciences of nature respectively.
p. 289 "That the relation between these three senses of the word 'cause'
is an historical relation: No. I being the earliest of the three, No. II
a development from it, and No. III a development from that."
XXX. Causation in History
-------------------------
p. 291 "This is a current and familiar sense of the word (together with
its cognates, correlatives, and equivalents) in English, and of
corresponding words in other modern languages. A headline in the Morning
Post in 1936 run, 'Mr. Baldwin's speech causes adjournment of the
House'. This did not mean that Mr. Baldwin's speech compelled the
Speaker to adjourn the House whether or no that event conformed with his
own ideas and intentions; it meant that on hearing Mr. Baldwin's speech
the Speaker freely made up his mind to adjourn."
XXXI. Causation in Practical Natural Science
--------------------------------------------
p. 296 "The question 'What is the cause of event y?' means in this case
'How can we produce or prevent at will?'.
This sense of the word may be defined as follows. A cause is an event or
state of things which it is in our power to produce or prevent, and by
producing or preventing which we can produce or prevent that whose cause
it is said to be."
p. 297 "The search for causes in sense II is natural science in that
sense of the phrase in which natural science is what Aristotle calls a
'practical science', valued not for its truth pure and simple but for
its utility, for the 'power over nature' which it gives us: Baconian
science, where 'knowledge is power' and where 'nature is conquered by
obeying her'".
p. 299 "Here are some examples. The cause of malaria is the bite of a
mosquito; the cause of a boat's sinking is her being overloaded; the
cause of books going mouldy is their being in a damp room; the cause of
a man's sweating is a dose of aspirin; the cause of a furnace going out
in the night is that the draught-door was insufficiently open; the cause
of seedlings dying is that nobody watered them."
p. 304 "The principle may be stated by saying that for any given person
the cause in sense II of a given thing is that one of its conditions
which he is able to produce or prevent."
p. 309 "Sense II of the word 'cause' is especially a Greek sense; in
modern times it is especially associated with the survival or revival of
Greek ideas in the earlier Renaissance thinkers; and both the Greeks and
the earlier Renaissance thinkers held quite seriously an animistic
theory of nature."
p. 310 "To sum up. Sense II of the word 'cause' rests on two different
ideas about the relation between man and nature.
1. The anthropocentric idea that man looks at nature from his own point
of view; not the point of view of a thinker, anxious to find out the
truth about nature as it is in itself, but the point of view of a
practical agent, anxious to find out how he can manipulate nature for
the achieving of his own ends.
2. The anthropomorphic idea that man's manipulation of nature resembles
one man's manipulation of another man, because natural things are alive
in much the same way in which men are alive, and have therefore to be
similarly handled."
p. 312 "Among natural scientists to-day it is orthodox to take the will
for the deed. For the historical metaphysician it is a question how far
this anti-anthropomorphic movement has been successful. The continued
use of the word 'cause' in sense II is prima-facie evidence that its
success has not been complete."
Conclusion
----------
Finally Collingwood has analyzed the sense III of the term 'cause' as
well as causation in Kantian philosophy. He has shown that the sense III
brought problems with it:
p. 332 "The logical incompatibility of these two suppositions does not
prove that they were not concurrently made; it only proves that, if they
were concurrently made, the structure of the constellation that included
them both was subject to severe strain, and that the entire fabric of
the science based upon them was in a dangerously unstable condition."
I will not describe Collingwood's analysis. In my view, it is simpler
just to browse The Metaphysics of Causation on SEP
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
Here one can choose a viewpoint one likes, provided one finds it.
For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs that
every event has a cause. Provided one assumes the Theory of Everything,
nature should mere evolve according to it. Why one would need effect and
cause in this case?
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/every-event-has-a-cause.html
John Clark
Jun 17, 2012, 11:15:39 AM6/17/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs that every event has a cause.
I don't know what you're talking about. Modern physics does not say every event has a cause, in fact it says the exact opposite.
John K Clark
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 17, 2012, 1:42:08 PM6/17/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 17.06.2012 17:15 John Clark said the following:
But then why to talk that every event has a cause? I believe that in
discussion on free will this is mentioned pretty often. Why not to
forget about this?
By the way, I believe that in Grand Design, Hawkins is talking about
cause and effect.
Evgenii
discussion on free will this is mentioned pretty often. Why not to
forget about this?
By the way, I believe that in Grand Design, Hawkins is talking about
cause and effect.
Evgenii
meekerdb
Jun 17, 2012, 2:50:31 PM6/17/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 6/17/2012 8:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Collingwood has shown that what we find nowadays as self-evident has started with Kant only (just a bit more than 200 years ago).
p. 328 "(a) That every event has a cause,
(b) That the cause of an event is a previous event,
(c) That (a) and (b) are known to us a priori."
We not only don't think it's self-evident, we suspect it's not true.
Brent
Russell Standish
Jun 17, 2012, 9:17:34 PM6/17/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:42:08PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> By the way, I believe that in Grand Design, Hawkins is talking about
> cause and effect.
>
5 points on Baez's crackpot index for quoting Hawking's mispelt name:
>
> By the way, I believe that in Grand Design, Hawkins is talking about
> cause and effect.
>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html (item 8).
(Couldn't resist :).
Well, it only brings you to zero...
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Clark
Jun 18, 2012, 10:39:05 AM6/18/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had a cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things happen for no cause but I could be wrong about that. However I am most certainly NOT wrong when I say that everything happens for a cause OR everything does not happen for a cause; thus I am also not wrong when I say that the "free will" noise is no more meaningful the the "burp" noise.
> I believe that in discussion on free will this is mentioned pretty often.
I know, I've done most of the discussing.
> Why not to forget about this?
I don't understand the question. I don't even understand exactly what "this" refers to.
> By the way, I believe that in Grand Design, Hawkins is talking about cause and effect.
I know, I've read it.
John K Clark
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 18, 2012, 3:12:35 PM6/18/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 18.06.2012 16:39 John Clark said the following:
Collingwood, it is an anthropocentric as well as anthropomorphic idea. I
should confess that I have never thought this way before.
Do you have a good definition of 'cause'?
>> I believe that in discussion on free will this is mentioned pretty
>> often.
>
>
> I know, I've done most of the discussing.
>
>> Why not to forget about this?
>>
>
> I don't understand the question. I don't even understand exactly
> what "this" refers to.
I have meant that when we talk about physics we could drop the term
cause at all. Why do we need it in physics?
Evgenii
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
>> But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
>>
>
> I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had
> a cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things happen for no
> cause but I could be wrong about that. However I am most certainly
> NOT wrong when I say that everything happens for a cause OR
> everything does not happen for a cause; thus I am also not wrong when
> I say that the "free will" noise is no more meaningful the the "burp"
> noise.
The question would be how to define what 'cause' is. According to
>
>> But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
>>
>
> I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had
> a cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things happen for no
> cause but I could be wrong about that. However I am most certainly
> NOT wrong when I say that everything happens for a cause OR
> everything does not happen for a cause; thus I am also not wrong when
> I say that the "free will" noise is no more meaningful the the "burp"
> noise.
Collingwood, it is an anthropocentric as well as anthropomorphic idea. I
should confess that I have never thought this way before.
Do you have a good definition of 'cause'?
>> I believe that in discussion on free will this is mentioned pretty
>> often.
>
>
> I know, I've done most of the discussing.
>
>> Why not to forget about this?
>>
>
> I don't understand the question. I don't even understand exactly
> what "this" refers to.
cause at all. Why do we need it in physics?
Evgenii
Craig Weinberg
Jun 18, 2012, 3:56:28 PM6/18/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Monday, June 18, 2012 3:12:35 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Do you have a good definition of 'cause'?
Any change originating from beyond your own direct participation, ie, the consequence of any motive other than your own.
Craig
John Mikes
Jun 18, 2012, 3:58:45 PM6/18/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Evgeniy: Hawkins may require "cause and effect" we just don't know "how many" of those are working? We select in our known model the most likely initiating "cause" while many others may act from the still unknown/unknowable infinite 'complexity' background "out there" (and "in here") as well, some with more likelihood (efficiency?) than the "one(s)" we know of.
Whatever "happens" is entailed (maybe caused, facilitated) or a retarding (adverse) circumstance has been eliminated (in cases of otherwise naturally occurring events).
We may know SOME of the 'causes', not all.
(My agnostic slip showing).
JM
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Evgenii Rudnyi
Jun 19, 2012, 1:26:51 PM6/19/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 18.06.2012 21:56 Craig Weinberg said the following:
The question is how you define it for the physical world. If you as
Greeks believe in an animistic theory of nature, then it would work. But
if not, they I personally do not know how. For example, how to define
cause in Einstein's spacetime?
Evgenii
Greeks believe in an animistic theory of nature, then it would work. But
if not, they I personally do not know how. For example, how to define
cause in Einstein's spacetime?
Evgenii
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages