Causation
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Causation
Is there a rigorous definition of to cause?
I think it is most broadly used to mean, for an A that caused B, if A didn't happen, B didn't happen. The issue is that you can remove many variables from a situation to prevent it from happening*. For example, you could blame carbon for the human intervention of the internet. This is usually "solved" by creating some distinction between direct and indirect causes, which I italicize because the distinction is vague. Was you pulling the trigger the direct cause of your death? Or the gun firing? Or maybe the blood loss? Or maybe the organ failure after?
In a previous thread on free will, a number of people pointed out that hard determinism doesn't align with the modern understanding of the laws of physics, so they might think that cause is an antiquated notion. If so, could a similar notion of probable cause be defined?
*thus, occuring in the present or future seem to be freed of guilt
I think it is most broadly used to mean, for an A that caused B, if A didn't happen, B didn't happen. The issue is that you can remove many variables from a situation to prevent it from happening*. For example, you could blame carbon for the human intervention of the internet. This is usually "solved" by creating some distinction between direct and indirect causes, which I italicize because the distinction is vague. Was you pulling the trigger the direct cause of your death? Or the gun firing? Or maybe the blood loss? Or maybe the organ failure after?
In a previous thread on free will, a number of people pointed out that hard determinism doesn't align with the modern understanding of the laws of physics, so they might think that cause is an antiquated notion. If so, could a similar notion of probable cause be defined?
*thus, occuring in the present or future seem to be freed of guilt
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Causation
No such thing in physics. A causes B if A increases the probability of B happening.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:25 am I think it is most broadly used to mean, for an A that caused B, if A didn't happen, B didn't happen.
That's a causal chain.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:25 amWas you pulling the trigger the direct cause of your death? Or the gun firing? Or maybe the blood loss? Or maybe the organ failure after?
When we look to original cause, we're usually looking for something that had a lower probability of happening and could plausibly have not happened.
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Causation
This forum makes me feel like I have to become a physicist.
How do you deal with the many causes problem? The non-existence of carbon on Earth would make it improbable for humans to go to space, but is it useful to describe carbon as a leading cause of the moon mission?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:37 amNo such thing in physics. A causes B if A increases the probability of B happening.
How far back do you go? Lower than what?brimstoneSalad wrote:When we look to original cause, we're usually looking for something that had a lower probability of happening and could plausibly have not happened.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Causation
You don't, because it's not a problem. Everything has many necessary conditions to happen.
What we're usually looking at, when we decide something caused something else, is an event that may not have transpired.
We take things like carbon for granted (because they are), so it's not usually useful to talk about them as causes.
However far you want, whatever probability you want.
This is more of a pragmatic issue of people understanding what you say. You want to not be confusing, but cause is a spectrum of increased probability.
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Causation
Isn't that still a concerning issue? If we could define a more concise usage, it would be harder to use in ambiguous rhetoric.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:51 amThis is more of a pragmatic issue of people understanding what you say. You want to not be confusing, but cause is a spectrum of increased probability.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Causation
I don't think you can define cause any better than that, at least in the metaphysics of our current reality. Everything is statistical in nature down to quantum phenomena.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:36 pmIsn't that still a concerning issue? If we could define a more concise usage, it would be harder to use in ambiguous rhetoric.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:51 amThis is more of a pragmatic issue of people understanding what you say. You want to not be confusing, but cause is a spectrum of increased probability.
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Causation
I'll be taking more physics at university, but I hope you could answer these dumb questions laden with misunderstanding.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:03 pmI don't think you can define cause any better than that, at least in the metaphysics of our current reality. Everything is statistical in nature down to quantum phenomena.
Can physics account for changing the existential status of conditions? Like, if carbon didn't exist, would there still be a chance that carbon based organisms could exist? Also, as I understand it, there is a zero percent chance that you could select a given real number out of the set of real numbers, so can there be infinite outcomes for a certain set of conditions? or must there be finite outcomes?
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Causation
Current thinking (for those who think about it; most scientists don't so this is more metaphysics in philosophy) is that carbon couldn't not exist, so the question doesn't make any sense.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:21 pm Can physics account for changing the existential status of conditions? Like, if carbon didn't exist, would there still be a chance that carbon based organisms could exist?
Like asking "if 2 didn't exist then would 3 exist?"
The question is incoherent. Carbon existing is part of the universe.
There are finite outcomes because there's a finite number of possible configurations of matter within any given causal sphere.
-
- Anti-Vegan Troll
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm
Re: Causation
You can rigorously define causality mathematically (see causality via Bayesian nets) but the natural of causality is a topic that is knee deep in various aspects of philosophy.
Causality is one of those notions that we have a folk theory that we all use and communicate with.....yet when you start to think about it it makes less and less sense.
Causality is one of those notions that we have a folk theory that we all use and communicate with.....yet when you start to think about it it makes less and less sense.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Causation
I definitely will, thanks, but one quick question: is it different from the physical definition of causation that @brimstoneSalad gave?
A lot of “basic” concepts seem to be this way, like existence.carnap wrote:Causality is one of those notions that we have a folk theory that we all use and communicate with.....yet when you start to think about it it makes less and less sense.