The First Concept
Quoted from the A first cause is logically necessary thread :
Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? Gnomon
Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon. Philosophim
Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the final answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "42?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause-effect-space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!
Since the assumption of incessant causation is of interest to posters on this forum, why not do like the astronomers in the 1950s did : from repeated observations of expanding space, they traced the evidence back to a point of no-further-evidence, leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. So "once more unto the breach!", let's work backwards from the current observation of expanding-natural-sentience-into-artificial-intelligence, keeping our rational eyes peeled for evidence of the elusive space-time origin of thinking beings, from whatever source. Who wants to go first? :grin:
PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry? Oooops, I did it begin.!
*1. Creation from nothing is not possible :
This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. {my bracket}
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14998/creation-from-nothing-is-not-possible
*2. Induction :
"assumes that the future will resemble the past"
Philosophy Magazine, Feb-Mar 2024
Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? Gnomon
Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon. Philosophim
Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the final answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "42?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause-effect-space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!
Since the assumption of incessant causation is of interest to posters on this forum, why not do like the astronomers in the 1950s did : from repeated observations of expanding space, they traced the evidence back to a point of no-further-evidence, leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. So "once more unto the breach!", let's work backwards from the current observation of expanding-natural-sentience-into-artificial-intelligence, keeping our rational eyes peeled for evidence of the elusive space-time origin of thinking beings, from whatever source. Who wants to go first? :grin:
PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry? Oooops, I did it begin.!
*1. Creation from nothing is not possible :
This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. {my bracket}
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14998/creation-from-nothing-is-not-possible
*2. Induction :
"assumes that the future will resemble the past"
Philosophy Magazine, Feb-Mar 2024
Comments (49)
?
Aristotle's Four Causes :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
Quoting Gnomon
"What could we call it" refers to the first cause? First causes are typically called prime mover or unmoved mover in English. In Greek, it is/was typically called arhí (????), meaning beggining, rule, even empire, and discussions about it predate Aristotle.
Question: if the future need not resemble the past, why did you say a first cause needs a final cause. Your post seemed contradictory to me
Quoting Lionino
Gnomon is asking what title should be affixed to this conversation.
Quoting tim wood
So, why are you two posting here? I don't suppose you refute the notion written narratives have no relationship to material things. Do you?
180 Proof, if you respond, I expect you to nuance away from the simple premise implied by my question.
Let me correct myself. When I posed my question to you and tim wood, I was understanding tim wood to be questioning generally about the relationship between words -- as in propositions -- and empirical experience. Now I see -- I think -- that tim wood is questioning specifically about a relationship between the proposition: "There is a first cause." and empirical experience.
This latter interpretation of tim wood's meaning has him saying of the proposition: "It's a false claim. There are no first causes.
Now, let me correct my attempted correction. I see in tim woods' response above that, indeed, he has clarified his meaning. So, yes, my first interpretation is correct after all. He is questioning the relationship between words and empirical experience.
I find much in his clarification agreeable. So, I find your endorsement of tim woods' first post understandable and reasonable.
Quoting tim wood
I'm interested in learning how and why "A set of all sets" is not reasonable. Are you referring to the ZFC restriction of the comprehension axiom and how they avoid Russell's Paradox and fixed Frege's math set theory premises? Can you pass along citations to this literature?
Quoting tim wood
When you say "paradox in this case nature's way of saying "Dead-end. Turn about and go another way,"are you invoking the principle of non-contradiction?
Along with any reason for doing philosophy. :smile:
Quoting ucarr
:chin: I guess the thread answered its own question?
No, "it" refers to the name of this thread. Don't overthink "it".
Aristotle's summation of causation was not presented as the first attempt to make sense of incessant change in the world. It was just an example of a well-reasoned approach to the metaphysical question of why the world just won't stand still. Reality might be easier to deal with if today was just like yesterday, no unexpected events to anticipate. But if there was no change from time to time, how did Philosophy Forum posters come to be? Are philosophical arguments eternal & infinite, as questioned in the OP?
After a long desultory dialog on the ancient First Cause question, I thought it might be fun (philosophically) to turn the reasoning around, and instead of assuming that there must be an original act of causation --- raising the possibility of an act of creation of something from nothing --- let's try to work backwards (timewise) from Now to the time-dated emergence of Sentience in a material world.
However you define physical Causal Evolution, follow the chain of Causation back, not to the absolute beginning of everything, but merely toward a reasonable explanation for the age-old Consciousness conundrum*1. Imagine a day without a thought, then due to some mechanical physical process, a day with an idea emerges. This tactic would avoid any supernatural "First" presumptions, by arbitrarily defining space-time as eternal & infinite. Hence, there would be no First, and no Final Cause, just consecutive differences in being, for no purpose that rational philosophy could reason out, but that empirical science can demonstrate.
Since the earlier FC thread, not the First or Last, had exhausted most arguments in favor of, or opposed to, the notion of a First Cause (creator?), maybe looking for a First Concept (knower) would give us a fresh angle of attack. That's why I entitled this thread "The First Concept", and not the First Act of Causation. If the primitive universe was totally mindless, at what point along the way did conceptual abstractions emerge from concrete reality? On the other hand, if Consciousness was intrinsic to the physical world from the beginning (Panpsychism), why did it take so long (14BY) for sentient beings to emerge?
Was the first Concept born in the brain of an upright ape, or was Awareness inherent in the universe from the beginning of Time (however you define that word)? Discuss amongst yourselves. :smile:
*1. The physical state of conscious conception :
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious.
https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/
What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the empirical evidence to support your personal conclusion to the question of "where did ideas come from?". Did storks drop them down the chimney?
No, the title is still open to suggestions. I could have simply put a question mark in the Title register. But I can change the title if someone comes up with a better one. However, the question of "First Concept" is what I had in mind (a priori) for this discussion, as noted in my reply to Lionino above. Was there a First Idea, or was Ideation always a component of the material world? So many titles, so little time. :smile:
You are right. The discussions on the subject of First Cause can go forever. As those about the concept of time and a lot more.
I have been involved in a few discussions about First Cause --whether its existence is necessary or not-- here and elsewhere. But I won't repeat myself here. As I was reading your description, a new idea came to my mind. Maybe it can be proved useful:
Assuming one accepts the law of causality --i.e. every effect has a cause-- trying to find the First Cause is simply a vain effort. The chain of cause and effect is infinite. And trying to find the start of infinity --or anything that infinite-- makes no sense.
Quoting tim wood
Are you steeped in linguistic philosophy?
Quoting tim wood
Do you think language is inherently limited in its ability to characterize empirical experience truthfully and completely, or do you think language has innate potential to do this, but your endorsement of this characterization comes with the proviso that, up front, tremendous work over eons is necessary?
Quoting tim wood
Do you think paradox exists only within language? I ask bearing in mind superposition at the quantum scale.
Not I, but the estimable David Hume*1, said that Cause & Effect is based on an unprovable assumption that there is a causal connection between Before & After. It's a non-empirical universal principle, that humans believe-in without hard proof, because past-experience-based-arguments allow philosophers & scientists to make predictions of the future, that would otherwise require prophetic powers. That faith in the reliable & predictable laws of causation is the basis of Aristotle's argument for a necessary First Cause. I'm pretty sure he was not aware of our 21st century notion of logical mathematical Natural Laws, but he seemed confident that Prior & Posterior are causally related. Are you?
However, Thomas Bayes showed that Past & Future are only Probabilistic related. So he devised a method for updating our beliefs with additional evidence*3. I suppose that we could now say that our Natural Laws are only statistically predictable within a margin of error :smile:
*1. Hume's Problem of Induction :
"A key issue concerning the plausibility of scientific arguments, which are inductive arguments (since they generate scientific laws from a limited number of observations) is whether we can prove the Future Will Resemble The Past Principle."
Philosophy Now magazine, feb-mar 2024.
*2. Natural Law :
Aristotle (384322 bce) held that what was just by nature was not always the same as what was just by law, that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and not existing by people's thinking this or that, and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. . . . In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law
*3. Bayesian Inference :
Bayesian inference . . . is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Who you callin a fool, fool? :joke:
Mirror reversal. That's why the famous philosopher Michael Jackson advised us to "talk to the man in the mirror". :cool:
Man in the Mirror
[i]I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change[/i]
https://genius.com/Michael-jackson-man-in-the-mirror-lyrics
Are you inferring that there is no beginning or end to causation . . . or just to argumentation? On what basis? Did you participate in the First Cause thread referred to in the OP? Did you critique the "working definitions" that were presented there, to allow the postulators to make a change?
Are the causal assumptions of Empirical Science (natural laws) also non-sensical?*1 Are you assuming that a First Cause, at least 14B years before the invention of empirical Science, is an evidence-based, rather than reason-based question? If so, you missed the point of asking non-sensical hypothetical questions.
I agree with your assumption that First Cause is not a viable scientific question. But this is not a scientific forum. In any case, this thread is explicitly not about the First Cause question, but about the questioner. The one who conceives of such "open-ended" queries. :smile:
*1. The Assumptions on Which Causal Inferences Rest :
Statisticians commonly make causal inferences from the results of randomized experiments, but usually question causal inferences from observational studies on the grounds that untestable assumptions are required.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346206
*2. Open-ended question :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response. Open-ended questions are phrased as a statement which requires a longer answer. They can be compared to closed questions which demand a yes/no or short answer. ___Wikipedia
The premise that "the chain of Cause & Effect is infinite" is also an ungrounded assumption. Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity? "Vanity of vanities" : to count infinity on an abacus*1.
Anyway, the point of this thread is to avoid infinities, and to trace Cause & Effect only back to the First Concept within space-time. When & where & how did Matter become self-conscious enough to ask about its own origin? This is only a thought experiment, no material evidence required. :smile:
*1. [i]Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
See, this is new?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.[/i]
___Ecclesiastes 1:2-11
Quoting tim wood
You say language reaches its limit dealing with empirical experience. Can you elaborate on "dealing with"? For example, "Dealing with" means perceives and understands as if through a glass darkly.
I've been forming the impression you see clearly two distinct experiences, one linguistic, the other hands-on_material.
Quoting tim wood
You think paradoxes logical things categorically apart from hands-on_material things?
You think paradoxes the products of narratives made incoherent due to missing pieces? Do you have any ready-to-hand examples?
Aristotle thought the world was eternal in the past and future. A constant loop. But something kept the whole from falling into its parts or losing all its parts and hence ceasing. Some way the world can be understood rationally, however that is. But why does this imply there was a First reason or a Final reason for the whole? Again the loop. Reality keeps the world alive
What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally.
Anyway, the only other possibility for First Cause is to attribute it to a God who has created everything and to whom everything can be traced back. For which there is no empirical evidence either. This can be also deduced rationally, in the sense that since I can't find a first cause --empirically or rationally-- I have to invent one: I'll call it God.
Which of the two is more "ungrounded"?
Quoting Gnomon
But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! :smile:
Quoting Gnomon
Right. This is almost the same with saying "the creation of an effect is impossible without a cause". So we are led again to the subject of "First Cause". Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! :grin:
Quoting Gnomon
Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! :smile:
The word "assuming" that i used was just en expression, Tim. Not part of a logicical scheme.
I could also say "based on" or "according to" or just say "the law of causality says ..." or even not mention it at all.
Quoting tim wood
I don't think this is possible. To propose something, make a statement, etc., about a subject, you must see the subject from a certain aspect or within some context, a frame of reference. You must start from something. You must be based on something, on some ground. Otherwise, what you propose would be an empty, groundless talk. Insn't that right?
In my case, the frame of reference was the "law if cause and effect".
Quoting tim wood
See, you used "in this context" youself. And "leading to a paradox" implies that you used a logical frame of reference. Only that you didn't show why the first cause doesn't work and/or why it would be a paradox ... :smile:
I have never assumed that, Tim. In fact, I said one could never find a first cause and that looking for it is a wasted effort. And I explained why. (Have you really read my message?)
Quoting tim wood
What do you mean "my law"? It's a universal law. And BTW, do you know of some other law that opposes it?
Quoting tim wood
Yes. This is what the chain of cause and effect means. A cause is the effect of another cause.
What don't you get, Tim? I really can't see what are you looking for. Your questions and arguments go in circles and they do not show anything substantial. At least I can't see anything ...
There are no "exercises in language" or playing with words either. There's only pure logic here. Can't you see that logic or do you maybe deny (the existence of) logic?
Quoting tim wood
But this is exactly what I showed in the first place, Tim! What's with you? Really.
Yes. Aristotle, with no telescopes, had no reason to imagine a Big Bang beginning of the material world, so he assumed it was eternal. But then, his "substratum" (substance, matter) was known to be changeable & perishable. Hence, he concluded that it was not likely eternal itself, and must have been created from some sub-substratum (fundamental element). Anyway, he went on to postulate an un-caused First Cause to stop the infinite regression of causes.
But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality? :smile:
Eternal World vs First Cause :
Aristotle asserts that all things must come into existence from an underlying "substratum", which is a sort of essence of being. Then he argues that matter itself (the Aristotelian concept of matter) is the substratum of all things, so it must have either created itself, or been eternal.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/how-well-did-aristotle-feel-his-belief-in-the-eternity-of-the-universe-was-estab
Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. Like the concept of Zero, it is a sort of imaginary anti-reality. That's why scientists try to weed-out infinities in their calculations. It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread. The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? :nerd:
Is infinity rational? :
If infinity were rational, it could be written in the form a/b, where a and b are integers. But, no matter what a and b are, a/b will always be finite. So, you could say infinity is irrational.
https://mathematics.science.narkive.com/jX1EK8QX/is-infinity-rational#:~:text=If%20infinity%20were%20rational%2C%20it,could%20say%20infinity%20is%20irrational.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I must have missed that showing. Probably because it is off-topic. But I'll accept that First Cause and Infinity/Eternity are related concepts, where FC defines a finite world of reason, and IE is an undefined imaginary notion beyond reason. :cool:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Which is why forum threads about First Causes (infinity stoppers) inevitably lead to never-ending arguments about unknowable roads to nowhere, "world without end". :wink:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Now we're getting back to the topic of this thread! The implicit assumption of many posters --- not Gnomon --- is that Mind naturally evolved from Matter in accordance with the known laws of physics. If so, when, where & how did the First Concept emerge? :grin:
If you want to continue the never-ending dialog about First Causes, please go back to the
A first cause is logically necessary thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1
The topic of this thread is First Concept --- the original idea in a chain of material transformations --- which for the purposes of the OP, presumably occurred somewhere in the middle of the cosmic chain of causation, . . . . . . or perhaps at some point prior to the First Cause. :wink: ironic smilie
I know that. But it is you who asked for empirical evidence (Re: "Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity?") ! :smile:
Quoting Gnomon
Why, are there real First Causes? What are they?
Quoting Gnomon
How can I have anything to offer on something I don't undestand? I was very clear on this. I said that I don't know what do you mean by "First Concept". But you didn't bother explaining to me, or give me some example. You still aren't. Some teachers do that on purpose to torture their students! :grin: (And others do it unintentionally. I've had both kinds in my school.)
So, I have nothing else to offer here ...
Quoting Gnomon
If the underlined above are your essential focal points for this conversation, I'm struggling to see why it isn't chiefly a scientific inquiry within evolutionary biology rather than a philosophical inquiry within theory of consciousness.
Are you not examining emergence of mind from matter? Is not this the focus as opposed to examining the structure and functioning of cognition once emergent?
If you're seeking after an argument that labels such and such content as the earliest thinking, isn't it likely you'll get an argument for concepts of purposeful behavior towards survival? Isn't it likely you'll get claims about earliest thinking based on observation of apparent cause-and-effect relationships?
Isn't it possible you'll get arguments underscoring the essential nature of cause-and-effect thinking and how it's supported by something more reliable than intuition? For example, is math more verifiably true in the world than intuition? Well, math equations tell us how input values are changed by logical operators. An equation is language that details a cause and effect relationship. If you think this is unreliable intuition floating about in the mist, I conclude your heart is in your mouth every time you drive across a suspension bridge. Is it the case, instead, that you refuse to drive across suspension bridges?
Of course, in the absence of empirical evidence*1, it's scientifically impossible to specify the origin of ideas. But this is a philosophical forum, so I'm looking for informed speculations on how that emergence of sentience might have been possible in a world of evolving material forms & species. And I don't limit concepts to humans : animals may have pre-verbal ideas that they express behaviorally. Or to animals with brains : some brainless flatworms seem to have intentional behavior. No judging in this thread. Give it a free shot. :grin:
*1. Fossilization of brain, or other soft tissue, is possible however, and scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared at least 521 million years ago, with fossil brain tissue present in sites of exceptional preservation. ____Wikipedia
I assumed you would know that was a rhetorical question. :cool:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I'll ignore that off-topic question. :wink:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I didn't define the topical term because I was hoping to avoid putting my preconceptions in your head. Why don't you describe what you would mean by "First Concept"? This is an open forum. Is free speech "torture" for you? :smile:
I was intentionally a bit vague in my title and OP, in order to avoid putting my pre-conceptions into impressionable minds. But, I did give you a hint. Please feel free to define your notion of First Concept any way you like. I'm assuming that nobody knows for sure, so there are no wrong answers.
This is a philosophy forum, so empirical evidence is not necessary. But relevant scientific data is welcome. You can describe the first-of-its-kind event as you see fit : material, physical, metaphysical, accidental, intentional, magical, etc. :smile:
PS__I Googled "first concept" and mostly got marketing links.
That's why I started this spin-off from the depleted First Cause thread. But most respondents, so far, seem to have missed the point of this new thread : to discuss, not the First Cause, but a mid-evolution Effect : the origin of Consciousness in an ever-changing physical world. Perhaps I should have titled the thread : "Origin of Consciousness", but "First Concept" seemed to be more to the point.
Panpsychism*1 & Idealism assume that Consciousness was inherent in the world, from the beginning or from eternity, whichever came first. However, "First Concept" is not about chatty atoms, but about the early signs of self-aware mentation in the only animals we know have language to discuss abstract concepts.
Materialism*2 also assumes that the potential for Consciousness is inherent in the natural world, but not in the form of a supernatural God or Cosmic Mind or sentient Atoms. If so, what was the fundamental form of matter that produced thinking beings?
With these essential problems in mind, I was hoping to stimulate a discussion on how both of those presumptions might explain the eventual evolutionary emergence of abstract conceptualizers, such as posters on TPF could have evolved from nothingness or from eternal matter. For Panpsychism the crux would be the Combination Problem*3. For Materialism, the key issue might be what form proto-consciousness might take in evolution of Consciousness*4.
Do you have any ideas to contribute to a forum of mostly amateur philosophers with varying degrees of scientific background? There may be other sub-categories of Consciousness theories, but they would seem to boil down to primacy : fundamental Mind versus elemental Matter. Thoughts? :smile:
*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter all matter.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are
*2. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
*3. Combination Problem :
[i]Nevertheless, panpsychism is subject to a major challenge: the combination problem. This is
roughly the question: how do the experiences of fundamental physical entities such as quarks and photons combine to yield the familiar sort of human conscious experience that we know and love.[/i]
https://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf
*4. Can Materialism Explain the Mind? :
Nevertheless, in the eyes of many philosophers of mind, materialism has now reached an insurmountable quandary in the question of consciousness. . . . Physicalist theories that attempt to explain mental states include eliminative materialism, behaviorism, identity theory, and functionalism.
https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/can-materialism-explain-the-mind
2. Accept causality in support of existence.
3. Fail to make sense of causality. Reject it.
4. Accept eternity in support of existence.
5. Fail to make sense of eternity. Reject it.
6. Reject existence in favour of the number 42.
That's a good point --- if you want to distinguish Physics from Philosophy. Academic (fundamental) physics is only concerned with mathematical correlations*1 . . . . until the time comes that you want to make a Pragmatic prediction based on that correlation, e.g. to produce a stable chemical correlation for a specific application. In that case, it helps to know what causes what.
Academic Philosophy is impractical for controlling the material world. So, the function of Meta-Physics is to organize & control the mental realm of reality --- our beliefs. On this forum, we are not producing commercial or military products, only personal concepts & attitudes. To that end, an understanding of causal correlations is helpful for self-control and social harmony. :smile:
*1. Does causation exist in physics? :
(In fact, in fundamental physics, almost all calculations involve correlation functions). We are thus forced into a surprising conclusion: There is no fundamental notion of causation only correlations. Thus, our notion of causation must be a macroscopic emergent phenomenon derived from specific types of correlations.
https://towardsdatascience.com/why-causation-is-correlation-a-physicists-perspective-part-1-742696d130e8
Note --- According to David Hume, Causation is a useful belief, not a proven fact of physics.