causal line and identity accross time

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » causal line and identity accross time

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:09 am
Read:Causal Processes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The theory is actually from Bertrand Russell, and i like it because there is a sort of intuitive appeal to it. The answer to the question: Why do things persist over time? Russell ` s answer is: Because events next to one another in a causal line is very similar. So, instead of looking at a thing as it is for all time. We can think of a thing as a useful fiction, and that there are only a string of events following one another. There is no hidden connection between one event, and another. According to Russell, there is only a high probability of an event given a previous event.

The string of events can be denoted by E_t, where the t denote some unit of time.


I really wonder if this theory is cogent. The purpose of this construction is to explain away the notion of a thing persisting over time, but does Events( collectively giving the illustion of a thing) presuppose things that give rise to the events in the first place?
 
urangutan
 
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 06:09 am
@vectorcube,
Spontaneity, eccentricty, ghostly. They are all words with definiton.

I think I am being obnoxious. I do apologize but it is what came to me after reading your post. Except for ghostly which I had in thought but couldn't announce immediately.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 07:16 am
@vectorcube,
Several years earlier, I planted a evergreen in the lower manse. Now I have better things to do than to sit before it and watch it change from minute to minute (assuming I could actually detect the very slight changes). I can, however, walk down months or years later and see "THE" tree, and it is the SAME tree I planted.
We assume both the useful fiction of there being "THE" tree despite its growth, and we assume just as importantly and as an explanation for the change, that trees grow very gradually, as trees should (we have seen, for example, time-lapse movies of plants growing; we have studied biology and paid attention to our lectures), and that the growth follows a known pattern of this string of events.

Once a year, I visit an old friend from college. Over the years, he has changed in appearance as well as interests and personality. What makes me know he is the same person as the one I knew last year, or the one I knew in college? Well, this might be explained by minute (and unseen) changes over time, and that once a year, I see the result.
I go to a high school 20th reunion. Why do I recognise some people I knew and not others, even though I have not seen any of them for 20 years?
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 01:47 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;73620 wrote:
Several years earlier, I planted a evergreen in the lower manse. Now I have better things to do than to sit before it and watch it change from minute to minute (assuming I could actually detect the very slight changes). I can, however, walk down months or years later and see "THE" tree, and it is the SAME tree I planted.
We assume both the useful fiction of there being "THE" tree despite its growth, and we assume just as importantly and as an explanation for the change, that trees grow very gradually, as trees should (we have seen, for example, time-lapse movies of plants growing; we have studied biology and paid attention to our lectures), and that the growth follows a known pattern of this string of events.

Once a year, I visit an old friend from college. Over the years, he has changed in appearance as well as interests and personality. What makes me know he is the same person as the one I knew last year, or the one I knew in college? Well, this might be explained by minute (and unseen) changes over time, and that once a year, I see the result.
I go to a high school 20th reunion. Why do I recognise some people I knew and not others, even though I have not seen any of them for 20 years?



In this case, we have a thing called "tree". Intuition tells us the tree changes from minute to minute, but we would still think there is a "tree" that is changing. The causal line model reject the notion of a thing. That there are only strings of events. What are events? Occurence in space-time. I would say, you have an illusion of a thing that is changing. What you really see is a string of events in space-time that gives you the illusion of a changing thng.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:03 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;73723 wrote:
In this case, we have a thing called "tree". Intuition tells us the tree changes from minute to minute, but we would still think there is a "tree" that is changing. The causal line model reject the notion of a thing. That there are only strings of events. What are events? Occurence in space-time. I would say, you have an illusion of a thing that is changing. What you really see is a string of events in space-time that gives you the illusion of a changing thng.



But what is illusory about the tree? Why cannot the same thing persist over time, even if it changes? The word "same" has two senses: numerically the same (or one and the same, or quantitatively the same), and, qualitatively the same. Something can remain quantitatively the same while being qualitatively different. Thus the same (quantitatively) tree today, may be qualitatively different tomorrow. What is paradoxical about that?
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 10:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;73843 wrote:
But what is illusory about the tree?


A series of events in a causal line that gives the illustion of a thing that persist over time.



Quote:
Why cannot the same thing persist over time, even if it changes?



Because this thread is about events on a causal lines as a model for identity over time.


Quote:


What is paradoxical about that?


Nothing. Just have nothing to do with causal line model.
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 01:54 am
@vectorcube,
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are discriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

The notion of 'causality' (like 'time') is no more than that, a 'notion', a relic of some particular linear Perspectives, not an inherent Universal 'law'. There can be no 'causation', no 'why', no 'reason' in a non-linear context.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 02:16 am
@nameless,
nameless;73914 wrote:
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are discriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

The notion of 'causality' (like 'time') is no more than that, a 'notion', a relic of some particular linear Perspectives, not an inherent Universal 'law'. There can be no 'causation', no 'why', no 'reason' in a non-linear context.



To put it in perspective. Feymann believes in the block-universe view of time( also known as 4-d universe), and lewis- regularity theory of the laws of nature in the literature.

1) See block universe in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time, Growing block universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Oxford studies in metaphysics - Google Books


2) see regularities theory of the laws of nature in: Laws of Nature [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]


Most scientists like 1, and most philosophers reject 2. The matter is not simply resolved by a quote. The issue is still talk about in contemporary philosophy. There are big fat beautiful books on. These issue are not dead, or definitive in any sense at all.
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 04:44 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;73915 wrote:
The matter is not simply resolved by a quote.

Of course not...
Validation contnues to grow in leaps and bounds..

Quote:
The issue is still talk about in contemporary philosophy. There are big fat beautiful books on. These issue are not dead, or definitive in any sense at all.

(There are big fat beautiful books on all sorts of stuff, so?)
True enough, but;
Philosophy without the critical updates of science (and vice versa) is 'sterile'. Science is regularly discovering validation of the synchronicity of all moments/percepts.
Not so for 'linearity', which is falling falling from grace. It is 'reality', though, to and for those who see things that way. Completely Perspectival.
Odd that philosophers are so often 'afraid' of science, and how scientists are so often 'afraid' of philosophy, much to their mutual disadvantage.

From a link;
Quote:
Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the "principles" which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world "obeys" the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.

I disagree with the assertion that there are only two theories. That is a false dichotomy. And it begins..
I also disagree with the first as horrendously vague and not really saying anything but according to "Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is." taking a crap is a law of nature!
And the Necessitarian Theory is simply foolish. Or a religious belief. And or both.

One law of nature that I've found is that for every supportive website, there is an equal and opposite website! For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert!
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 05:32 am
@nameless,
Quote:

Of course not...
Validation contnues to grow in leaps and bounds..



validations on what?




Quote:
Philosophy without the critical updates of science (and vice versa) is 'sterile'. Science is regularly discovering validation of the synchronicity of all moments/percepts.
Not so for 'linearity', which is falling falling from grace. It is 'reality', though, to and for those who see things that way. Completely Perspectival.
Odd that philosophers are so often 'afraid' of science, and how scientists are so often 'afraid' of philosophy, much to their mutual disadvantage.


This is very general. What is this got to do with feymans remark?

Quote:
I disagree with the assertion that there are only two theories. That is a false dichotomy. And it begins..
I also disagree with the first as horrendously vague and not really saying anything but according to "Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is." taking a crap is a law of nature!
And the Necessitarian Theory is simply foolish. Or a religious belief. And or both.



Ok, so you disagree. Give me a reason since this is a philosophy forum.
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 05:45 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;73940 wrote:
validations on what?

The synchronicity of moments/percepts.

Quote:
This is very general. What is this got to do with feymans remark?

As you apparently dismissed Feynman's statement with "The matter is not simply resolved by a quote" rather than refuting his quote, I just let it go.

Quote:
Ok, so you disagree. Give me a reason since this is a philosophy forum.

For which disagreement would you need my reasoning? I will not argue. I can present evidence and my reasoning, and you can examine it as you will. All Perspectives are correct in context.
That there can be more than two theories?
Or the foolishness of the second?
Your link to;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time
Yields this;
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
There are lots of philosophies of time. Science is refuting them. Time is a local mirage, a relic imagined from a linear Perspective.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 04:44 pm
@nameless,
Quote:

The synchronicity of moments/percepts.


what is this got to do with causal lines?

Quote:

For which disagreement would you need my reasoning? I will not argue. I can present evidence and my reasoning, and you can examine it as you will. All Perspectives are correct in context.



You said you doubt there are only two views on the laws of nature( they are regularities view, and causal realism view). You job is to convince me there are more views. One way you could do this is by giving me a third view that is not reducible to the previous two traditional views.


Quote:

Yields this;
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
There are lots of philosophies of time. Science is refuting them. Time is a local mirage, a relic imagined from a linear Perspective.


try this one eternalism - Google Search=

go to first link in the search, and keyword search "block universe".
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » causal line and identity accross time
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/11/2024 at 12:51:15