norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (08/12/84)
> Ahem. Cause and effect may exist, and indeed, in order to function as > human beings, we seem to need to behave as if it exists, but I don't > think the principal of cause and effect can be *proved* to exist. The > association of two events in time does not imply a connection between > the two. > > (For a more detailed argument, read Hume and Kant) > > --Ray Chen The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among other things. Even the ideas "anything" and "functioning" depend upon the idea of cause and effect. All of these concepts depend on or are rooted in the concepts of identity and identification. Here's why: To be is to be something in particular, to have a specific identity, or having specific characteristics. What does it mean to have specific characteristics or a specific identity? It means that in a particular context, the entity's existence is manifested in a particular way. An entity IS what it can DO (in a given context). So what's causality? The law of identity applied to action. Things do what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are. "What they are" includes or consists of "what they can do". This is true irrespective of our ability to identify what they are. Hume's and Kant's arguements re causality are the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. For the original presentation of the views that smash this false dichotomy, see Leonard Peikoff's article "The Analytic- Synthetic Dichotomy" in the back of recent editions of Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". For the epistemological basis of Peikoff's article, read Rand's Intro. (I almost posted this to net.cooks, but GOOD cooks know this already...) -Norm Andrews, AT+T Information Systems, (201) 834-3685
kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (08/14/84)
(Norm Andrews challenges Ray Chen's agnosticsm on cause and effect) > The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among > other things. This is simply not true. The notion of logical proof involves implication relationships between discrete statements in discourse. This is an agreed upon rule of the game. Causality assumes implication relationships between discrete events in the world. The universe may or may not argue like a philosopher, and it is not always clear what constitutes a "discrete" event. > So what's causality? The law of identity applied to action. Things do > what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are. This is a denial of causality, not a definition. If things do what they do because they are what they are, then they certainly can't be *caused* to do anything by something else. Unless, of course, the only *thing* is everything. uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >flairvax!kissell {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/