Causality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 02:25 pm
Despite this being critical and hypocritical of the word cause and Kants law of causality itself i find it an interesting concept.
It is as humans natural to look for a cause, however what if the cause can come after the event. People often find themself questioning how something came to be without something before it to the point of a question impossible to answer unless accepting something simply appeared and then a process followed. Well a way of accepting something simply appeared is by accepting the cause has not happened yet and that the cause will happen after. Maybe in years to come we will experience the cause of the big bang theory or the cause of god and all will be explained.
I accept this is highly illogical and full of many flaws but i just found it an interesting and ultimately fun idea to question.

[enter criticism below Very Happy ]
 
curiouscat
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 03:54 pm
@Ross phil,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Could you please rephrase the above post in a more grammatically correct way. What I think you mean (and I'm probably wrong) is that causes reveal themselves after an event rather than before it. Is that right?
 
Ross phil
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@curiouscat,
Yes, basically thats it .
Im just challenging the idea that a cause has to come before something. Even if that is highly illogical.
 
curiouscat
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 04:03 pm
@Ross phil,
Well. I believe many times the cause is REVEALED to us after the event occurs. For example, you are a basketball player and you are watching game tape and you see the mistakes which were the causes of your defeat. The causes were revealed after the game because if you would have known them before hand you would have fixed them.

I don't believe that the opposite would be true. Where the future has a direct impact on the past. It's the other way around; the past affects the future and NOT visa versa.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 04:16 pm
@Ross phil,
Ross;137671 wrote:
Yes, basically thats it .
Im just challenging the idea that a cause has to come before something. Even if that is highly illogical.


It doesn't follow that because we discover the cause after the event, that the cause happened after the event. I may discover after the event that the ball broke the window, but that doesn't mean that the ball hit the window before the window broke.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 02:54 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;137679 wrote:
It doesn't follow that because we discover the cause after the event, that the cause happened after the event. I may discover after the event that the ball broke the window, but that doesn't mean that the ball hit the window before the window broke.
But you claim that you can be caused to go to a restaurant by a friend's recommendation, if the restaurant requires a tie, your putting on of the tie is caused by your future entry to the restaurant.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 07:18 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;138186 wrote:
But you claim that you can be caused to go to a restaurant by a friend's recommendation, if the restaurant requires a tie, your putting on of the tie is caused by your future entry to the restaurant.


Why do you say that? My putting on my tie is caused by my wanting to be admitted into the restaurant.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 07:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138226 wrote:
Why do you say that? My putting on my tie is caused by my wanting to be admitted into the restaurant.
Admittance requires a tie, therefore admittance is the cause of wearing the tie. A tie doesn't imply admittance, admittance implies a tie.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:06 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;138228 wrote:
Admittance requires a tie, therefore admittance is the cause of wearing the tie. A tie doesn't imply admittance, admittance implies a tie.


But I would not don a tie unless I wanted to be admitted. Therefore, what caused me to don a tie was that I wanted to be admitted. I don't see your point (not unusual). Purposive explanations are causal explanations in disguise.

Carl G. Hempel
 
Diogenes phil
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:32 pm
@Ross phil,
Grandfather paradox, what example of causality would that be, if any?
 
awoelt
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:26 am
@Ross phil,
Ross;137623 wrote:
Despite this being critical and hypocritical of the word cause and Kants law of causality itself i find it an interesting concept.
It is as humans natural to look for a cause, however what if the cause can come after the event. People often find themself questioning how something came to be without something before it to the point of a question impossible to answer unless accepting something simply appeared and then a process followed. Well a way of accepting something simply appeared is by accepting the cause has not happened yet and that the cause will happen after. Maybe in years to come we will experience the cause of the big bang theory or the cause of god and all will be explained.
I accept this is highly illogical and full of many flaws but i just found it an interesting and ultimately fun idea to question.

[enter criticism below Very Happy ]


But there is also prediction. thus not all causes are revealed after.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/03/2020 at 11:13:37