Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

[harvey1]

Here is my argument against material atheism:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Based on this argument, can anyone show that it is possible for a material atheist world to exist?

[Cathar1950]

If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.

An efficient cause is what Whitehead called for.
Wheeler and others would say something exists if it is felt by something else. This would be cause enough.

Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.

What connects it then? Why is this just true for the material Atheist?
It would seem from any position nothing exists except as it relates to everything else.

[harvey1]

But I just gotta ask...Harvey, why is the infinitesimal time-slicing such an important part of your thesis? I mean, instead of d=1/infinity, what is wrong with, say, d=1 second? What is it about your thesis - the lack of material causality - that requires the time-slicing? Is it your contention that at d=1 second, we CAN show a material cause for causality?

Well, if I asked what was the material cause for a flash of lightning that happens within one second, the answer will come back that lightning is electrostatic charge buildup, etc... The purpose of time-slicing is to cut to the chase and identify the event (C) which before it, there wouldn't be the effect, and that after it, there must be the effect. If there is no such event C, or if there is no connection between C and C+1, then in what way is their causality to a material atheist world? If no causality, then this would be in rejection to my premise (1) which so far no one has disputed.

Take the example of a pool cue, striking a cue ball, which strikes the eight ball, which goes into the corner pocket. About 1 second duration. You agree we can make sensible causation statements about this scenario, correct?

Sure.

So then why, one must ask, does this causative chain necessarily disappear when one examines an infinite number of time slices that correspond to that same one second of time?

Well, if there is some event C "which before it, there wouldn't be the effect, and that after it, there must be the effect," then my question is what connects C with the (in)finitesimal moment after C (i.e., C+1). Why doesn't the big bang follow C? Why doesn't C repeat again over and over, like an LP needle that is stuck on track 1?

As you must realize, if time is infinitely divisible (and why shouldn't it be?), then the function becomes an asymptote - it approaches zero without ever actually reaching it (leaving behind the photon example for the moment). Since time is a fluid of sorts, it lends itself quite nicely to this, at least conceptually.

There's two notions of infinitely divisible. There's the infinitesimal duration, in which case it is theoretically identified as being separate from the infinitesimal moment that follows it, and then there's a different notion where we mean to say that an infinitesimal is just a concept and doesn't actually exist. That is to say, there is no particular event C. Once we fine-grain onto C, we see that C is composed of an infinite number of events, and once we fine-grain some more on the C1 (i.e., that "which before it, there wouldn't be the effect, and that after it, there must be the effect. If there is no such event C1"), we see that C1 is composed of an infinite number of events, and so and so on without end. In that case, there is no cause since it has no identity. Without being able to identify it, even in principle, in what way can it be said to exist? Imagine if I said that there are blue zeros that materially exist in space that are where we get our concept of zero, but I said that it was very small such that every place we could possibly look for these blue zeros they were always smaller than what we could fine-grain to examine. In what way can we say there are blue zeros? There is no way since they do not have an identity which means that they do not exist (i.e., if we are talking purely material things).

But causation refers to events, and NOT time. Time is the medium in which they happen, but it is not the object of causal analysis, it is merely one part of the equation, and a (mostly) constant part at that. Events do NOT lend themselves to infinite division; they are discreet units.

I don't think events and time are separate references. I think there are event-moments which compose our world. However, if you want to treat events separately than moments, that's fine. In that case, we can say that a cause is an event. If there is an event C, then what connects C to the (in)finitesimal event that comes after it? In order to be a materialist, one needs to show that a material phenomena connects C to C+1, however that must be another event. What connects two events such that C causes C+1? If they are not discrete, then why are they not one event instead of two separate events? How can an event change if it is materially the same event?

Is it your honest belief that this mind-experiment (and let us not forget that that is ALL it is) somehow invalidates the chain of causation? Does the pool cue somehow NOT strike the cue ball?

What it shows is that in principle there are no material causes. Since we do know there are causes (e.g., I am typing this post in reply to your arguments), we can know that the material atheist response is invalid. We can move on with our lives and never have to be bothered by its premises anymore.

[ENIGMA]

So then why, one must ask, does this causative chain necessarily disappear when one examines an infinite number of time slices that correspond to that same one second of time?

Well, if there is some event C "which before it, there wouldn't be the effect, and that after it, there must be the effect," then my question is what connects C with the (in)finitesimal moment after C (i.e., C+1).

C+1 is simply the result of C taking into account the properties and interactions of all matter involved in the event, updating it into a (very slightly) new model which repeats the process (C+2, etc)

Why doesn't the big bang follow C?

Insufficient data either to answer or to verify the implicit assumption in the question.

Why doesn't C repeat again over and over, like an LP needle that is stuck on track 1?

The properties and interactions of matter effectively result in a new model, which has new properties and interactions. Thus such repeats do not occur (or are profoundly unlikely).

[Curious]

There is causation for the event from any perspective other than the photons.

So, from the perspective of the photon, black hole A did not divert its path to black hole B? What caused the photon to change direction from the perspective of the photon?

The photon has no path from its perspective. It did not change direction. It was always everywhere that it is,ever was or ever will be.

To the photon this may appear simultaneous but to the affected object it would not be. Both A and B "witness" the event.

We are talking about the frame of reference of the photon. You can't change the reference frame of the photon when talking about the slices of time when it benefits you, and then change the subject when it shows that causation of the photon's change in direction does not benefit you. Stay consistent here.

I am not being inconsistent. You cannot say that the black hole is not a part of the equation when you made it so by affecting the photon. If you talk about causation you cannot ignore causes, that is silly.

am not denying causation at all. You keep making these claims that I am saying something entirely different to what I am actually trying to establish. It is not causation that I have a problem with but with your slicing of time into "discrete infinitesimals". As you see, SR is relevant after all

Your responses are inconsistent. When I introduced the (in)finitesimal timeslices, you introduced the frame of reference of a photon as being simultaneous and therefore not able to experience a minimum (in)finitesimal timeslice. However, when I accepted the status of your photon as not experiencing a passage of time, you were quick to hop back to the framework where causation is something that happens in a frame of reference other than a photon. You can't have it both ways. Either the photon experiencing zero time means that causation does not exist, or there is the passage of time in which causation can only make sense as occurring within.

Please stay consistent in your answers. Do you want to consider causation from the perspective of the photon or not? If so, let's consider the nature of causation from this perspective. If not, then let's consider the nature of causation from the perspective that time passes.

I have not been inconsistent at all. How on earth can we discuss causation if we concentrate on nothing but the single object in question? Does the black hole alter the path or not? Yes it does! Does the photon realise this? No it doesn't. Is causation dependent then upon the perception of the photon? No it is not. Does it depend on an informational tranference to the photon which the photon then acts upon? No it does not. Is it possible only through an infinitesimal slicing of time in the frame of reference of the photon? No it is not! Try to understand the concepts here Harvey1 and try to understand what I am saying.

[The Happy Humanist]

Well, if there is some event C "which before it, there wouldn't be the effect, and that after it, there must be the effect," then my question is what connects C with the (in)finitesimal moment after C (i.e., C+1). Why doesn't the big bang follow C? Why doesn't C repeat again over and over, like an LP needle that is stuck on track 1?

I don't suppose you will buy the argument that perhaps causation is "prime"; that is, it needs no explanation since it is THE explanation. I think this is the way you probably think of God. There must be an ultimate explanation that cannot itself be explained, and does not need to be, by virtue of its ultimacy. If you attribute this ultimacy to a deity that we can't observe, you would have to demonstrate what it is that rules out such ultimacy for something like causation, which we CAN observe. And yes, we do observe it, your time-slicing artifice notwithstanding.

I don't think events and time are separate references.

If that were true, then the question "What time is it?" could be answered by "The Diamondbacks just won the World Series." (If you answered that way on Nov. 6, 2001, the statement would be correct [in your face, Yankee fans!], but it wouldn't answer the question). Put another way, the references are 100% interdependent, but must be separate or they would be meaningless. An event corresponds to a moment, but it is not interchangeable with that moment.

There's the infinitesimal duration, in which case it is theoretically identified as being separate from the infinitesimal moment that follows it, and then there's a different notion where we mean to say that an infinitesimal is just a concept and doesn't actually exist.

I don't see these as two separate concepts. When you say the first is theoretical, and the second is conceptual and doesn't actually exist, you're basically saying the same thing. Both concepts agree that it is a mental construct only, which is to say, it doesn't necessarily correspond with reality. And that's where your thesis breaks down. We are attempting to come to some kind of conclusion about reality. Thought experiments are fine, as long as you can somehow draw a logical connection between the experiment and reality. Otherwise, you are engaging in "Wag The Dog
Cosmology," or "Watch The Birdie Metaphysics." We both agree that, even if we were able to capture time in a laboratory and slow it down to a crawl, we would never be able to actually quantify a "moment," especially an indivisible one. It is therefore unreasonable to make limiting statements about real events based on our limited abilities to conceptualize artificially contrived circumstances.

In a nutshell: Causation is material. It is your thought experiment that is chimeral.

[harvey1]

[C+1 is simply the result of C taking into account the properties and interactions of all matter involved in the event, updating it into a (very slightly) new model which repeats the process (C+2, etc)

But why does it "[update] into a (very slightly) new model which repeats the process"? Is there any material explanation possible to explain C to C+1 to C+2? If no material explanation is possible, even in principle, then it seems you are saying that it is beyond logic (mystery). That would indicate that material causation is an irrational belief.

Insufficient data either to answer or to verify the implicit assumption in the question.

That's okay if you don't have a detailed explanation for why it does what it does. What I want to know is in principle whether such a material cause could ever exist given the nature of the "cause." Please illustrate how such a cause is possible in principle.

properties and interactions of matter effectively result in a new model, which has new properties and interactions. Thus such repeats do not occur (or are profoundly unlikely).

But, this is not a material requirement that brings C+1 about. It is a logical requirement. However, according to material atheism, all concepts (e.g., God, gods, prayer, relations, logical necessity, etc.) all boil down to material causes. I want to know what material cause, even in principle, can bring about "properties and interactions of matter effectively result[ing] in a new model."

I am not a material atheist, so I don't share your faith that there are material causes. I think that it is not possible in principle to show a material cause and therefore material atheism is a false belief. So, rather than making a statement that you think that I should accept on faith, please give reason why your material cause exists. It sure looks like it doesn't exist.

[harvey1]

I don't suppose you will buy the argument that perhaps causation is "prime"; that is, it needs no explanation since it is THE explanation. I think this is the way you probably think of God. There must be an ultimate explanation that cannot itself be explained, and does not need to be, by virtue of its ultimacy. If you attribute this ultimacy to a deity that we can't observe, you would have to demonstrate what it is that rules out such ultimacy for something like causation, which we CAN observe. And yes, we do observe it, your time-slicing artifice notwithstanding.

I can't buy it for one simple reason. I know when I have a cause to act and I know that cause exists. When I ask you for an identity to a material cause, there is no such identity. This is in direct conflict to materialism since there is no material cause. Instead, what you are advocating is Mystery. That is, if event C brings about event E, then the reason is ultimately a mystery. That's extremely problematical since we see causation everywhere we look, in fact it is an unescapable attribute to our existence. In the case of God, the reason for God's existence is perhaps related to a causal nature of the universe, but this is very different than saying that everything we experience is a complete mystery. Even if we accepted that everything is a complete material mystery, it still would not be a form of materialism since there is nothing material about your primitive. Your primitive is a metaphysical black box that has no characteristic of being material.

If that were true, then the question "What time is it?" could be answered by "The Diamondbacks just won the World Series." (If you answered that way on Nov. 6, 2001, the statement would be correct [in your face, Yankee fans!], but it wouldn't answer the question). Put another way, the references are 100% interdependent, but must be separate or they would be meaningless. An event corresponds to a moment, but it is not interchangeable with that moment.

But, that's what we mean by saying it is August 23, 2005. We are referring to events (namely, the revolution around the sun, the new year, 2005 years from the original estimated date of our Lord's birth, etc., etc.).

I don't see these as two separate concepts. When you say the first is theoretical, and the second is conceptual and doesn't actually exist, you're basically saying the same thing. Both concepts agree that it is a mental construct only, which is to say, it doesn't necessarily correspond with reality.

I don't think so. The first is based on infinitesimal calculus and non-standard analysis (e.g., hyperreals), and the second is based on a philosophy called nominalism. With nominalism, there are no infinities in the world which correspond with our mathematical concept of infinity (not to be confused with constructivism where there are no infinities in mathematics).

And that's where your thesis breaks down. We are attempting to come to some kind of conclusion about reality. Thought experiments are fine, as long as you can somehow draw a logical connection between the experiment and reality. Otherwise, you are engaging in "Wag The Dog
Cosmology," or "Watch The Birdie Metaphysics." We both agree that, even if we were able to capture time in a laboratory and slow it down to a crawl, we would never be able to actually quantify a "moment," especially an indivisible one. It is therefore unreasonable to make limiting statements about real events based on our limited abilities to conceptualize artificially contrived circumstances.

Why? We do so all the time when we construct in our heads what reality must be like. We use logical arguments all the time to show that a belief is absurd. In fact, if we were to take your advice, we could never rule out any belief as irrational since logical contradiction or absurdity would not be something that would be able to convince us that the belief is false.

In a nutshell: Causation is material. It is your thought experiment that is chimeral.

I enjoy your sense of faith and love of Mystery in the world, really I do, but if we start believing or continue believing beliefs which contradict themselves or require mystery to explain their rationality, then what is the stopping point to all of that? Besides, why not just dump the belief? Have you even considered that?? Why not?

[harvey1]

The photon has no path from its perspective. It did not change direction. It was always everywhere that it is,ever was or ever will be.... I am not being inconsistent. You cannot say that the black hole is not a part of the equation when you made it so by affecting the photon. If you talk about causation you cannot ignore causes, that is silly.

Okay. Let's put a polarizer filter in its path just as it arrives at black hole B. The photon emitted as non-polarized and absorbed into a detector (near black hole 2) as polarized. Are you saying from the photon's frame of reference that causation does not exist? If so, then this shows that material causation fails as an explanation to every event. In fact, most events in the world are this type since photons are one of the more numerous particles in the universe and they've been making their little journey's since the early days of the CBR.

How on earth can we discuss causation if we concentrate on nothing but the single object in question?

This object is your objection to the flow of time having (in)finitesimal steps from cause C to effect E. When we look at this object, it shows that your argument was based on actually accepting my consequent. This is what I want you to do. I want you to accept my consequent.

Does the black hole alter the path or not? Yes it does! Does the photon realise this? No it doesn't.

Answer this question. From the photon's perspective, is there a reason why it is polarized and absorbed at a detector near black hole B? (Again, it was emitted so that it would head to black hole A unpolarized.)

Is causation dependent then upon the perception of the photon? No it is not. Does it depend on an informational tranference to the photon which the photon then acts upon? No it does not. Is it possible only through an infinitesimal slicing of time in the frame of reference of the photon? No it is not! Try to understand the concepts here Harvey1 and try to understand what I am saying.

What you are saying is contradictory, Curious. You said that we need to look at the photon's frame of reference to show that my argument is wrong, however we see right off the bat that material causation breaks down in your example. Why don't you come up with another example that doesn't assume the lack of causation.

By the way, do you think you can manage a post without insulting people? I've noticed that with Spetey and now it's starting with me. I don't like it.

[Curious]

The photon has no path from its perspective. It did not change direction. It was always everywhere that it is,ever was or ever will be.... I am not being inconsistent. You cannot say that the black hole is not a part of the equation when you made it so by affecting the photon. If you talk about causation you cannot ignore causes, that is silly.

Okay. Let's put a polarizer filter in its path just as it arrives at black hole B. The photon emitted as non-polarized and absorbed into a detector (near black hole 2) as polarized. Are you saying from the photon's frame of reference that causation does not exist? If so, then this shows that material causation fails as an explanation to every event. In fact, most events in the world are this type since photons are one of the more numerous particles in the universe and they've been making their little journey's since the early days of the CBR.

The photon is emitted as non-polarized??? This makes no sense. How can you emit a single photon without it being polarised. The photon heads in a straight line and is therefore polarised.

How on earth can we discuss causation if we concentrate on nothing but the single object in question?

This object is your objection to the flow of time having (in)finitesimal steps from cause C to effect E. When we look at this object, it shows that your argument was based on actually accepting my consequent. This is what I want you to do. I want you to accept my consequent.

My objection is not just the object but also the interaction of the object which you break down into infinitesimal steps. As you may remember, I previously explained that interactions consist of several frames of reference within another frame of reference. This is what you do not consider. I explained how a time frame could contain other relative frames and make up a single perceived event. So now you wish to say that I am actually agreeing with you, that is strange. I had hoped not to have to explain in such detail this first point but since you seem to be in some form of scientific denial of the facts, I am obliged to show why my points are valid. Your infinitesimal time slice theory could just as easily have been refuted by application of a constant force. No amount of slicing time would reduce the distance travelled to zero so there is no pre/post event moment.

Does the black hole alter the path or not? Yes it does! Does the photon realise this? No it doesn't.

Answer this question. From the photon's perspective, is there a reason why it is polarized and absorbed at a detector near black hole B? (Again, it was emitted so that it would head to black hole A unpolarized.)

You cant emit an unpolarized photon.

Is causation dependent then upon the perception of the photon? No it is not. Does it depend on an informational tranference to the photon which the photon then acts upon? No it does not. Is it possible only through an infinitesimal slicing of time in the frame of reference of the photon? No it is not! Try to understand the concepts here Harvey1 and try to understand what I am saying.

What you are saying is contradictory, Curious. You said that we need to look at the photon's frame of reference to show that my argument is wrong, however we see right off the bat that material causation breaks down in your example. Why don't you come up with another example that doesn't assume the lack of causation.

Yes I did indeed say we need to look at it to understand my point. I did not say that this perspective (of the photon) had any bearing on overall causality, it does have a bearing on your argument concerning causality though. There is nothing that assumes a lack of causation in my argument at all.

By the way, do you think you can manage a post without insulting people? I've noticed that with Spetey and now it's starting with me. I don't like it.

I am not insulting you, I am just telling you to try to understand the argument that I give rather than attempting to wriggle around every objection without giving an adequate refutation. You claim that time is this or say I should use that equation ,obviously without having sufficient knowledge of the subject to make such a claim. Every objection I have made to your argument has been either ignored, labelled as irrelevant or countered with an argument that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is you who are insulting, you continue to say I am inconsistent ( a favourite insult of yours, aimed at many people previously) and insult my intelligence and understanding of this particular subject which I have endeavoured to explain to you in a most simple manner. If you are to offer such an hypothesis for public scrutiny, for the purpose of validation, then if objections are made you should reconsider your position and ammend your hypothesis accordingly. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be your purpose at all. Your sole purpose seems, in accordance with your many other threads, to be to launch a diatribe against atheists in general. That Harvey1, I find very insulting indeed.

[The Happy Humanist]

I don't suppose you will buy the argument that perhaps causation is "prime"; that is, it needs no explanation since it is THE explanation.

I can't buy it for one simple reason. I know when I have a cause to act and I know that cause exists. When I ask you for an identity to a material cause, there is no such identity.

No. The answer is not, "There is no such identity." The answer is that the question is nonsensical. If you know the cause exists, and can name the cause, you have completed your knowledge. In our pool cue example, if you ask what causes the cue ball to move towards the eight ball, the answer is that it was struck by the cue stick. If you ask what causes the particular interaction between the stick and the ball to result in forward motion, you can take it down to the molecular level, at which point we can invoke classical physics ad nauseum, or perhaps even the quantum level, at which point you may not be able to fully quantify or identify the ultimate cause, but that is a matter of our ignorance, not a matter of the cause not having an identity. Now, take it down even further, to whatever realm lies beneath the quantum - if such a realm even exists - and you will eventually reach a point where there doesn't seem to be a cause, because we are falling into the cracks, so to speak, but this is because events are discreet but moments are not. You have to go back up to a level where some interaction is (theoretically) observable, and there's your cause. Anything below that is just a matter of lacking proper perspective.

That is, if event C brings about event E, then the reason is ultimately a mystery.

No, the reason is ultimately Causation itself. No less valid a statement than saying the reason is ultimately God.

In the case of God, the reason for God's existence is perhaps related to a causal nature of the universe,

Perhaps? You mean, you can't readily identify a reason for God's existence? So, your argument is better than mine....how? And you've therefore disproven atheism....how? At best you've shown that we are both ignorant as to ultimate causes (but in my case, I'm ignorant as to the ultimate cause of something whose existence is at least demonstrable.)

I don't think so. The first is based on infinitesimal calculus and non-standard analysis (e.g., hyperreals), and the second is based on a philosophy called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism]nominalism

Interesting that your first link contains the following statement:

Varying degrees of resemblance at the macro level can be explained by varying degrees of resemblance at the micro level, and micro-level resemblance is explained in terms of something no less robustly physical than causal power.

The author of that piece seemed content with ending a paragraph there. He didn't seem to need to go into an explanation of causal power. And that's a pretty heady philosophy!

It is therefore unreasonable to make limiting statements about real events based on our limited abilities to conceptualize artificially contrived circumstances.

Why? We do so all the time when we construct in our heads what reality must be like. We use logical arguments all the time to show that a belief is absurd.

And to do so, you must connect the dots between the mental model and the real-world analog. In this case, you have not connected the dots. It's like the classic Zeno's Paradox example of the frog jumping across the street. Each jump is half as long as the previous jump. Theoretically, he never makes it to the other side. Do we conclude from this that frogs cannot cross streets?

In fact, if we were to take your advice, we could never rule out any belief as irrational since logical contradiction or absurdity would not be something that would be able to convince us that the belief is false.

The absurdity lies in your premise, which involves an infinite regression - something rejected by both of the links you provided, by the way, the philosophical one and even the mathematical one. You make my case for me.