Causation

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Causation

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

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
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Causation

Post by brimstoneSalad »

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.
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 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?
That's a causal chain.

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.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Causation

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

This forum makes me feel like I have to become a physicist.
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 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: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.
How far back do you go? Lower than what?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Causation

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:42 am How do you deal with the many causes problem?
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.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:42 amHow far back do you go? Lower than what?
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.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Causation

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

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.
Isn't that still a concerning issue? If we could define a more concise usage, it would be harder to use in ambiguous rhetoric.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Causation

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:36 pm
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.
Isn't that still a concerning issue? If we could define a more concise usage, it would be harder to use in ambiguous rhetoric.
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
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Causation

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

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.
I'll be taking more physics at university, but I hope you could answer these dumb questions laden with misunderstanding.

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?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Causation

Post by brimstoneSalad »

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?
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.

Like asking "if 2 didn't exist then would 3 exist?"
The question is incoherent. Carbon existing is part of the universe.
Lay Vegan wrote: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:48 pmAlso, 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?
There are finite outcomes because there's a finite number of possible configurations of matter within any given causal sphere.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Causation

Post by carnap »

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.
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.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Causation

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 2:44 am 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.
I definitely will, thanks, but one quick question: is it different from the physical definition of causation that @brimstoneSalad gave?
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.
A lot of “basic” concepts seem to be this way, like existence.
Post Reply