Universal causation

Last updated

Universal causation is the proposition that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause. This means that if a given event occurs, then this is the result of a previous, related event. [1] If an object is in a certain state, then it is in that state as a result of another object interacting with it previously.

Contents

The idea of universal causation is formulated in western philosophy similarly for ages[ when? ], however the formulations contain some profound differences in methodology and philosophical assumptions.

Examples:

In addition, everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause. — Plato in "Timaeus", c. 360 BC


Causality is universal. Nowhere in the world can there be any phenomena that do not give rise to certain consequences and have not been caused by other phenomena. — Alexander Spirkin in "Dialectical Materialism", 1984

In contrast, Bertrand Russell argued (in 1912) that the law of causation as usually stated by philosophers is false and is not used in sciences (maybe with exception of their infancy). [2] However his position on universal causation evolved and "was not as naive as it may have appeared". [3] In 1927 Russell writes that the notion of universal causation marks the beginnings of science and philosophy. [4]

Philosophers who do believe in exception-less, universal, fundamental laws of nature are in recent times more often referred to as "fundamentalists", however these who present "anti-laws" efforts (for instance showing that in many cases laws of sciences are ceteris paribus laws) "pluralists" are in the minority. [5]

As axioms of causality

According to William Whewell (hypothetico-deductivist view) the concept of universal causation depends on three axioms: [6]

  1. Nothing takes place without a cause.
  2. The magnitude of an effect is proportional to the magnitude of its cause.
  3. To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction.

Whewell writes that the first axiom is so clear that it requires no proof if only the idea of cause is understood. [7]

Example

Example for the axiom: if a baseball is moving through the air, it must be moving this way because of a previous interaction with another object, such as being hit by a baseball bat.

Criticism

An epistemological axiom is a self-evident truth. Thus the "Axiom of Causality" claims to be a universal rule that is so obvious that it does not need to be proved to be accepted. Even among epistemologists, the existence of such a rule is controversial.

As Law of Universal Causation or Principle of Universal Causation (PUC)

John Stuart Mill describes the Law of Universal Causation in following way:

Every phenomenon has a cause, which it invariably follows; and from this are derived other invariable sequences among the successive stages of the same effect, as well as between the effects resulting from causes which invariably succeed one another. [8]

Contrary to hypothetico-deductivists Mill focuses on inductive reasoning and observations in framing of the Law of Universal Causation i.e. uses basic features of experimental methods and convinces, after critical analysis, that this law is proved by induction better than any other of subordinate generalizations. [9] [10]

The belief we entertain in the universality, throughout nature, of the law of cause and effect, is itself an instance of induction. [9]

Also popular proof and answer to skepticism (for instance that of David Hume) is that PUC has been true in so many cases, that (using basic inductivist scientific method enumerative inductive reasoning) [10] it is reasonable to say that it is true in every case, moreover counter-example i.e. event that does not have a cause is hard to conceive. [11]

Criticism

Modern version of law of universal causation is connected with Newtonian physics, but is also criticized for instance by David Hume who presents skeptical reductionist view on causality. [12] Since then his view on the concept of causality is often predominating (see Causality, After the Middle Ages). Kant answered to Hume in many aspects, defending the a priority of universal causation. [13]

In 2017 book Robert C. Koons & Timothy Pickavance point out four objections to Universal Causation: [14]

  1. If we additionally assume mereological universalism, universal causation doesn't exclude self-causation, which is controversial.
  2. Pluralized causal principle - there are pluralized versions of universal causation, that allow exceptions to the principle.
  3. Robert K. Meyer's causal chain principle, [15] uses set theory axioms, assumes that something must cause itself in set of causes and so universal causation doesn't exclude self-causation.
  4. Against infinite regress.

Spontaneity

One implication of Universal Causation is that if a phenomenon appears to occur without any observable external cause, the cause must be internal.

Variation

Another implication of the Universal Causation is that all change in the universe is a result of the continual application of physical laws.

Determinism

If all events are cause and effect relationships that follow universal rules, then all events—past, present and future—are theoretically determinate.

First Cause and possible exceptions

If all effects are the result of previous causes, then the cause of a given effect must itself be the effect of a previous cause, which itself is the effect of a previous cause, and so on, forming an infinite logical chain of events that can have no beginning (see: Cyclic model), however usually it is assumed that there is one (see: Big Bang, the religious belief in Creationism or pseudo-scientific idea of Intelligent design).

Exception for the Universal Causation - First Cause is sometimes pointed out to be logically necessary for it to not contradict itself. Infinite chain of events is hard to conceive in finite world. The answer is looped chain of events. But this is also questioned as the whole loop would have no cause. However it can not be ruled out that the Universe is infinite in time or can expand infinitly. [16]

Other exceptions are pointed out - only every of the following things are caused:

See also

Related Research Articles

A cosmological argument, in natural theology and the philosophy of religion, is an argument which asserts that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. A cosmological argument can also sometimes be referred to as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument, or the prime mover argument. Whichever term is employed, there are two basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: in esse (essentiality), and in fieri (becoming).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Hume</span> Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and essayist (1711–1776)

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist who was best known for his highly influential system of empiricism, philosophical skepticism and metaphysical naturalism. Beginning with A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), Hume strove to create a naturalistic science of man that examined the psychological basis of human nature. Hume followed John Locke in rejecting the existence of innate ideas, concluding that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. This places him with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley as an empiricist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metaphysics</span> Study of fundamental reality

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. It is often characterized as first philosophy, implying that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry. Metaphysics is traditionally seen as the study of mind-independent features of the world, but some modern theorists understand it as an inquiry into the conceptual schemes that underlie human thought and experience.

Causality is an influence by which one event, process, state, or object (acause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes, which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.

Physical causality is a physical relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural sciences and behavioural sciences, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy, statistics and logic. Causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause can not have an effect outside its front (future) light cone.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Problem of induction</span> Question of whether inductive reasoning leads to definitive knowledge

The problem of induction is a philosophical problem that questions the rationality of predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. These inferences from the observed to the unobserved are known as "inductive inferences". David Hume, who first formulated the problem in 1739, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences, while acknowledging that everyone does and must make such inferences.

Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning, where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is at best probable, based upon the evidence given.

Predeterminism is the philosophy that all events of history, past, present and future, have been already decided or are already known, including human actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kalam cosmological argument</span> Philosophical argument for the existence of God

The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam from which many of its key ideas originated. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig was principally responsible for revitalizing these ideas for modern academic discourse through his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), as well as other publications.

<i>Process and Reality</i> 1929 book by Alfred North Whitehead

Process and Reality is a book by Alfred North Whitehead, in which the author propounds a philosophy of organism, also called process philosophy. The book, published in 1929, is a revision of the Gifford Lectures he gave in 1927–28.

We diverge from Descartes by holding that what he has described as primary attributes of physical bodies, are really the forms of internal relationships between actual occasions. Such a change of thought is the shift from materialism to Organic Realism, as a basic idea of physical science.

The deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation, also known as Hempel's model, the Hempel–Oppenheim model, the Popper–Hempel model, or the covering law model, is a formal view of scientifically answering questions asking, "Why...?". The DN model poses scientific explanation as a deductive structure, one where truth of its premises entails truth of its conclusion, hinged on accurate prediction or postdiction of the phenomenon to be explained.

Wesley Charles Salmon was an American philosopher of science renowned for his work on the nature of scientific explanation. He also worked on confirmation theory, trying to explicate how probability theory via inductive logic might help confirm and choose hypotheses. Yet most prominently, Salmon was a realist about causality in scientific explanation, although his realist explanation of causality drew ample criticism. Still, his books on scientific explanation itself were landmarks of the 20th century's philosophy of science, and solidified recognition of causality's important roles in scientific explanation, whereas causality itself has evaded satisfactory elucidation by anyone.

In the philosophy of mind, psychophysical parallelism is the theory that mental and bodily events are perfectly coordinated, without any causal interaction between them. As such, it affirms the correlation of mental and bodily events, but denies a direct cause and effect relation between mind and body. This coordination of mental and bodily events has been postulated to occur either in advance by means of God or at the time of the event or, finally, according to Baruch Spinoza's Ethics, mind and matter are two of infinite attributes of the only Substance-God, which go as one without interacting with each other. On this view, mental and bodily phenomena are independent yet inseparable, like two sides of a coin.

Inductivism is the traditional and still commonplace philosophy of scientific method to develop scientific theories. Inductivism aims to neutrally observe a domain, infer laws from examined cases—hence, inductive reasoning—and thus objectively discover the sole naturally true theory of the observed.

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?", and "Why do we know what we know?". Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British philosophy</span> Philosophical tradition of the British people

British philosophy refers to the philosophical tradition of the British people. "The native characteristics of British philosophy are these: common sense, dislike of complication, a strong preference for the concrete over the abstract and a certain awkward honesty of method in which an occasional pearl of poetry is embedded".

Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and effect. Typically it involves establishing four elements: correlation, sequence in time, a plausible physical or information-theoretical mechanism for an observed effect to follow from a possible cause, and eliminating the possibility of common and alternative ("special") causes. Such analysis usually involves one or more artificial or natural experiments.

In philosophy, constant conjunction is a relationship between two events, where one event is invariably followed by the other: if the occurrence of A is always followed by B, A and B are said to be constantly conjoined. A critical philosophical question concerns the relationship between constant conjunction and causation, which has implications in the philosophy of science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Why is there anything at all?</span> Metaphysical question

"Why is there anything at all?" or "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question about the reason for basic existence which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger, who called it "the fundamental question of metaphysics".

Humeanism refers to the philosophy of David Hume and to the tradition of thought inspired by him. Hume was an influential Scottish philosopher well known for his empirical approach, which he applied to various fields in philosophy. In the philosophy of science, he is notable for developing the regularity theory of causation, which in its strongest form states that causation is nothing but constant conjunction of certain types of events without any underlying forces responsible for this regularity of conjunction. This is closely connected to his metaphysical thesis that there are no necessary connections between distinct entities. The Humean theory of action defines actions as bodily behavior caused by mental states and processes without the need to refer to an agent responsible for this. The slogan of Hume's theory of practical reason is that "reason is...the slave of the passions". It restricts the sphere of practical reason to instrumental rationality concerning which means to employ to achieve a given end. But it denies reason a direct role regarding which ends to follow. Central to Hume's position in metaethics is the is-ought distinction. It states that is-statements, which concern facts about the natural world, do not imply ought-statements, which are moral or evaluative claims about what should be done or what has value. In philosophy of mind, Hume is well known for his development of the bundle theory of the self. It states that the self is to be understood as a bundle of mental states and not as a substance acting as the bearer of these states, as is the traditional conception. Many of these positions were initially motivated by Hume's empirical outlook. It emphasizes the need to ground one's theories in experience and faults opposing theories for failing to do so. But many philosophers within the Humean tradition have gone beyond these methodological restrictions and have drawn various metaphysical conclusions from Hume's ideas.

References

  1. "Law of universal causation", Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (editor Noah Porter, Springfield, MA: C. & G. Merriam Co., 1913).
  2. Russell, Bertrand (1912). "On the Notion of Cause". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 13: 1–26. doi: 10.1093/aristotelian/13.1.1 . ISSN   0066-7374. JSTOR   4543833.
  3. Griffin, Nicholas (1979). "Bertrand Russell and Causality". Biometrics. 35 (4): 909–911. ISSN   0006-341X. JSTOR   2530140.
  4. Russell, Bertrand (2007). The Analysis of Matter. Spokesman Books. ISBN   978-0-85124-740-3.
  5. Hoefer, Carl (2003-01-23), Causal Determinism in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
  6. Losee, John. Theories of Causality: From Antiquity to the Present. p. 129.
  7. Whewell, William (1840). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded Upon Their History. J.W. Parker.
  8. System of Logic 1872, Book III p. 112.
  9. 1 2 System of Logic 1872, Book III, Chapter V, Of The Law Of Universal Causation., pp. 373-426, Chapter XXI, Of The Evidence Of The Law Of Universal Causation, pp. 95-111.
  10. 1 2 Andersen, Hanne; Hepburn, Brian (2015-11-13), Scientific Method in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
  11. Castell, A. (1972). The Status of the Principle of Universal Causation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 32(3), 403-407. doi:10.2307/2105573.
  12. James Baillie, "Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Hume on Morality".
  13. De Pierris, Graciela; Friedman, Michael (2008-06-04), Kant and Hume on Causality in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
  14. 1 2 Koons, Robert C.; Pickavance, Timothy (2017-04-17). The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN   978-1-119-11612-7.
  15. Meyer, R. (1987). God Exists!, Nous, 21(3), pp. 345-361. doi:10.2307/2215186.
  16. Is the Universe finite or infinite ESA interview with Joseph Silk, 2001