iwpoe wrote:

Kevin, this is the usual sort of argument for God that we here subscribe to:




That might be helpful.

Note also:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

Thanks, that's helpful. Let's look at versions of the cosmological argument that depend on principles of causation.

The problem is that armchair reasoning about causation is completely unreliable because cause and effect are two very old and imprecise concepts. Our intuitions about them can easily be led astray; for example, that causation is transitive—if a causes b and b causes c then a causes c. But it’s easy to come up with counterexamples to this—a hiker sees a boulder bouncing toward her and ducks to avoid it. The threat of the boulder caused her to duck and her ducking caused her to survive but the threat of the boulder didn’t cause her to survive. Moreover, there are other principles about causation that seem to go against this argument—causes are governed by natural laws, causes and effects are events, causes precede their effects. None of these is compatible with God’s agency causing the universe.

Trying to uncritically use the concepts of cause and effect in the context of general relativity and quantum field theory would be like if Aristotle were transported to a contemporary chemistry conference and complained that fire isn’t on the periodic table.  “Don’t you believe in fire?” “Yes, we do, but we just don’t think it’s fundamental any more.”


Causation is not a conceptual tool of advanced scientific theories. For example, in the statement of Quantum Mechanics, the word ‘cause’ doesn't appear at all, nor does it in the statement of general relativity. Instead, what you have is a complicated mathematical structure (e.g., an infinite dimensional, separable, Hilbert space that has inner products—this is a particular kind of object commonly studied in the branch of mathematics called abstract algebra, one studies it typically as an advanced undergraduate in math or physics) and a way of interpreting it (e.g., various things that can be measured are associated with different aspects of the mathematical structure—e.g., time as an self-adjoint operator on the space). General relativity works the same way by applying tensor fields—a kind of mathematical structure studied in differential geometry, one studies it typically as a new graduate student in math or physics. Very roughly, scientists observe the world, feed their measurements into a mathematical model, use the model to calculate predictions and then try to test those predictions. Using the concept of causation need not come into it. Notice—I didn’t say that it cannot come into it, so when Craig throws together a bunch of quotes of scientists (usually in popularizations of course) using the word ‘cause’, that will be totally irrelevant. He’s going to do it if he ever bothers to respond to this objection because that’s his number one research tool, and now you know that it will be just as illicit this time as it always is. Instead, the point is that the concept of causation is dispensable in mature sciences that rely heavily on mathematical models. Using causes to make predictions turns out to be vastly less precise than using mathematical models. Remember, causal concepts by themselves provide much in the way of understanding or predictive power. Cause and effect aren’t scientific concepts. Moreover, causation isn’t just dispensable, it’s easy to show that using it all to reason about certain aspects of scientific theories leads one into contradictions. Causation, it turns out is part of a way of thinking about the world that dominated for a long time, but is now slowly being replaced by much more precise ways of thinking about the world. So any time Craig makes point using the concept of causation, he needs to stop and first provide a detailed justification for thinking that causation is even the right concept to be using here. That would be tantamount to justifying the claim that our world is a world governed completely by the principle of cause and effect. Check out John Norton’s paper “Causation as Folk Science,”—it’s free and it does a good job of summarizing and defending this point.
 
WLC Cause Example
“If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity.”  This is a perfect example of the imprecision of using the concepts of cause and effect to try to reason about the existence of anything much less gods or Christianity. The cause of water’s freezing is the temperature being below 0 degrees C. If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect then if the cause is there, the effect must be there. But anyone who takes an intro to chemistry class knows that water can be below 0 degrees C and still be water. In fact you can take liquid water down below -50C if you don’t allow crystals to form. You can also experience this supercooled water in the form of freezing rain. So although you might all nod your head and say “yeah, that sounds really obvious” when asked if having a temperature below 0C is the case of water’s freezing, it isn’t true. Or maybe it is true that that’s part of a cause or whatever. The point is that causal talk is not very precise and totally inadequate for the uses of science, which is ultimately measured by predictive success. So Craig’s own example illustrates perfectly the confusion I’m talking about and this kind of confusion is rampant throughout his work.



 

I'll keep working on the write-up. I think I can have the second section fully transcribed by this evening.

DanielCC wrote:

Will be storming into all of this tomorrow folks. And many thanks to Poe for that write-up,

Looking forward to it

Also, before we get too far down the rabbit whole, are we talking about Humean causation, with its "loose and separate" view of cause and effect, it's treatment of cause and effect as two separate events, it's complete identification of cause and effect with close correlation of cause and effect in space-time, and it's complete repudiation of any talk of casual powers? **Boo!**

Or are we talking about a more Aristotelian account, which features a necessary connection between cause and effect, treats cause and effect as one event looked at from two different perspective or with two different aspects, is quite hesitant to jump from a mere correlation to causation, and can get hardly a word out without referring to casual powers? **Yeah!**

Which idea of causation we have in mind will radically change the discussion, and also how we think causation is supposed to work.

Last edited by Timotheos (4/22/2016 1:08 am)

KevinScharp wrote:

The problem is that armchair reasoning about causation is completely unreliable because cause and effect are two very old and imprecise concepts. 

The concept of causation is old indeed, but it is not at all imprecise. The Kramers–Kronig relations imply that in physical systems causality is logically equivalent to stating the analyticity of response functions in the closed upper half plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%E2%80%93Kronig_relations

KevinScharp wrote:

Trying to uncritically use the concepts of cause and effect in the context of general relativity and quantum field theory would be like if Aristotle were transported to a contemporary chemistry conference and complained that fire isn’t on the periodic table.  “Don’t you believe in fire?” “Yes, we do, but we just don’t think it’s fundamental any more.”

This flies in the face of modern philosophy of science. Let me put it to you like this: if causality could be "reduced" to something more fundamental, then we no longer need to replicate scientific experiments, as we could simply build equipment that detects the "particles of causality" and prove induction right then and there.

KevinScharp wrote:

Causation is not a conceptual tool of advanced scientific theories.

Except that it absolutely is a tool of advanced scientific theories. This statement is flat out false. The opposite of truth.

KevinScharp wrote:

For example, in the statement of Quantum Mechanics, the word ‘cause’ doesn't appear at all, nor does it in the statement of general relativity.

However, the Kramers–Kronig relations do appear in quantum mechanics when it comes to determining the properties of any linear response function, such as that of an photon, and can even be used to calculate optical properties such as the absorption coefficient and permittivity.

KevinScharp wrote:

General relativity works the same way by applying tensor fields—a kind of mathematical structure studied in differential geometry, one studies it typically as a new graduate student in math or physics.

One of the reasons why General Relativity uses tensor fields is because tensors are invariant with respect to coordinate transformations, and it is a metaphysical (meaning the "physics of physics") requirement that the laws of physics are the same regardless of choice of coordinates. So here in General Relativity we see that metaphysical considerations are used to determine what theories are physically admissible. Causality also plays the same role here: it limits the admissible mathematical structure of the universe to that of a globally orientable Lorentzian manifold.

KevinScharp wrote:

Instead, the point is that the concept of causation is dispensable in mature sciences that rely heavily on mathematical models. Using causes to make predictions turns out to be vastly less precise than using mathematical models. Remember, causal concepts by themselves provide much in the way of understanding or predictive power.

(1) No it isn't, as I have demonstrated before.

(2) You are setting up a false dilemma, as if causality and mathematical modeling are mutually exclusive, but in some circumstances, causality can actually be formulated in explicitly mathematical terms!

KevinScharp wrote:

Cause and effect aren’t scientific concepts.

Neither are numbers.

KevinScharp wrote:

Moreover, causation isn’t just dispensable, it’s easy to show that using it all to reason about certain aspects of scientific theories leads one into contradictions.

How does it lead to contradictions?