UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> Does every effect has a cause?


2/18/07 5:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 8766
 
And if so, does every intelligent effect has an intelligent cause? (not advocating ID here, but making a serious question)
2/19/07 2:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1638
What do you mean by intelligent effect? According to determinism every thing is indeed caused by something.
2/21/07 12:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
rkjmd
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/03/2007
Posts: 1828
yes.
2/21/07 5:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Giorgos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07 05:27 PM
Member Since: 05/08/2006
Posts: 1444
yes, that's a theorem of propositional logic actually; i.e. it is analytically true. here's the proof: ....Assume A ........Assume B ........Reiterate A here from the assumption above. ....Thus, B implies A Thus, A implies (B implies A).
2/21/07 5:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Giorgos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 05/08/2006
Posts: 1446
now for soundness, all you have to consider is the very definition of "effect". A very plausible definition is: effect=df. an outcome that is naturally necessary to come about, assuming the occurence of another event.
2/21/07 5:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Giorgos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Feb-07
Member Since: 05/08/2006
Posts: 1447
However, what I think you are asking is whether "the principle of sufficient reason" holds true. In other words, if anything that happens has an explanation (i.e. a causal explanation) why it happens. The answer here is possibly no, since quantum physics (as we know it today) seems to indicate that certain events at the micro-level just happen and there is no reason (i.e. no cause) why they happen.
2/22/07 1:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hekster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5181
Also, to do a proof, it is necessary to have a language. Languages are necessarily sequential, that is to say... deterministic. Occurences and languages are two different things, so... arguments for determinism don't mean that the world is run by determinism. See Foucault's book The Order of Things.
2/22/07 3:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1646
"arguments for determinism don't mean that the world is run by determinism." what do you mean by that?
2/23/07 10:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hekster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5185
"It also doesn't mean the world is NOT run by determinism." True, but the nature of the world, as I perceive it, provides evidence that the world is NOT deterministic. And I follow intuition and perception over verbal argument. No, I am not going to go into all the evidence as a verbal argument. It's subjective in that it defies communication.
2/23/07 5:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hekster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5195
I don't think Hume debunked determinism. He just pointed out that thinking is deterministic. If there is no case where an argument for determinism can be proved, then there is no case where determinism can be disproved by argument.
2/24/07 9:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hekster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5198
Basically I think that cause and effect only exist as a pure form in language(including proofs and mathematics). We think about the world in a deterministic way because it is useful. But just because an abstract tool is useful in reality, doesn't make it reality itself. Models (as neurological tools) only reflect a limited aspect of reality. If they reflected reality itself, they would cease to be useful as tools. We use models/language to manage complexity. Hume is partly the source of my perspective, as is Wittgenstein and Godel. And Hume, Wittgenstein, and many others had Buddhism as their starting point for think about cause and effect.
2/24/07 7:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Giorgos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-07
Member Since: 05/08/2006
Posts: 1452
"then there is no case where determinism can be disproved by argument." which is false...again "quantum physics".

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.