martin@ism780.UUCP (08/04/84)
We always seem to describe time as being anchored in the past and proceeding
forward, through the present, into the future. We draw a picture of time like
the one below. Drawing it this way leads to the belief that events in the
past cause the state that is the present.
Past Present
-------------------------------------------->
But think of time this way. Each event now in our past was once in the
present. It was in the present before it was in the past. So the picture
should really be drawn this way.
Past Present
<--------------------------------------------
Looking at time this way leads me to believe that I might be effecting the
past rather than the other way around (free will vs determinism?). But what
about the principle of cause and effect? It comes from thinking of time as
in the first picture. If you think of time proceeding from present to past,
then what we used to call an effect precedes its cause.
I think the principle of cause and effect is nothing more than identity. That
is, if A causes B, then A and B are the same. Without the principle of cause
and effect there is no determinism. In the picture below, I am standing on
the X, forever in the present being bombarded with possible futures. I choose
which future will become my past.
Past Present Futures
<------------
<--------------------------------------------X <------------
<------------
"And that's where free will comes from, Charlie Brown." Having so said, Linus
threw his blanky over his shoulder, planted his thumb firmly in his mouth, and
prepared to withstand the hurricane he knew was coming.
martin smith INTERACTIVE Systemsmartin@ism780.UUCP (08/08/84)
***** ism780:net.philosophy / ism780b!jim / 6:46 pm Jul 28, 1984 >How can you talk about *effecting* (sic) the past, and then question the existence >of cause and *effect*? How can you draw a picture of Present becoming Past >and speak as though it were a picture of time flowing from Present to Past? >(Answer: by being confused.) Of course I'm confused. That's why there is philosophy. Your questions here illustrate the point I was trying to make. Namely, that Cause and Effect and Time Marching On are basic assumptions in all of our thinking. Not only do they affect how we think about things, but they also limit the things we can think about. I can't question the existance of cause and effect because the language doesn't allow it. I can't speak of time flowing from Present to Past because the language doesn't allow it. The previous two sentences use the word "because," which assumes Cause and Effect. >If we choose to say that past precedes present, then time flows from past >to present, and events in the past affect events in the present. >If we choose to say that present precedes past, then time flows from present >to past, but events in the past still affect events in the present. Changing >the meaning of the word "precedes" in relation to time does not change the >underlying philosophical concepts. But it might bring into the light, concepts that nobody ever thinks about because they get short circuited by the language that attempts to describe them. >Cause and effect is certainly not merely an identity. Rather, it is a >encapsulation of the notion of induction. To the degree that A is reliably >expected to precede B, in the absence of other events consistently preceding >or co-occurring with A, we are able/willing to say that A causes B. >The notion that causation implies a stronger connection between A with B >depends upon circumstances (e.g., physical laws) strongly indicated by >induction to relate A to B, and those circumstances must then be spoken of >as being causative. What about the time between the cause and the effect? Between A and B. What goes on in there? If there is no time between A and B, then they happen simultaneously, and A cannot cause B. If there is time between A and B, and nothing happens during that time, then how can we say that A causes B? Induction doesn't seem to explain anything here. It just puts off understanding forever. >> I choose which future will become my past. >This sort of statement begs the question: What does it mean to choose? >How do you go about doing it? How do we determine which things you are >capable of choosing and which you are not (some people would argue >that you are capable of choosing anything, but they are not very interesting >to talk to)? And all statements about free will and determinism will beg the question if they are worded in language based on Cause and Effect and Time marching On. martin smith INTERACTIVE Systems
jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/08/84)
> I can't question the existance of cause > and effect because the language doesn't allow it. You seem to be assuming that "cause and effect" is an independent something that either does exist or does not, in the same way that black holes either do exist or not. But "cause and effect" is only a concept which is used to describe a characteristic of the perceived world so that we can communicate. We assume that our meanings of "cause and effect" are sufficiently similar that we will communicate faithfully in normal situations. When we start talking about "what is cause and effect?", we are merely talking about sharpening up our definition, making our dictionary entry more robust. This is the business of modern philosophy: clarifying the definitions of terms so that they do encompass that which we want them to, and do not encompass that that which we do not want them to. The question is not "is there free will" or "is there cause and effect", but rather, how do we define these terms in such a way that they fit our intuitive notions. > I can't speak of time > flowing from Present to Past because the language doesn't allow it. That simply isn't true; you are speaking of it. It is just that the agreed meaning of the words "time", "flowing", "past", and "present" contain the flowing of time from past and present. Define the word "past". Define the word "present". Past is that which precedes present, *by definition*. The flow of time refers to the fact that we perceive the present after we precede the past. That notion is tied up in the definition of the word "after". If you want to avoid perceptions, and just draw time lines, then there is no "flow", just points on a graph. Viewed flatly that way, one could redefine cause and effect in such a way that the bullet hitting the target causes you to pull the trigger, because the one implies the other, but this just doesn't match the way we *use* the word, and therefore the way we should choose to define it. > The previous two sentences use the word "because," which assumes Cause > and Effect. No, it doesn't *assume* it, it *implies* it. You used the word because (!) of its meaning and the way we use language. The fact that you used it and we understood it reveals that cause and effect really is a shared concept, i.e., it "exists". > But it might bring into the light, concepts that nobody ever thinks about > because they get short circuited by the language that attempts to describe > them. I think you are being naive about the things that some people have thought about. If you are saying that the average person should spend more time thinking about the deep implications and assumptions of the words they use and the way they affect thinking, I certainly agree. > What about the time between the cause and the effect? Between A and B. > What goes on in there? If there is no time between A and B, then they > happen simultaneously, and A cannot cause B. If there is time between > A and B, and nothing happens during that time, then how can we say that > A causes B? Induction doesn't seem to explain anything here. It just > puts off understanding forever. This is known as Zeno's paradox. Its flaw is that a whole can be made up of an infinite number of infinitesimals. Lots and lots of "no time"s between events really do add up to a finite time. Now, it turns out that, in the real physical world, you don't even need to worry about Zeno's paradox, because time is quantized, and so B happens in the next time packet following A, and there are no packets in between. Your understanding is put off forever, because you want to believe that there is something deeper underneath cause and effect than induction. As I indicated previously, I hold that there is not. >>> I choose which future will become my past. > >>This sort of statement begs the question: What does it mean to choose? >>How do you go about doing it? How do we determine which things you are >>capable of choosing and which you are not (some people would argue >>that you are capable of choosing anything, but they are not very interesting >>to talk to)? > > And all statements about free will and determinism will beg the question > if they are worded in language based on Cause and Effect and Time marching > On. Talk about begging the question! Still nothing about what it means to choose. But, I quite disagree with you. By my definition, I lack free will to the degree to which someone can predict the decisions I will make (e.g., I have little free will about quitting my job tomorrow; I have some, but not much, due to my conditioning, insecurities, etc.). I think that definition covers intuitive notions of free will and encompasses that which we consider to be free will fairly well. And, by my definition, something is determined if it is the only possible outcome; that is, it is the only possible effect given a particular configuration. Note that free will and determinism *are not* mutually exclusive. If even I myself cannot predict my decisions, then I have free will regardless of how tightly coupled my brain state and my actions are. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)