Causal exclusion problem

[Jerry N.]

Yes, I do. I want to know. Are you going to answer?

The basis of most religions in the world is the interaction of the physical and metaphysical. I am a Christian, and that interaction is an important part of faith.

 

[Palmfever]

It seems to me if we aren't committed to physicalism, the causal exclusion problem beomes a non-issue if we separate the ontological assumption that nature is physical from the causal closure principle. The causal exclusion problem states that we have good reason to believe four propositions:

Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient physical cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

Any 3 of these can be taken together, but when we add the 4th an inconsistency occurs. Now, there are various solutions but most attempt to preserve physicaliism because to give it up would be to give up closure which would be bad for science for what should be obvious reasons. But if we remove the metaphysical presupposition that nature is fundamentally physical from closure so that physicalism stands on its own, the problem seems to dissolve until we add physicalism back into the mix. What I mean by this is if instead of defining closure on the phyical, we define it on the natural and then leave the natural without specification there is no inconsistency. In other words:
Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient natural cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

All four of these can be true with no inconsistency. So do we have enough evidence for non-physical causes yet, or do we still want to insist that the natural iis physical?

It seems to me if we aren't committed to physicalism, the causal exclusion problem beomes a non-issue if we separate the ontological assumption that nature is physical from the causal closure principle. The causal exclusion problem states that we have good reason to believe four propositions:

Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient physical cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

Any 3 of these can be taken together, but when we add the 4th an inconsistency occurs. Now, there are various solutions but most attempt to preserve physicaliism because to give it up would be to give up closure which would be bad for science for what should be obvious reasons. But if we remove the metaphysical presupposition that nature is fundamentally physical from closure so that physicalism stands on its own, the problem seems to dissolve until we add physicalism back into the mix. What I mean by this is if instead of defining closure on the phyical, we define it on the natural and then leave the natural without specification there is no inconsistency. In other words:
Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient natural cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

All four of these can be true with no inconsistency. So do we have enough evidence for non-physical causes yet, or do we still want to insist that the natural iis physical?

Cause and effect may not actually be muddled in the quantum realm

The direction of cause and effect was brought into question for quantum objects more than a decade ago, but new calculations may offer a way to restore it

www.newscientist.com

...For more than a decade, physicists have been grappling with the idea of indefinite causal order –instances where it is impossible to tell whether cause came before effect or vice versa, because the two scenarios are in a quantum superposition where both and neither are true at the same time. Strikingly, a 2017 experiment showed that a particle of light can pass through two gates such that it is impossible to tell which it went through first. This further established indefinite causal order as an unavoidable oddity of quantum theory.

“Causality is central to how we explain how things work. We observe things around us and want to ask, ‘Why does that happen?’,” says V. Vilasini at the National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology in France.

To investigate causality further, she and Renato Renner at ETH Zürich in Switzerland were informed by two foundational theories. The first is quantum information theory, in which cause and effect are connected by the flow of information. The second is Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which suggests all causal influence must be slower than the speed of light.

This second constraint describes the space-time we live in and bakes into its structure a clear notion of before and after. Experiments that feature indefinite causality happen in that same space-time, yet seem to contradict this structure, says Christina Giarmatzi at Macquarie University in Australia...

...
Arrighi says that staking a definite position on the plausibility of indefinite casual order in any particular experiment may come down to how a researcher interprets quantum theory itself. For Giarmatzi, the issue may only be resolved with more experiments.

However, Arrighi says that the two theorems invite examinations of how relativity and quantum theory can combine. Specifically, the work doesn’t explore what could happen if space-time itself were quantum. This opens the tantalising possibility that within a fully fledged theory of quantum gravity – which physicists have been seeking for decades – causality could once again be in peril.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The basis of most religions in the world is the interaction of the physical and metaphysical. I am a Christian, and that interaction is an important part of faith.

Yeah. You believe that. But, the question is why.

 

[Jerry N.]

Yeah. You believe that. But, the question is why.

Personal experience, but my conversion to Christianity is not part of this thread.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Personal experience, but my conversion to Christianity is not part of this thread.

Fair enough. I wasn't asking about your conversion, but why one believes something that cannot be proved.

If your personal experience contributes to your belief, aren't you at least, in principle, saying that those unprovable things can have evidence? Would it not be the case that a cumulative collection of evidence would "prove" the unprovable?

It seems to me that you think you have enough evidence, in which case you don't believe the "unprovable".

 

[Jerry N.]

Fair enough. I wasn't asking about your conversion, but why one believes something that cannot be proved.

If your personal experience contributes to your belief, aren't you at least, in principle, saying that those unprovable things can have evidence? Would it not be the case that a cumulative collection of evidence would "prove" the unprovable?

It seems to me that you think you have enough evidence, in which case you don't believe the "unprovable".

After the experiencing the “way of salvation” as described in many places on this forum. I experienced a real change of heart. My desire to learn more about God, study the Bible, and live, as best I could, in a way that was more pleasing to God, increased significantly. I also experienced what I would consider a personal relationship to God, which included prayer, guilt when I got it wrong, and a greater love for my fellow human beings. It also increased my courage to do what is right without regard to what others thought about me. I am far from perfect and consider myself as under construction, but the change in direction was obvious to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems to me if we aren't committed to physicalism,

Physicalism?

the causal exclusion problem beomes a non-issue if we separate the ontological assumption that nature is physical from the causal closure principle. The causal exclusion problem states that we have good reason to believe four propositions:

Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient physical cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

Any 3 of these can be taken together, but when we add the 4th an inconsistency occurs. Now, there are various solutions but most attempt to preserve physicaliism because to give it up would be to give up closure which would be bad for science for what should be obvious reasons. But if we remove the metaphysical presupposition that nature is fundamentally physical from closure so that physicalism stands on its own, the problem seems to dissolve until we add physicalism back into the mix. What I mean by this is if instead of defining closure on the phyical, we define it on the natural and then leave the natural without specification there is no inconsistency. In other words:
Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient natural cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

I'm sorry @Fervent ,just from context the term "physical" seems to mean something different from what I know....

Can you define it here?

All four of these can be true with no inconsistency. So do we have enough evidence for non-physical causes yet, or do we still want to insist that the natural iis physical?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only if we presume that reality is fundamentally physical. What this argument is meant to accomplish is to ask the question whether or not we need that presumption to do science.

It depends on whatever you mean by physical.

For example...

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Are we talking about mass, energy, or what?

If we can restate closure in a metaphysically neutral way and remove metaphysical assumptions, and doing so improves our explanations, why preserve the metaphysical assumption?

You still have a problem of criterion.

We don't need to assume that nature is physical for science to work. So why do we have to show mental causation separate from physical causation to not presume that the mental is derivative of the physical? Why can't we understand it as both the physical and the mental being derivative of something more fundamental?

Are you sure about that? How do we know that the physical doesn't exist wiithin a mental medium?

Metaphysical garbage. If by changing the closure principle in a way that I remove metaphysical presuppositions resolves the issue, then the metaphysical presuppositions have to go. We don't need to presume physical closure to do science, we just need a closure principle. Occam dictates to multiply entities no more than necessary, so why not let physicalist metaphysics stand on their own feet and not dogmatically enshrine them into science?

Or both are dependent on a third.

I don't see it as separate either, but I don't take the physical as fundamental.

No, simply that the notion that the world is fundamentally physical is suspect

In what way?

and that physicalism is the issue in the mind-body problem.

Why do you think the mind-body problem is still a problem? Has any evidence of the mind being physically produced by the brain come into reality?

If there is any argument at all, its that we have had evidence for mental causation all along but physicalist metaphysics

Where's the evidence for mental causation?

I was surprised to learn some people cannot think in pictures.

I was more surprised to learn some people only think in pictures and have no internal monologue...or dialogue.

If you'll indulge me.....at what number of people do they begin to look indistinguishable from one another (a fuzzy distant crowd) or a series of hard to picture individuals who begin repeating? I can try really hard....but somewhere around two dozen or so...the clear pictorial representation is gone and replaced with a literal number.

It's an upper limit on what seems like it should be easy. You?

I'm asking because if I'm 100% honest...I don't see any mind-body problem. I've seen people describe it....I understand the words....and at the end they claim "that's the mind body problem" and at no point do I see any problem.

If anyone feels like they really get it....please explain as simply as possible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't matter what it sounds like. Empirical means drawn from experience, it's the definition of the word. But this isn't a question about the data, it's about hidden premises snuck into the closure principle.

I'm unsure what the "closure principle" is....

But yes...empirical refers to the observable world. In modern usage, the testable, the measurable, the experimental, etc.

Atheist's aren't skeptics, though.

Ok.

They settle for the world and then refuse to dig any deeper.

I'll also concede to the theoretical, conceptual, emotional, and purely abstract. We can describe these things....we can put them into practice....but their relationship to truth appears subjective until successfully applied to the empirical reality. At that point we can say with at least some confidence they're objective.

You've made an unjustified assumption. Why'd you stop there?

What's a justified assumption in your mind?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, people need to start realizing that "Philosophy" is the application of 4 or 5 distinct, but still interdependent fields. One of those fields is claimed by atheist nearly everywhere to be of absolute value. Being that this is the case, I so often wonder why atheists eschew "philosophy" when, at every waking moment, at least one field of philosophy is what they're always engaged in: i.e. LOGIC.

Yes, LOGIC is part and parcel of the overall discipline of Philosophy, and being that Philosophy is a multifaceted, interdisciplinary discipline, resulting ultimately not in speculation but in the application of analysis, I'd think people would wake up to this fact.

I see logic as nothing more than the describable limitations of language.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I start with something that can't possibly be false.

Regarding the entirety of what can be true and false....you've identified something that cannot possibly be false?

Yeah, and my question is why do you need the word physical if you're identifying the same thing?

I'd argue we don't...but as neither of us created the English language it's not a substantive question.

The value is in the resolution of a discrepancy in observations.

I still don't understand what discrepancy you keep referring to.

The disappearance of the inconsistency which allows the four propositions to stand together without conflict.

Which one or one's are in conflict?

If they were the same thing nothing would change by shifting terms around. But something changes when we do. So they don't mean the same thing. As atheists love to trot out:do not multiply entities needlessly.

I've never heard that before. I've never heard your 4 propositions before.

If we only mean by physical that it is natural, then there is no need for a different term.

All things physical may be natural but that doesn't necessarily mean all things natural must be physical.

I wouldn't call an absolute vacuum physical but I would call it natural.

I wouldn't call darkness physical though I would call it natural.

You're conflating categories.

You can't just say nature is nature.

Nature is nature.

I hope this helps.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well it helps to see that thus far, its not possible to conceive what the term reality means without a human mind doing that.
True mind independent reality is either: (i) completey nonsensical when one considers my above evidence based statement or (ii) just another belief.

#2.

A 'physically real world' is a model. Its either testable or untestable. Science's 'physically real world', (I prefer 'objectivelly real world'), is distinguished from any other kind, by way of beliefs (untestable) and the scientific method (the latter of which, involves objective testing).

Specifically, attempting to describe the #2 belief accurately.

'Natural causes' and 'physical causes', I think, is some folks' attempt to dissociate the scientific testing method from straight outright beliefs. The human mind's fingerprints are all over both beliefs and scientific testing, so in distinguishing between beliefs and the physical, its better to to just admit that and point to the objective testing method as the special distinction science brings to the table, from outright unevidenced, untestable beliefs.
Both require an active healthy human mind somewhere, to conceive .. and not some mind independent 'thing'.

My way also draws on semantic meanings expressed by human minds (along with the usage of the scientific mehthod).
Rather than the word 'physical' I'd recommend the term 'objective', which then provides a solid and consistent justification/basis for the scientific method to proceed.

I agree with the underlined part above.

I think the assumption of an external independent reality must be made....otherwise it's unclear what the scientific method is for.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The basis of most religions in the world is the interaction of the physical and metaphysical. I am a Christian, and that interaction is an important part of faith.

In your religion....what is the interaction between the physical and metaphysical?

 

[SelfSim]

.. Specifically, attempting to describe the #2 belief accurately.

Accurately with respect to what? The belief in the assumption of an external independent reality?
Pfft! So much for the meaning of that kind of 'accuracy'! (IMO).

I think the assumption of an external independent reality must be made....otherwise it's unclear what the scientific method is for.

The scientific method was developed to be useful. That's it .. that's all.
Anything piled on top of that, is just philosophical baggage that typically ends up just getting in the way of that purpose .. (like the untestable belief in the existence of a mind independent reality).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Accurately with respect to what? The belief in the assumption of an external independent reality?
Pfft! So much for the meaning of that kind of 'accuracy'! (IMO).

In respect to whatever ways it can be truthfully described.

The scientific method was developed to be useful. That's it .. that's all.

Useful for what?

 

[dlamberth]

Plants metabolize, but do not have the nephesh chayah, the living soul, the breath of life, as do both human beings and animals.

Many would disagree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see logic as nothing more than the describable limitations of language.

And you came by this view about "Logic" via which sources and influences? Wittgenstein, perhaps? I'm perusing the textbooks I have on formal and informal Logic and I'm not quite seeing how they are merely presenting nothing more than the describable limitations of language. There's a bit more there than that .........................

I sure hope you're not referring to the other, prior Logical Positivists. Because they contradicted themselves.

 

[SelfSim]

In respect to whatever ways it can be truthfully described.

"It"???
I couldn't care less about accurate descriptions of what people believe in .. because beliefs are of no use in scientific thinking.

Useful for what?

For goodness sake! You have no idea what useful contributions science has made?
Gimme a break!

 

[Jerry N.]

Fervent has been doing a good job trying to communicate René Descartes mind-body distinction. If anyone is interested in a more detailed explanation, they can find it here: Descartes, Rene: Mind-Body Distinction | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy If Fervent has already given references, I’m sorry if I missed them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And you came by this view about "Logic" via which sources and influences?

Uhhhh....thinking about it really hard, influenced by the consideration of certain logical paradoxes.

Wittgenstein, perhaps?

Nope. Never read any Wittgenstein....though obviously, it's unlikely I'm the first to have an idea.

I'm perusing the textbooks I have on formal and informal Logic and I'm not quite seeing how they are merely presenting nothing more than the describable limitations of language. There's a bit more there than that .........................

I sure hope you're not referring to the other, prior Logical Positivists. Because they contradicted themselves.

Right...well whatever you consider the basis of logic, it's clear to me that it's basis is rooted quite literally in the language we use. Let's take one of the most basic and uncontroversial laws of logic as an example....

The law of non-contradiction.

Two contradictory statements cannot be true in the same time in the same way.

Formally A cannot also be not -A.

While formal logic is fun...it's not really how we describe the world. The law describes categorical sets like inside and outside. One cannot be inside a room in the same way at the same time as they are outside a room.

What if we imagine someone standing exactly in a doorway to the room though....half inside, half outside? Are they not both inside and outside the room in the same meaning of those words at the exact same time? Both inside and not inside at the same time? Both outside and not outside at the same time?

Fortunately, a third categorical set was created to describe such things..."at the threshold" between between inside and outside....and it was the linguistic creation of the third category which describes the truth of something or someone at the threshold of two or more contradictory states.