Wrong Views of Cause

[RCSaunders]

Scientific Principles

The only valid meaning of, "cause," in the physical sciences is the assertion, "everything has a cause," means, "nothing happens fortuitously or capriciously, without explanation; nothing happens by magic or miracle; nothing, 'appears out of thin air,' or occurs for any inexplicable ineffable reason, nothing exists ex nihilo.

The concept cause in science is that everything that exists has a specific nature and it is the nature of that which exists which is the explanation of all that is and all that happens. Unfortunately, the concept of cause has come to mean something more than an explanation of what is and what happens and is described as some kind of motivating or initiating force as though a, "cause," is what makes something happen or exist. With the exception of animal and human behavior, nothing, "makes," anything happen or exist. The real cause of all events is the nature of the things that act and are those events.

[NOTE: The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen.]

The explanation for all physical phenomena discovered by the physical sciences are principles by which the nature and behavior of physical entities are understood. Those principle are sometimes called laws, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what scientific principles are. They are called laws, because all physical phenomena conform to those principles, but they do not conform to them because those principles are some kind of constraints that make them conform to them. The principles of science do not make anything happen, they only describe what happens and explain the nature of entities and the relationships between them that are the reason for their behavior.

Scientific principles only describe what things are and what they do, not why they are what the are or why they do what they do. The question, "why," is an unwarranted question based on an assumption of some mystical view of cause as an agency which makes reality some kind of contingent thing. Reality is what it is, and the whole of science is the discovery of the nature of that reality.

The mistaken view of cause has produced some very bad ideas that have plagued both science and philosophy to this day.

What Cause Is Not

The wrong view of cause comes in several flavors. The following are very common.

Cause And Affect—This perversion of the concept of cause comes from Hume, who formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." When Hume described cause that way, his intention was to invalidate the idea of cause itself. He made the valid point that just because one has always observed event, "B," follows event, "A," does not mean event, "B," would always follow event, "A." His argument was that one's belief in cause and effect was simply a prejudice based on what one has seen so far, but the first cause that fails to produce the expected effect disproves cause.

Unfortunately, all future philosophers simply accepted Hume's invalid description of cause (as cause and effect) and regarded Hume's conclusion a great philosophical problem, because it also invalidated another accepted fallacy, that science proceeds by the method of induction which depended on the view that cause and effect could be established by means of observing enough cases to statistically conclude that event A would always result in event B. The problem, however, is neither cause or induction, but Hume's incorrect explanation of what cause is, and the broadly accepted fallacy that science is inductive.

Since the true nature of cause is the explanation of events in terms of the nature of an entity's own actions in response to all other entities as determined by the entity's own nature, there is no cause and effect, because no two real entities are identical and in the entire history of the world there have never been two identical entities in identical relationships to other entities.

Events Cause Events—Hume's wrong view of cause is sometimes call the, "event," theory of cause, meaning certain events cause other events. It has already been explained that there are never two identical events. In addition to the fact there never are the same events is the fact that events are always and only the behavior of entities, and it is the nature of the entities that determine what any event will be. An object thrown at a window may be said to cause the window to shatter, but if the, object is only a sponge ball, or even if the object is a rock and the window is Lucite, the window will not shatter. It is the nature of the entities involved, not the actions, that is the explanation (cause) of the event.

Cause Is Efficient—The idea that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," an, "agency," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," is a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. This mistaken view of cause was addressed above under "Scientific Principles". As explained there, attributing some motivating or initiating force to, "cause," is a kind mysticism, animism, or anthropomorphism. It is similar to attributing cause to scientific principles. Cause does not mean, "that which makes something happen," it is an explanation of the nature of those things, the action of which, "are what happens."

A Chain Of Causes—The fallacious cause and effect view results in a strange view of reality itself. Both philosophers and scientists who have been influenced by that mistaken view describe reality as a chain of causes and effects, beginning with some initial cause or state (like the "big bang") which determines the entire future of everything in the universe. It is pictured as a kind of cascade of causes in which the effect of every cause is the cause of the next succeeding event, which causes the next event, ad infinitum.

While events do not cause events and this view is mistaken, nevertheless, the behavior of all physical entities (excluding living organisms) are determined by their physical attributes, as described by the principles of the physical sciences. Since the behavior of all entities is their own action in relation to all other entities, that much of physical reality is determined entirely by physical principles.

Cause Explains Why—As the description of what everything is and behaves as it does, the principles of the physical sciences explain how everything behaves, which is the real meaning of cause. The principles of science do not explain why anything is what it is or why it behaves as it does, except in terms of an entity's own nature. Nothing, "outside," an entity causes it to be what it is or do what it does. The search for, "why," presumes some mystical explanation for why things are as they are. It assumes a, "contingent," reality. It is just plain superstition.

Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday and there could never have been a time when it was not going to rain yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.

The True Nature Of Cause Explained

The phrase, "cause and effect," is an example of how bad philosophy becomes universally accepted damaging an entire field of enquiry. The philosopher most responsible for inserting this wrong view of cause into philosophy was Hume.

He wrote: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

[Bacon's mistaken application of the Humean view of cause implemented as, "induction," would have ruined science, as well, if practicing scientists did not simply ignore it.]

Philosophers' attempt to defend the wrong view of cause with arguments like: "Science looks for cause and effect by attempting to discover the effects of one thing on another, such as, the effect of temperature on the pressure of a gas, or the effect of length on the period of a pendulum." But those kinds of relationship are not, "cause and effect," relationships.

The fact that a gas will have a higher pressure if its temperature is higher is simply a description of the relationship between two properties of a gas, not a description of a "cause." This is a good example because temperature and pressure in gases are mutually determined. An increase in pressure produces an increase in temperature, and vice versa (so long as the volume remains constant). Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

The fact is these are no examples of one thing "causing" another. They are examples of the fact that an entity of a certain kind necessarily acts in a certain way in a given context, and it is the entity's own nature that determines how it will behave in any context.

The temperature and pressure of a gas are attributes of the gas, an entity, and its behavior is determined by its own nature. It is not "caused" by something else. The fact that the attributes of pressure and temperature in a confined gas have a specific relationship is itself an attribute of gas. It does not exist in liquids, for example.

The length of a pendulum is a property of the pendulum. It behaves the way it does (has a specific period) because of its own attribute, length. It is not "caused" by something else. It is the pendulum's own mass, momentum, and length in the gravitational field that determines its period.

Consider the statement that, "the same cause will result in the same effect," used commonly to describe cause.

Back in the days when automobile tires had "tubes" (those rubber bladders that held the air), when a tire went flat, in order to repair the tire, the cause of the flat needed to be determined. The cause could be anything that allowed the air in the tube to escape: a puncture caused by glass, a nail, or any other sharp object in the road that was run over, or the "valve" being broken or defective, or the rubber of the tube itself being defective and broken down under wear. Any of these things might have been the "cause" of the tire going flat.

Cause is not some kind of mystic concept that explains everything, it is a concept that recognizes the nature of reality, that everything that happens is the product of every existent having the nature it has and doing what it must do in terms of its nature. The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B) is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical, "causes," or two identical, "effects."

It is true that every entity has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements caused by unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged.

Cause As Principle

It is not causes that any of the fundamental disciplines (philosophy or the sciences) look for, but principles. Since the correct way to understand cause is "an explanation of why things are as they are or how and why things happen as they do," an explanation that covers an entire field of phenomena, (within specific limits), is real knowledge that can be applied to all cases within the scope of the principle. Most scientific principles could never be expressed as, "cause and effect," primarily because they are too complex.

It would be impossible, for example, to explain a tuned circuit in terms of cause and effect, or even the current in an AC circuit in terms of both resistance and impedance. The simplest law of electronics, E=IR (voltage equals the current times the resistance) defies the concept, "same cause, same effect," simply because there are three variables, and neither current or resistance causes a voltage; they only indicate what it will be if you know their values and already have a current. What is described is a specific absolute relationship between attributes of the physical entities that are the circuit, not any kind of cause and effect."

Principles, Not Causes

The following is a philosopher's attempt to describe Kepler's laws in terms of cause and effect: "First, the sun exerts a force on each planet that causes it to move in an elliptical orbit (with the sun located at a focus); second, the solar force causes each planet to move so that the line from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time; third, the solar force diminishes with distance in a way that causes the cube of the mean distance from the sun divided by the square of the orbital period to be constant for all planets. Clearly, these are causal statements—as they must be in order to qualify as laws."

Each of the statements in this description of Kepler's laws containing the word "causes" is incorrect. For example, the force the sun exerts on a planet does not "cause" it to move in an elliptical orbit. In fact, the sun's force does not "cause" it to move at all. The reason the planets move is their own momentum—they are already in motion and if there is a "cause" for that it would have to be their own entire history. In response to the force the sun exerts on a planet, it accelerates toward the sun and the resulting change in the direction of its own motion results in that motion conforming to an elliptical path. [In physics acceleration is a change in a motion's velocity, either the motion's speed or direction, or both. In the case of a planet's acceleration relative to the sun's gravity it is a constant change in direction.]

In attempting to illustrate that Kepler's laws are examples of, "causation," the true basis for scientific laws is missed, which is the metaphysical fact that every entity has a specific nature that determines how it behaves in every context. The behavior of the planets in the context of the suns gravitational field is not "caused" by the sun or the force it exerts, it is determined by the planets own nature (it accelerates toward other masses) and state (it is in motion at a certain speed).

The validity of science does not rest on the notion of cause. The concept of cause, even if it could be made "scientific", is too simple. The validity of science rests on the fact physical existence consists only of physical entities, that every entity has a specific nature that determines its behavior and its relationship to all other entities. The whole objective of science is to discover the nature of all entities and their behavior and relationships. The nature of entities, their behavior and there relationships are absolute, the discovery and identification of those entities, their behavior and their relationships constitute the inviolable principles ("laws") of science.

[trokanmariel]

An aspect, of my reality of your discussion:


The "specific nature" reference, early on in your discussion, invoked in my mind the sideshow to main event concept.


The concept, isn't about forward chronology, but, is about the emotion of the real heat using the underling.



In practice, what could be the application, of such concept to the reality universe?

In The Conjuring 2, Janet's abuse from Valak is a fantasy identity of the theme


The actor James Brolin's edit: I didn't reference him originally, because I didn't understand the concept

[VVilliam]

Scientific Principles

The only valid meaning of, "cause," in the physical sciences is the assertion, "everything has a cause," means, "nothing happens fortuitously or capriciously, without explanation; nothing happens by magic or miracle; nothing, 'appears out of thin air,' or occurs for any inexplicable ineffable reason, nothing exists ex nihilo.

The concept cause in science is that everything that exists has a specific nature and it is the nature of that which exists which is the explanation of all that is and all that happens. Unfortunately, the concept of cause has come to mean something more than an explanation of what is and what happens and is described as some kind of motivating or initiating force as though a, "cause," is what makes something happen or exist. With the exception of animal and human behavior, nothing, "makes," anything happen or exist. The real cause of all events is the nature of the things that act and are those events.

[NOTE: The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen.]

The explanation for all physical phenomena discovered by the physical sciences are principles by which the nature and behavior of physical entities are understood. Those principle are sometimes called laws, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what scientific principles are. They are called laws, because all physical phenomena conform to those principles, but they do not conform to them because those principles are some kind of constraints that make them conform to them. The principles of science do not make anything happen, they only describe what happens and explain the nature of entities and the relationships between them that are the reason for their behavior.

Scientific principles only describe what things are and what they do, not why they are what the are or why they do what they do. The question, "why," is an unwarranted question based on an assumption of some mystical view of cause as an agency which makes reality some kind of contingent thing. Reality is what it is, and the whole of science is the discovery of the nature of that reality.

The mistaken view of cause has produced some very bad ideas that have plagued both science and philosophy to this day.

What Cause Is Not

The wrong view of cause comes in several flavors. The following are very common.

Cause And Affect—This perversion of the concept of cause comes from Hume, who formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." When Hume described cause that way, his intention was to invalidate the idea of cause itself. He made the valid point that just because one has always observed event, "B," follows event, "A," does not mean event, "B," would always follow event, "A." His argument was that one's belief in cause and effect was simply a prejudice based on what one has seen so far, but the first cause that fails to produce the expected effect disproves cause.

Unfortunately, all future philosophers simply accepted Hume's invalid description of cause (as cause and effect) and regarded Hume's conclusion a great philosophical problem, because it also invalidated another accepted fallacy, that science proceeds by the method of induction which depended on the view that cause and effect could be established by means of observing enough cases to statistically conclude that event A would always result in event B. The problem, however, is neither cause or induction, but Hume's incorrect explanation of what cause is, and the broadly accepted fallacy that science is inductive.

Since the true nature of cause is the explanation of events in terms of the nature of an entity's own actions in response to all other entities as determined by the entity's own nature, there is no cause and effect, because no two real entities are identical and in the entire history of the world there have never been two identical entities in identical relationships to other entities.

Events Cause Events—Hume's wrong view of cause is sometimes call the, "event," theory of cause, meaning certain events cause other events. It has already been explained that there are never two identical events. In addition to the fact there never are the same events is the fact that events are always and only the behavior of entities, and it is the nature of the entities that determine what any event will be. An object thrown at a window may be said to cause the window to shatter, but if the, object is only a sponge ball, or even if the object is a rock and the window is Lucite, the window will not shatter. It is the nature of the entities involved, not the actions, that is the explanation (cause) of the event.

Cause Is Efficient—The idea that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," an, "agency," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," is a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. This mistaken view of cause was addressed above under "Scientific Principles". As explained there, attributing some motivating or initiating force to, "cause," is a kind mysticism, animism, or anthropomorphism. It is similar to attributing cause to scientific principles. Cause does not mean, "that which makes something happen," it is an explanation of the nature of those things, the action of which, "are what happens."

A Chain Of Causes—The fallacious cause and effect view results in a strange view of reality itself. Both philosophers and scientists who have been influenced by that mistaken view describe reality as a chain of causes and effects, beginning with some initial cause or state (like the "big bang") which determines the entire future of everything in the universe. It is pictured as a kind of cascade of causes in which the effect of every cause is the cause of the next succeeding event, which causes the next event, ad infinitum.

While events do not cause events and this view is mistaken, nevertheless, the behavior of all physical entities (excluding living organisms) are determined by their physical attributes, as described by the principles of the physical sciences. Since the behavior of all entities is their own action in relation to all other entities, that much of physical reality is determined entirely by physical principles.

Cause Explains Why—As the description of what everything is and behaves as it does, the principles of the physical sciences explain how everything behaves, which is the real meaning of cause. The principles of science do not explain why anything is what it is or why it behaves as it does, except in terms of an entity's own nature. Nothing, "outside," an entity causes it to be what it is or do what it does. The search for, "why," presumes some mystical explanation for why things are as they are. It assumes a, "contingent," reality. It is just plain superstition.

Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday and there could never have been a time when it was not going to rain yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.

The True Nature Of Cause Explained

The phrase, "cause and effect," is an example of how bad philosophy becomes universally accepted damaging an entire field of enquiry. The philosopher most responsible for inserting this wrong view of cause into philosophy was Hume.

He wrote: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

[Bacon's mistaken application of the Humean view of cause implemented as, "induction," would have ruined science, as well, if practicing scientists did not simply ignore it.]

Philosophers' attempt to defend the wrong view of cause with arguments like: "Science looks for cause and effect by attempting to discover the effects of one thing on another, such as, the effect of temperature on the pressure of a gas, or the effect of length on the period of a pendulum." But those kinds of relationship are not, "cause and effect," relationships.

The fact that a gas will have a higher pressure if its temperature is higher is simply a description of the relationship between two properties of a gas, not a description of a "cause." This is a good example because temperature and pressure in gases are mutually determined. An increase in pressure produces an increase in temperature, and vice versa (so long as the volume remains constant). Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

The fact is these are no examples of one thing "causing" another. They are examples of the fact that an entity of a certain kind necessarily acts in a certain way in a given context, and it is the entity's own nature that determines how it will behave in any context.

The temperature and pressure of a gas are attributes of the gas, an entity, and its behavior is determined by its own nature. It is not "caused" by something else. The fact that the attributes of pressure and temperature in a confined gas have a specific relationship is itself an attribute of gas. It does not exist in liquids, for example.

The length of a pendulum is a property of the pendulum. It behaves the way it does (has a specific period) because of its own attribute, length. It is not "caused" by something else. It is the pendulum's own mass, momentum, and length in the gravitational field that determines its period.

Consider the statement that, "the same cause will result in the same effect," used commonly to describe cause.

Back in the days when automobile tires had "tubes" (those rubber bladders that held the air), when a tire went flat, in order to repair the tire, the cause of the flat needed to be determined. The cause could be anything that allowed the air in the tube to escape: a puncture caused by glass, a nail, or any other sharp object in the road that was run over, or the "valve" being broken or defective, or the rubber of the tube itself being defective and broken down under wear. Any of these things might have been the "cause" of the tire going flat.

Cause is not some kind of mystic concept that explains everything, it is a concept that recognizes the nature of reality, that everything that happens is the product of every existent having the nature it has and doing what it must do in terms of its nature. The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B) is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical, "causes," or two identical, "effects."

It is true that every entity has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements caused by unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged.

Cause As Principle

It is not causes that any of the fundamental disciplines (philosophy or the sciences) look for, but principles. Since the correct way to understand cause is "an explanation of why things are as they are or how and why things happen as they do," an explanation that covers an entire field of phenomena, (within specific limits), is real knowledge that can be applied to all cases within the scope of the principle. Most scientific principles could never be expressed as, "cause and effect," primarily because they are too complex.

It would be impossible, for example, to explain a tuned circuit in terms of cause and effect, or even the current in an AC circuit in terms of both resistance and impedance. The simplest law of electronics, E=IR (voltage equals the current times the resistance) defies the concept, "same cause, same effect," simply because there are three variables, and neither current or resistance causes a voltage; they only indicate what it will be if you know their values and already have a current. What is described is a specific absolute relationship between attributes of the physical entities that are the circuit, not any kind of cause and effect."

Principles, Not Causes

The following is a philosopher's attempt to describe Kepler's laws in terms of cause and effect: "First, the sun exerts a force on each planet that causes it to move in an elliptical orbit (with the sun located at a focus); second, the solar force causes each planet to move so that the line from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time; third, the solar force diminishes with distance in a way that causes the cube of the mean distance from the sun divided by the square of the orbital period to be constant for all planets. Clearly, these are causal statements—as they must be in order to qualify as laws."

Each of the statements in this description of Kepler's laws containing the word "causes" is incorrect. For example, the force the sun exerts on a planet does not "cause" it to move in an elliptical orbit. In fact, the sun's force does not "cause" it to move at all. The reason the planets move is their own momentum—they are already in motion and if there is a "cause" for that it would have to be their own entire history. In response to the force the sun exerts on a planet, it accelerates toward the sun and the resulting change in the direction of its own motion results in that motion conforming to an elliptical path. [In physics acceleration is a change in a motion's velocity, either the motion's speed or direction, or both. In the case of a planet's acceleration relative to the sun's gravity it is a constant change in direction.]

In attempting to illustrate that Kepler's laws are examples of, "causation," the true basis for scientific laws is missed, which is the metaphysical fact that every entity has a specific nature that determines how it behaves in every context. The behavior of the planets in the context of the suns gravitational field is not "caused" by the sun or the force it exerts, it is determined by the planets own nature (it accelerates toward other masses) and state (it is in motion at a certain speed).

The validity of science does not rest on the notion of cause. The concept of cause, even if it could be made "scientific", is too simple. The validity of science rests on the fact physical existence consists only of physical entities, that every entity has a specific nature that determines its behavior and its relationship to all other entities. The whole objective of science is to discover the nature of all entities and their behavior and relationships. The nature of entities, their behavior and there relationships are absolute, the discovery and identification of those entities, their behavior and their relationships constitute the inviolable principles ("laws") of science.

Did you write this yourself?

[RCSaunders]

Scientific Principles

The only valid meaning of, "cause," in the physical sciences is the assertion, "everything has a cause," means, "nothing happens fortuitously or capriciously, without explanation; nothing happens by magic or miracle; nothing, 'appears out of thin air,' or occurs for any inexplicable ineffable reason, nothing exists ex nihilo.

The concept cause in science is that everything that exists has a specific nature and it is the nature of that which exists which is the explanation of all that is and all that happens. Unfortunately, the concept of cause has come to mean something more than an explanation of what is and what happens and is described as some kind of motivating or initiating force as though a, "cause," is what makes something happen or exist. With the exception of animal and human behavior, nothing, "makes," anything happen or exist. The real cause of all events is the nature of the things that act and are those events.

[NOTE: The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen.]

The explanation for all physical phenomena discovered by the physical sciences are principles by which the nature and behavior of physical entities are understood. Those principle are sometimes called laws, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what scientific principles are. They are called laws, because all physical phenomena conform to those principles, but they do not conform to them because those principles are some kind of constraints that make them conform to them. The principles of science do not make anything happen, they only describe what happens and explain the nature of entities and the relationships between them that are the reason for their behavior.

Scientific principles only describe what things are and what they do, not why they are what the are or why they do what they do. The question, "why," is an unwarranted question based on an assumption of some mystical view of cause as an agency which makes reality some kind of contingent thing. Reality is what it is, and the whole of science is the discovery of the nature of that reality.

The mistaken view of cause has produced some very bad ideas that have plagued both science and philosophy to this day.

What Cause Is Not

The wrong view of cause comes in several flavors. The following are very common.

Cause And Affect—This perversion of the concept of cause comes from Hume, who formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." When Hume described cause that way, his intention was to invalidate the idea of cause itself. He made the valid point that just because one has always observed event, "B," follows event, "A," does not mean event, "B," would always follow event, "A." His argument was that one's belief in cause and effect was simply a prejudice based on what one has seen so far, but the first cause that fails to produce the expected effect disproves cause.

Unfortunately, all future philosophers simply accepted Hume's invalid description of cause (as cause and effect) and regarded Hume's conclusion a great philosophical problem, because it also invalidated another accepted fallacy, that science proceeds by the method of induction which depended on the view that cause and effect could be established by means of observing enough cases to statistically conclude that event A would always result in event B. The problem, however, is neither cause or induction, but Hume's incorrect explanation of what cause is, and the broadly accepted fallacy that science is inductive.

Since the true nature of cause is the explanation of events in terms of the nature of an entity's own actions in response to all other entities as determined by the entity's own nature, there is no cause and effect, because no two real entities are identical and in the entire history of the world there have never been two identical entities in identical relationships to other entities.

Events Cause Events—Hume's wrong view of cause is sometimes call the, "event," theory of cause, meaning certain events cause other events. It has already been explained that there are never two identical events. In addition to the fact there never are the same events is the fact that events are always and only the behavior of entities, and it is the nature of the entities that determine what any event will be. An object thrown at a window may be said to cause the window to shatter, but if the, object is only a sponge ball, or even if the object is a rock and the window is Lucite, the window will not shatter. It is the nature of the entities involved, not the actions, that is the explanation (cause) of the event.

Cause Is Efficient—The idea that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," an, "agency," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," is a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. This mistaken view of cause was addressed above under "Scientific Principles". As explained there, attributing some motivating or initiating force to, "cause," is a kind mysticism, animism, or anthropomorphism. It is similar to attributing cause to scientific principles. Cause does not mean, "that which makes something happen," it is an explanation of the nature of those things, the action of which, "are what happens."

A Chain Of Causes—The fallacious cause and effect view results in a strange view of reality itself. Both philosophers and scientists who have been influenced by that mistaken view describe reality as a chain of causes and effects, beginning with some initial cause or state (like the "big bang") which determines the entire future of everything in the universe. It is pictured as a kind of cascade of causes in which the effect of every cause is the cause of the next succeeding event, which causes the next event, ad infinitum.

While events do not cause events and this view is mistaken, nevertheless, the behavior of all physical entities (excluding living organisms) are determined by their physical attributes, as described by the principles of the physical sciences. Since the behavior of all entities is their own action in relation to all other entities, that much of physical reality is determined entirely by physical principles.

Cause Explains Why—As the description of what everything is and behaves as it does, the principles of the physical sciences explain how everything behaves, which is the real meaning of cause. The principles of science do not explain why anything is what it is or why it behaves as it does, except in terms of an entity's own nature. Nothing, "outside," an entity causes it to be what it is or do what it does. The search for, "why," presumes some mystical explanation for why things are as they are. It assumes a, "contingent," reality. It is just plain superstition.

Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday and there could never have been a time when it was not going to rain yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.

The True Nature Of Cause Explained

The phrase, "cause and effect," is an example of how bad philosophy becomes universally accepted damaging an entire field of enquiry. The philosopher most responsible for inserting this wrong view of cause into philosophy was Hume.

He wrote: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

[Bacon's mistaken application of the Humean view of cause implemented as, "induction," would have ruined science, as well, if practicing scientists did not simply ignore it.]

Philosophers' attempt to defend the wrong view of cause with arguments like: "Science looks for cause and effect by attempting to discover the effects of one thing on another, such as, the effect of temperature on the pressure of a gas, or the effect of length on the period of a pendulum." But those kinds of relationship are not, "cause and effect," relationships.

The fact that a gas will have a higher pressure if its temperature is higher is simply a description of the relationship between two properties of a gas, not a description of a "cause." This is a good example because temperature and pressure in gases are mutually determined. An increase in pressure produces an increase in temperature, and vice versa (so long as the volume remains constant). Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

The fact is these are no examples of one thing "causing" another. They are examples of the fact that an entity of a certain kind necessarily acts in a certain way in a given context, and it is the entity's own nature that determines how it will behave in any context.

The temperature and pressure of a gas are attributes of the gas, an entity, and its behavior is determined by its own nature. It is not "caused" by something else. The fact that the attributes of pressure and temperature in a confined gas have a specific relationship is itself an attribute of gas. It does not exist in liquids, for example.

The length of a pendulum is a property of the pendulum. It behaves the way it does (has a specific period) because of its own attribute, length. It is not "caused" by something else. It is the pendulum's own mass, momentum, and length in the gravitational field that determines its period.

Consider the statement that, "the same cause will result in the same effect," used commonly to describe cause.

Back in the days when automobile tires had "tubes" (those rubber bladders that held the air), when a tire went flat, in order to repair the tire, the cause of the flat needed to be determined. The cause could be anything that allowed the air in the tube to escape: a puncture caused by glass, a nail, or any other sharp object in the road that was run over, or the "valve" being broken or defective, or the rubber of the tube itself being defective and broken down under wear. Any of these things might have been the "cause" of the tire going flat.

Cause is not some kind of mystic concept that explains everything, it is a concept that recognizes the nature of reality, that everything that happens is the product of every existent having the nature it has and doing what it must do in terms of its nature. The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B) is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical, "causes," or two identical, "effects."

It is true that every entity has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements caused by unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged.

Cause As Principle

It is not causes that any of the fundamental disciplines (philosophy or the sciences) look for, but principles. Since the correct way to understand cause is "an explanation of why things are as they are or how and why things happen as they do," an explanation that covers an entire field of phenomena, (within specific limits), is real knowledge that can be applied to all cases within the scope of the principle. Most scientific principles could never be expressed as, "cause and effect," primarily because they are too complex.

It would be impossible, for example, to explain a tuned circuit in terms of cause and effect, or even the current in an AC circuit in terms of both resistance and impedance. The simplest law of electronics, E=IR (voltage equals the current times the resistance) defies the concept, "same cause, same effect," simply because there are three variables, and neither current or resistance causes a voltage; they only indicate what it will be if you know their values and already have a current. What is described is a specific absolute relationship between attributes of the physical entities that are the circuit, not any kind of cause and effect."

Principles, Not Causes

The following is a philosopher's attempt to describe Kepler's laws in terms of cause and effect: "First, the sun exerts a force on each planet that causes it to move in an elliptical orbit (with the sun located at a focus); second, the solar force causes each planet to move so that the line from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time; third, the solar force diminishes with distance in a way that causes the cube of the mean distance from the sun divided by the square of the orbital period to be constant for all planets. Clearly, these are causal statements—as they must be in order to qualify as laws."

Each of the statements in this description of Kepler's laws containing the word "causes" is incorrect. For example, the force the sun exerts on a planet does not "cause" it to move in an elliptical orbit. In fact, the sun's force does not "cause" it to move at all. The reason the planets move is their own momentum—they are already in motion and if there is a "cause" for that it would have to be their own entire history. In response to the force the sun exerts on a planet, it accelerates toward the sun and the resulting change in the direction of its own motion results in that motion conforming to an elliptical path. [In physics acceleration is a change in a motion's velocity, either the motion's speed or direction, or both. In the case of a planet's acceleration relative to the sun's gravity it is a constant change in direction.]

In attempting to illustrate that Kepler's laws are examples of, "causation," the true basis for scientific laws is missed, which is the metaphysical fact that every entity has a specific nature that determines how it behaves in every context. The behavior of the planets in the context of the suns gravitational field is not "caused" by the sun or the force it exerts, it is determined by the planets own nature (it accelerates toward other masses) and state (it is in motion at a certain speed).

The validity of science does not rest on the notion of cause. The concept of cause, even if it could be made "scientific", is too simple. The validity of science rests on the fact physical existence consists only of physical entities, that every entity has a specific nature that determines its behavior and its relationship to all other entities. The whole objective of science is to discover the nature of all entities and their behavior and relationships. The nature of entities, their behavior and there relationships are absolute, the discovery and identification of those entities, their behavior and their relationships constitute the inviolable principles ("laws") of science.

Did you write this yourself?

I was the scribe, not necessarily the author of all the ideas. The writing is all mine so I cannot take credit for all the ideas, but I will take the blame for any faults in their presentation. Since these are idea I hold, I'll take any criticism of those as mine as well.

[henry quirk]

RC,

When I think or or talk about cause & effect I'm thinkin' or talkin' about...

...everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and that something must either be moved in its turn by something else or not...

And when I think or talk about free will (libertarian agent causation) and my notion of The Prime Mover I'm thinkin' or talkin' about...

...and in the latter case it is the true agent and we need go no further, but in the other case we must run it back until we do reach a primary mover not moved by something else (for it is impossible to run back to infinity through movers that are themselves moved by something else, for there is no beginning at all of such an unlimited series)—why then it follows that if everything that is in motion is moved by some agent, and if the primary agent itself is in motion but is not moved by anything else, it must be moved by itself.

...or...

A staff moves a stone, and is moved by a hand, which is moved by a man.

I reckon you disagree with all this? You'd say, mebbe, the staff didn't move the stone, but -- instead -- the stone reacted accordin' to its nature or properties.

[RCSaunders]

RC,

When I think or or talk about cause & effect I'm thinkin' or talkin' about...

...everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and that something must either be moved in its turn by something else or not...

And when I think or talk about free will (libertarian agent causation) and my notion of The Prime Mover I'm thinkin' or talkin' about...

...and in the latter case it is the true agent and we need go no further, but in the other case we must run it back until we do reach a primary mover not moved by something else (for it is impossible to run back to infinity through movers that are themselves moved by something else, for there is no beginning at all of such an unlimited series)—why then it follows that if everything that is in motion is moved by some agent, and if the primary agent itself is in motion but is not moved by anything else, it must be moved by itself.

...or...

A staff moves a stone, and is moved by a hand, which is moved by a man.

I reckon you disagree with all this? You'd say, mebbe, the staff didn't move the stone, but -- instead -- the stone reacted accordin' to its nature or properties.

No, I wouldn't, because you wouldn't really be making a statement of a fundamental nature of existence, only stating what is meant by, "cause," in the every day sense, explaining that no event just happens by caprice, not necessarily an explanation of the physics involved. Your not saying, "the universal cause of stones moving," is, "being pushed by staves," only that in, "this case," there was a man, a stave, and a stone without which that stone would not have moved, but I don't think you would claim if the man was a weekling, the stave was balsa wood, and the stone was cemented in, it would have moved.

By the way, that "...everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and that something must either be moved in its turn by something else or not... is exactly what Aristotle taught and was widely believed until Galileo proved it was a thing's own. "enertia," that kept it moving, which Newton fully explained as, "momentum." So I would say it has been proved that, "everything that is in motion must be moved by something, is just untrue, but I'm pretty sure you would say something had to initiate its motion, wouldn't you?

But now we're talking about physics, and that's a different matter. I don't think it would ever be valid to say some. "event A," causes, "event B," because every event is only the behavior of some entity or entities, and if any of the entities were different the resulting events would be different. I have no objection to describing physical events as caused by the behavior of physical entities in relation to each other, because that is true, but the view that the same kind of event always produces the same kind of event is not only not true but distorts the whole nature of one's understanding of physics.

The danger I see in the event view of cause is that it places the explanation for how all things behave outside the things that behave, and makes everything that happens contingent on something other then those entities whose behavior are the events. Thus the behavior of the galaxies, star systems, planets, satellites, all physical things, living organisms and human beings must all be cause by some mystical external cause that makes them do what they do (such as God or some mysterious cosmic law).

[henry quirk]

RC,

Galileo proved it was a thing's own. "enertia," that kept it moving, which Newton fully explained as, "momentum." So I would say it has been proved that, "everything that is in motion must be moved by something, is just untrue, but I'm pretty sure you would say something had to initiate its motion, wouldn't you?

I would cuz inertia is about when in motion, remaining in motion, or when at rest, remaining at rest. Inertia sez nuthin' about what set sumthin' in motion.

the view that the same kind of event always produces the same kind of event is not only not true but distorts the whole nature of one's understanding of physics.

But, it doesn't seem to me anyone thinks that. Can you cite an example, from in-forum or out-, wherein someone claims such a thing?

A hustler who sinks the same red seven into the same corner pocket usin' the same stick in the same way, ten times in a row, were he inclined to talk about it, would agree these were ten separate, similar, events, not the same event repeated ten times.

And if lightning strikes a house, in the same spot, ten times in a row, no one would think this is the same event repeated ten times. Everyone understands it's ten separate, similar, strikes.

The danger I see in the event view of cause is that it places the explanation for how all things behave outside the things that behave

Seems to me all the view does is point to the necessity for sumthin' or someone to, for example, overcome the tendency of the billiard ball to remain at rest.

[Flannel Jesus]

the view that the same kind of event always produces the same kind of event is not only not true but distorts the whole nature of one's understanding of physics.

I suspect this is meant to be taken as a statement about the microscopic, fundamental, extremely tiny layer of the world - like particle physics - rather than a statement about macroscopic phonemena like human behaviors or anything visible to the human eye. At the level of human-scale events, there are too many tiny (or large) differences in any given scenario to say for certainty that two very similar scenarios will play out exactly the same.

Even at the microscopic scale, the scale of particle physics, this might not be exactly true, depending on your point of view or your interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but I think there's some approximate truth to it - it's not stated with much precision, which leaves it open to all sorts of objections and counter examples and so forth, but I think there's probably a way to state it with more precision, with what we know now about physics, that brings it closer in line to the truth.

[RCSaunders]

RC,

Galileo proved it was a thing's own. "enertia," that kept it moving, which Newton fully explained as, "momentum." So I would say it has been proved that, "everything that is in motion must be moved by something, is just untrue, but I'm pretty sure you would say something had to initiate its motion, wouldn't you?

I would cuz inertia is about when in motion, remaining in motion, or when at rest, remaining at rest. Inertia sez nuthin' about what set sumthin' in motion.

the view that the same kind of event always produces the same kind of event is not only not true but distorts the whole nature of one's understanding of physics.

But, it doesn't seem to me anyone thinks that. Can you cite an example, from in-forum or out-, wherein someone claims such a thing?

Read Hume or any explanation of the mistaken view of, "induction." It was Hume that formulated the concept of cause as. "same cause, same effect," (which Hume intended to use to repudiate empirical science), and was nevertheless embraced by every philosopher since, turning the idea that if the same events are observed always following the same events enough times they are proved, "inductively."

Hume wrote: "All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses." Hume's view was that all of causality can be reduced to, the same cause always produces the same effect. He wrote: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions." I was his illustration "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second." --[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1739]

The idea that just observing one thing following another same thing was turned into what is today called, "induction." Perhaps the most important mistake coming out of that is the corruption of science by substituting actual identified nature and properties of entities with statistics, as though, observing something happening enough times proved its validity. That mistake has nearly destroyed science. It is the, "science," of those who lived in Pompey who new that it was statistically unlikely Vesuvius would erupt.

In case you think my description of induction as nothing more than a formalization of cause and effect as described by Hume is mistaken, please see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyd article: "Inductive Logic," and Wikipedia article, "Inductive reasoning."

The danger I see in the event view of cause is that it places the explanation for how all things behave outside the things that behave

Seems to me all the view does is point to the necessity for sumthin' or someone to, for example, overcome the tendency of the billiard ball to remain at rest.

That's fine, so long as you understand the billiard ball is not at rest, only stationary relative to the billiard table. It is actually in motion, along with the billiard table, in the same direction at the same velocity, but the ball will change it's velocity (direction of motion) if there is another billiard ball it encounters. If you want to think of that as the second billiard ball, "causing," the first to move, fine, but since that second billiard ball also changes it's velocity, would you say the first billiard ball caused the second ball to move? Are they both, "causes," in the sense of some agency making something happen?

If you want to call those causes there is probably no harm in that since it only recognizes what entities do is the result if their own reaction to what is in their environment and does not imply there is some mystical agency independent of the entities making them do what they do.

[henry quirk]

Read Hume

I stand corrected...

the billiard ball is not at rest, only stationary relative to the billiard table. It is actually in motion, along with the billiard table, in the same direction at the same velocity,

Oh, sure. That, of course, leaves us with the task of running it back until we do reach a primary mover.

would you say the first billiard ball caused the second ball to move?

Me: I say the first moved the second. And the first? Moved by a hand, which is moved by a man, full stop.

[RCSaunders]

Read Hume

I stand corrected...

the billiard ball is not at rest, only stationary relative to the billiard table. It is actually in motion, along with the billiard table, in the same direction at the same velocity,

Oh, sure. That, of course, leaves us with the task of running it back until we do reach a primary mover.

would you say the first billiard ball caused the second ball to move?

Me: I say the first moved the second. And the first? Moved by a hand, which is moved by a man, full stop.

Fine!

[jayjacobus]

Scientific Principles

The only valid meaning of, "cause," in the physical sciences is the assertion, "everything has a cause," means, "nothing happens fortuitously or capriciously, without explanation; nothing happens by magic or miracle; nothing, 'appears out of thin air,' or occurs for any inexplicable ineffable reason, nothing exists ex nihilo.

The concept cause in science is that everything that exists has a specific nature and it is the nature of that which exists which is the explanation of all that is and all that happens. Unfortunately, the concept of cause has come to mean something more than an explanation of what is and what happens and is described as some kind of motivating or initiating force as though a, "cause," is what makes something happen or exist. With the exception of animal and human behavior, nothing, "makes," anything happen or exist. The real cause of all events is the nature of the things that act and are those events.

[NOTE: The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen.]

The explanation for all physical phenomena discovered by the physical sciences are principles by which the nature and behavior of physical entities are understood. Those principle are sometimes called laws, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what scientific principles are. They are called laws, because all physical phenomena conform to those principles, but they do not conform to them because those principles are some kind of constraints that make them conform to them. The principles of science do not make anything happen, they only describe what happens and explain the nature of entities and the relationships between them that are the reason for their behavior.

Scientific principles only describe what things are and what they do, not why they are what the are or why they do what they do. The question, "why," is an unwarranted question based on an assumption of some mystical view of cause as an agency which makes reality some kind of contingent thing. Reality is what it is, and the whole of science is the discovery of the nature of that reality.

The mistaken view of cause has produced some very bad ideas that have plagued both science and philosophy to this day.

What Cause Is Not

The wrong view of cause comes in several flavors. The following are very common.

Cause And Affect—This perversion of the concept of cause comes from Hume, who formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." When Hume described cause that way, his intention was to invalidate the idea of cause itself. He made the valid point that just because one has always observed event, "B," follows event, "A," does not mean event, "B," would always follow event, "A." His argument was that one's belief in cause and effect was simply a prejudice based on what one has seen so far, but the first cause that fails to produce the expected effect disproves cause.

Unfortunately, all future philosophers simply accepted Hume's invalid description of cause (as cause and effect) and regarded Hume's conclusion a great philosophical problem, because it also invalidated another accepted fallacy, that science proceeds by the method of induction which depended on the view that cause and effect could be established by means of observing enough cases to statistically conclude that event A would always result in event B. The problem, however, is neither cause or induction, but Hume's incorrect explanation of what cause is, and the broadly accepted fallacy that science is inductive.

Since the true nature of cause is the explanation of events in terms of the nature of an entity's own actions in response to all other entities as determined by the entity's own nature, there is no cause and effect, because no two real entities are identical and in the entire history of the world there have never been two identical entities in identical relationships to other entities.

Events Cause Events—Hume's wrong view of cause is sometimes call the, "event," theory of cause, meaning certain events cause other events. It has already been explained that there are never two identical events. In addition to the fact there never are the same events is the fact that events are always and only the behavior of entities, and it is the nature of the entities that determine what any event will be. An object thrown at a window may be said to cause the window to shatter, but if the, object is only a sponge ball, or even if the object is a rock and the window is Lucite, the window will not shatter. It is the nature of the entities involved, not the actions, that is the explanation (cause) of the event.

Cause Is Efficient—The idea that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," an, "agency," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," is a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. This mistaken view of cause was addressed above under "Scientific Principles". As explained there, attributing some motivating or initiating force to, "cause," is a kind mysticism, animism, or anthropomorphism. It is similar to attributing cause to scientific principles. Cause does not mean, "that which makes something happen," it is an explanation of the nature of those things, the action of which, "are what happens."

A Chain Of Causes—The fallacious cause and effect view results in a strange view of reality itself. Both philosophers and scientists who have been influenced by that mistaken view describe reality as a chain of causes and effects, beginning with some initial cause or state (like the "big bang") which determines the entire future of everything in the universe. It is pictured as a kind of cascade of causes in which the effect of every cause is the cause of the next succeeding event, which causes the next event, ad infinitum.

While events do not cause events and this view is mistaken, nevertheless, the behavior of all physical entities (excluding living organisms) are determined by their physical attributes, as described by the principles of the physical sciences. Since the behavior of all entities is their own action in relation to all other entities, that much of physical reality is determined entirely by physical principles.

Cause Explains Why—As the description of what everything is and behaves as it does, the principles of the physical sciences explain how everything behaves, which is the real meaning of cause. The principles of science do not explain why anything is what it is or why it behaves as it does, except in terms of an entity's own nature. Nothing, "outside," an entity causes it to be what it is or do what it does. The search for, "why," presumes some mystical explanation for why things are as they are. It assumes a, "contingent," reality. It is just plain superstition.

Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday and there could never have been a time when it was not going to rain yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.

The True Nature Of Cause Explained

The phrase, "cause and effect," is an example of how bad philosophy becomes universally accepted damaging an entire field of enquiry. The philosopher most responsible for inserting this wrong view of cause into philosophy was Hume.

He wrote: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

[Bacon's mistaken application of the Humean view of cause implemented as, "induction," would have ruined science, as well, if practicing scientists did not simply ignore it.]

Philosophers' attempt to defend the wrong view of cause with arguments like: "Science looks for cause and effect by attempting to discover the effects of one thing on another, such as, the effect of temperature on the pressure of a gas, or the effect of length on the period of a pendulum." But those kinds of relationship are not, "cause and effect," relationships.

The fact that a gas will have a higher pressure if its temperature is higher is simply a description of the relationship between two properties of a gas, not a description of a "cause." This is a good example because temperature and pressure in gases are mutually determined. An increase in pressure produces an increase in temperature, and vice versa (so long as the volume remains constant). Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

The fact is these are no examples of one thing "causing" another. They are examples of the fact that an entity of a certain kind necessarily acts in a certain way in a given context, and it is the entity's own nature that determines how it will behave in any context.

The temperature and pressure of a gas are attributes of the gas, an entity, and its behavior is determined by its own nature. It is not "caused" by something else. The fact that the attributes of pressure and temperature in a confined gas have a specific relationship is itself an attribute of gas. It does not exist in liquids, for example.

The length of a pendulum is a property of the pendulum. It behaves the way it does (has a specific period) because of its own attribute, length. It is not "caused" by something else. It is the pendulum's own mass, momentum, and length in the gravitational field that determines its period.

Consider the statement that, "the same cause will result in the same effect," used commonly to describe cause.

Back in the days when automobile tires had "tubes" (those rubber bladders that held the air), when a tire went flat, in order to repair the tire, the cause of the flat needed to be determined. The cause could be anything that allowed the air in the tube to escape: a puncture caused by glass, a nail, or any other sharp object in the road that was run over, or the "valve" being broken or defective, or the rubber of the tube itself being defective and broken down under wear. Any of these things might have been the "cause" of the tire going flat.

Cause is not some kind of mystic concept that explains everything, it is a concept that recognizes the nature of reality, that everything that happens is the product of every existent having the nature it has and doing what it must do in terms of its nature. The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B) is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical, "causes," or two identical, "effects."

It is true that every entity has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements caused by unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged.

Cause As Principle

It is not causes that any of the fundamental disciplines (philosophy or the sciences) look for, but principles. Since the correct way to understand cause is "an explanation of why things are as they are or how and why things happen as they do," an explanation that covers an entire field of phenomena, (within specific limits), is real knowledge that can be applied to all cases within the scope of the principle. Most scientific principles could never be expressed as, "cause and effect," primarily because they are too complex.

It would be impossible, for example, to explain a tuned circuit in terms of cause and effect, or even the current in an AC circuit in terms of both resistance and impedance. The simplest law of electronics, E=IR (voltage equals the current times the resistance) defies the concept, "same cause, same effect," simply because there are three variables, and neither current or resistance causes a voltage; they only indicate what it will be if you know their values and already have a current. What is described is a specific absolute relationship between attributes of the physical entities that are the circuit, not any kind of cause and effect."

Principles, Not Causes

The following is a philosopher's attempt to describe Kepler's laws in terms of cause and effect: "First, the sun exerts a force on each planet that causes it to move in an elliptical orbit (with the sun located at a focus); second, the solar force causes each planet to move so that the line from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time; third, the solar force diminishes with distance in a way that causes the cube of the mean distance from the sun divided by the square of the orbital period to be constant for all planets. Clearly, these are causal statements—as they must be in order to qualify as laws."

Each of the statements in this description of Kepler's laws containing the word "causes" is incorrect. For example, the force the sun exerts on a planet does not "cause" it to move in an elliptical orbit. In fact, the sun's force does not "cause" it to move at all. The reason the planets move is their own momentum—they are already in motion and if there is a "cause" for that it would have to be their own entire history. In response to the force the sun exerts on a planet, it accelerates toward the sun and the resulting change in the direction of its own motion results in that motion conforming to an elliptical path. [In physics acceleration is a change in a motion's velocity, either the motion's speed or direction, or both. In the case of a planet's acceleration relative to the sun's gravity it is a constant change in direction.]

In attempting to illustrate that Kepler's laws are examples of, "causation," the true basis for scientific laws is missed, which is the metaphysical fact that every entity has a specific nature that determines how it behaves in every context. The behavior of the planets in the context of the suns gravitational field is not "caused" by the sun or the force it exerts, it is determined by the planets own nature (it accelerates toward other masses) and state (it is in motion at a certain speed).

The validity of science does not rest on the notion of cause. The concept of cause, even if it could be made "scientific", is too simple. The validity of science rests on the fact physical existence consists only of physical entities, that every entity has a specific nature that determines its behavior and its relationship to all other entities. The whole objective of science is to discover the nature of all entities and their behavior and relationships. The nature of entities, their behavior and there relationships are absolute, the discovery and identification of those entities, their behavior and their relationships constitute the inviolable principles ("laws") of science.

I don't get what you are suggesting. Do you have synonyms for cause that are unique to your perspective? Perhaps those synonyms can enlightening the world.

[RCSaunders]

Scientific Principles

The only valid meaning of, "cause," in the physical sciences is the assertion, "everything has a cause," means, "nothing happens fortuitously or capriciously, without explanation; nothing happens by magic or miracle; nothing, 'appears out of thin air,' or occurs for any inexplicable ineffable reason, nothing exists ex nihilo.

The concept cause in science is that everything that exists has a specific nature and it is the nature of that which exists which is the explanation of all that is and all that happens. Unfortunately, the concept of cause has come to mean something more than an explanation of what is and what happens and is described as some kind of motivating or initiating force as though a, "cause," is what makes something happen or exist. With the exception of animal and human behavior, nothing, "makes," anything happen or exist. The real cause of all events is the nature of the things that act and are those events.

[NOTE: The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen.]

The explanation for all physical phenomena discovered by the physical sciences are principles by which the nature and behavior of physical entities are understood. Those principle are sometimes called laws, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what scientific principles are. They are called laws, because all physical phenomena conform to those principles, but they do not conform to them because those principles are some kind of constraints that make them conform to them. The principles of science do not make anything happen, they only describe what happens and explain the nature of entities and the relationships between them that are the reason for their behavior.

Scientific principles only describe what things are and what they do, not why they are what the are or why they do what they do. The question, "why," is an unwarranted question based on an assumption of some mystical view of cause as an agency which makes reality some kind of contingent thing. Reality is what it is, and the whole of science is the discovery of the nature of that reality.

The mistaken view of cause has produced some very bad ideas that have plagued both science and philosophy to this day.

What Cause Is Not

The wrong view of cause comes in several flavors. The following are very common.

Cause And Affect—This perversion of the concept of cause comes from Hume, who formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." When Hume described cause that way, his intention was to invalidate the idea of cause itself. He made the valid point that just because one has always observed event, "B," follows event, "A," does not mean event, "B," would always follow event, "A." His argument was that one's belief in cause and effect was simply a prejudice based on what one has seen so far, but the first cause that fails to produce the expected effect disproves cause.

Unfortunately, all future philosophers simply accepted Hume's invalid description of cause (as cause and effect) and regarded Hume's conclusion a great philosophical problem, because it also invalidated another accepted fallacy, that science proceeds by the method of induction which depended on the view that cause and effect could be established by means of observing enough cases to statistically conclude that event A would always result in event B. The problem, however, is neither cause or induction, but Hume's incorrect explanation of what cause is, and the broadly accepted fallacy that science is inductive.

Since the true nature of cause is the explanation of events in terms of the nature of an entity's own actions in response to all other entities as determined by the entity's own nature, there is no cause and effect, because no two real entities are identical and in the entire history of the world there have never been two identical entities in identical relationships to other entities.

Events Cause Events—Hume's wrong view of cause is sometimes call the, "event," theory of cause, meaning certain events cause other events. It has already been explained that there are never two identical events. In addition to the fact there never are the same events is the fact that events are always and only the behavior of entities, and it is the nature of the entities that determine what any event will be. An object thrown at a window may be said to cause the window to shatter, but if the, object is only a sponge ball, or even if the object is a rock and the window is Lucite, the window will not shatter. It is the nature of the entities involved, not the actions, that is the explanation (cause) of the event.

Cause Is Efficient—The idea that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," an, "agency," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," is a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. This mistaken view of cause was addressed above under "Scientific Principles". As explained there, attributing some motivating or initiating force to, "cause," is a kind mysticism, animism, or anthropomorphism. It is similar to attributing cause to scientific principles. Cause does not mean, "that which makes something happen," it is an explanation of the nature of those things, the action of which, "are what happens."

A Chain Of Causes—The fallacious cause and effect view results in a strange view of reality itself. Both philosophers and scientists who have been influenced by that mistaken view describe reality as a chain of causes and effects, beginning with some initial cause or state (like the "big bang") which determines the entire future of everything in the universe. It is pictured as a kind of cascade of causes in which the effect of every cause is the cause of the next succeeding event, which causes the next event, ad infinitum.

While events do not cause events and this view is mistaken, nevertheless, the behavior of all physical entities (excluding living organisms) are determined by their physical attributes, as described by the principles of the physical sciences. Since the behavior of all entities is their own action in relation to all other entities, that much of physical reality is determined entirely by physical principles.

Cause Explains Why—As the description of what everything is and behaves as it does, the principles of the physical sciences explain how everything behaves, which is the real meaning of cause. The principles of science do not explain why anything is what it is or why it behaves as it does, except in terms of an entity's own nature. Nothing, "outside," an entity causes it to be what it is or do what it does. The search for, "why," presumes some mystical explanation for why things are as they are. It assumes a, "contingent," reality. It is just plain superstition.

Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday and there could never have been a time when it was not going to rain yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.

The True Nature Of Cause Explained

The phrase, "cause and effect," is an example of how bad philosophy becomes universally accepted damaging an entire field of enquiry. The philosopher most responsible for inserting this wrong view of cause into philosophy was Hume.

He wrote: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

[Bacon's mistaken application of the Humean view of cause implemented as, "induction," would have ruined science, as well, if practicing scientists did not simply ignore it.]

Philosophers' attempt to defend the wrong view of cause with arguments like: "Science looks for cause and effect by attempting to discover the effects of one thing on another, such as, the effect of temperature on the pressure of a gas, or the effect of length on the period of a pendulum." But those kinds of relationship are not, "cause and effect," relationships.

The fact that a gas will have a higher pressure if its temperature is higher is simply a description of the relationship between two properties of a gas, not a description of a "cause." This is a good example because temperature and pressure in gases are mutually determined. An increase in pressure produces an increase in temperature, and vice versa (so long as the volume remains constant). Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

The fact is these are no examples of one thing "causing" another. They are examples of the fact that an entity of a certain kind necessarily acts in a certain way in a given context, and it is the entity's own nature that determines how it will behave in any context.

The temperature and pressure of a gas are attributes of the gas, an entity, and its behavior is determined by its own nature. It is not "caused" by something else. The fact that the attributes of pressure and temperature in a confined gas have a specific relationship is itself an attribute of gas. It does not exist in liquids, for example.

The length of a pendulum is a property of the pendulum. It behaves the way it does (has a specific period) because of its own attribute, length. It is not "caused" by something else. It is the pendulum's own mass, momentum, and length in the gravitational field that determines its period.

Consider the statement that, "the same cause will result in the same effect," used commonly to describe cause.

Back in the days when automobile tires had "tubes" (those rubber bladders that held the air), when a tire went flat, in order to repair the tire, the cause of the flat needed to be determined. The cause could be anything that allowed the air in the tube to escape: a puncture caused by glass, a nail, or any other sharp object in the road that was run over, or the "valve" being broken or defective, or the rubber of the tube itself being defective and broken down under wear. Any of these things might have been the "cause" of the tire going flat.

Cause is not some kind of mystic concept that explains everything, it is a concept that recognizes the nature of reality, that everything that happens is the product of every existent having the nature it has and doing what it must do in terms of its nature. The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B) is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical, "causes," or two identical, "effects."

It is true that every entity has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements caused by unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged.

Cause As Principle

It is not causes that any of the fundamental disciplines (philosophy or the sciences) look for, but principles. Since the correct way to understand cause is "an explanation of why things are as they are or how and why things happen as they do," an explanation that covers an entire field of phenomena, (within specific limits), is real knowledge that can be applied to all cases within the scope of the principle. Most scientific principles could never be expressed as, "cause and effect," primarily because they are too complex.

It would be impossible, for example, to explain a tuned circuit in terms of cause and effect, or even the current in an AC circuit in terms of both resistance and impedance. The simplest law of electronics, E=IR (voltage equals the current times the resistance) defies the concept, "same cause, same effect," simply because there are three variables, and neither current or resistance causes a voltage; they only indicate what it will be if you know their values and already have a current. What is described is a specific absolute relationship between attributes of the physical entities that are the circuit, not any kind of cause and effect."

Principles, Not Causes

The following is a philosopher's attempt to describe Kepler's laws in terms of cause and effect: "First, the sun exerts a force on each planet that causes it to move in an elliptical orbit (with the sun located at a focus); second, the solar force causes each planet to move so that the line from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time; third, the solar force diminishes with distance in a way that causes the cube of the mean distance from the sun divided by the square of the orbital period to be constant for all planets. Clearly, these are causal statements—as they must be in order to qualify as laws."

Each of the statements in this description of Kepler's laws containing the word "causes" is incorrect. For example, the force the sun exerts on a planet does not "cause" it to move in an elliptical orbit. In fact, the sun's force does not "cause" it to move at all. The reason the planets move is their own momentum—they are already in motion and if there is a "cause" for that it would have to be their own entire history. In response to the force the sun exerts on a planet, it accelerates toward the sun and the resulting change in the direction of its own motion results in that motion conforming to an elliptical path. [In physics acceleration is a change in a motion's velocity, either the motion's speed or direction, or both. In the case of a planet's acceleration relative to the sun's gravity it is a constant change in direction.]

In attempting to illustrate that Kepler's laws are examples of, "causation," the true basis for scientific laws is missed, which is the metaphysical fact that every entity has a specific nature that determines how it behaves in every context. The behavior of the planets in the context of the suns gravitational field is not "caused" by the sun or the force it exerts, it is determined by the planets own nature (it accelerates toward other masses) and state (it is in motion at a certain speed).

The validity of science does not rest on the notion of cause. The concept of cause, even if it could be made "scientific", is too simple. The validity of science rests on the fact physical existence consists only of physical entities, that every entity has a specific nature that determines its behavior and its relationship to all other entities. The whole objective of science is to discover the nature of all entities and their behavior and relationships. The nature of entities, their behavior and there relationships are absolute, the discovery and identification of those entities, their behavior and their relationships constitute the inviolable principles ("laws") of science.

I don't get what you are suggesting. Do you have synonyms for cause that are unique to your perspective? Perhaps those synonyms can enlightening the world.

No, I'm sorry I cannot provide synonyms. The first two paragraphs are the best I can do to explain what I mean by cause. If that is insufficient, well then it is.

As for enlightening the world. The world is hopelessly obtuse and incapable of being enlightened. I write only for a very tiny fraction of individuals who do not need to be, "enlightened," by anyone else, especially by me, and are perfectly capable of using their own minds because only they will both understand and appreciate what I write. I'm not interested in any others.

[RCSaunders]

Oh, sure. That, of course, leaves us with the task of running it back until we do reach a primary mover.

I'm sorry Henry. I'm not picking on you, only those ideas widely held by many, like the idea of, "a primary mover."

In addition to those points I've already made, the idea of a primary mover is not possible. There is not a single event in the history of the universe that had what can be called, "a single cause." Every event is contingent on its total context. When my desk lamp goes out, the cause might be the bulb finally failing, the switch not working, it's not being plugged in, a fuse blowing, a power failure, the local power generating plant blowing up. But cause works the other way as well. What causes the light to be on is the bulb not failing, the switch working properly, its being plugged in, the fuse working, the power grid providing power, and power plant happily generating electricity. That's a lot causes, and they are all necessary to my lamp being on. None of them is, "primary," because they must all work and are necessary for my lamp to be on.

As soon as you begin to examine, "causes," carefully, it becomes obvious, there is never a single cause of anything. That for every event that ever occurs there are innumerable things that have to be true for that event to occur whether its the behavior of sub-atomic particles or galaxies. No event or occurrence is dependent or contingent on only one thing and everything an event is dependent on is part of its, "cause," because without them the event would not occur.

The idea that events can ultimately be attribute to some single agency is the result of viewing events abstractly, as though events occurred without a context. There is nothing wrong with that and very useful in science, so long as that intentional abstraction is not reified as the actual case.

I have one other quibble with the agency view of cause. I'll only ask, in your view do animals (other than human beings) qualify as, "primary movers?"

[henry quirk]

in your view do animals (other than human beings) qualify as, "primary movers?"

Well, as you know, RC, I'm one of them primitive types: a deistic, substance dualistic, natural rights believin', liber-anarcho-sumthin' or other.

I think persons are primary movers or agents. More than likely there are non-human persons (elephants? horses? some dogs?), so -- yeah -- some animals qualify.

I'm not picking on you

Even if you were: I ain't worried about it.