• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Law of Cause and Effect.

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Cause and effect went out with Newtonian physics. Modern physics deals with relationships and how things behave, like in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It's not that simple Causality (physics) - Wikipedia has a write up on causality

Read the whole reference, and yes, it is indeed not that simple. There is a principle of causality in physics, but ultimately E=mC2 describes a relationship not a cause and effect. Once you get down to fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics does not describe a cause and effect relationship like in Newtonian physics.

Yes. cause and effect is important in verifying the predictability of theories and hypothesis where events may understood in terms of sequences of causes and effects to avoid causal paradoxes but it remains unlike Newtonian physics, the behavior at the Quantum level in not based on cause and effect like in the macro world.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.
I think it might help if you put the word "law" out of your mind. It sounds like the word has you are expecting a rule. Cause-and-effect reasoning is the primary function of the reasoning mind. You observe an effect and you ask "What caused it?" That's how we learn and accumulate knowledge.

It's the foundation of science because all knowledge begins with an observed effect: We must first see, hear, smell, taste or feel something.

We use cause and effect reasoning daily: Observed effect:Your computer doesn't start.
What caused the problem?
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.

Whether a connection can be identified or not, none need be identified apart from the temporal relationship that one phenomenon consistently precedes another. If so, we can call one "cause" and the other "effect."
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
A cause creates an effect. Effects create causes. In this way, webs and feedback loops of events (effects) and reasons (causes) are formed.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member

OK, it is clear that Aristotle's analysis is out of date for several reasons. For example, few would consider the composition of a thing to be a cause of that thing (material cause). Nor would we consider the shape to be a cause (formal cause). Of the two, efficient cause and final cause, neither really works to describe the cause of the sun's energy.

The point is that Aristotle was one of the first people to really study the concept of causality and we have learned a bit in the last 2300 years that says he was wrong in his analysis (as he was in many of his analyses--this happens to the first people who study an area).

I could point to Hume's views of causation as another, more modern, approach:
David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Or, a bit more detail can be seen in
The Metaphysics of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Cause and effect went out with Newtonian physics. Modern physics deals with relationships and how things behave, like in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
It's not that simple Causality (physics) - Wikipedia has a writeup on causality

It is certainly not that simple. For example, quantum mechanics predicts *probabilities* of events being measured, not the events themselves. In particular, the idea that the effects are determined by causes is pretty much dismissed. Instead, at best, the initial states determine what final states are possible and their associated probabilities. Before quantum mechanics, such a probabilistic aspect would have been considered to make science impossible (which it clearly has not).

Which, again, brings us back to the question: what does it mean to be a cause? what does it mean to be an effect? How are the two related? Must every event have a cause?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
A cause creates an effect. Effects create causes. In this way, webs and feedback loops of events (effects) and reasons (causes) are formed.

In what way is this creation done? How is it that an effect produces a cause? or, for that matter, the reverse?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Whether a connection can be identified or not, none need be identified apart from the temporal relationship that one phenomenon consistently precedes another. If so, we can call one "cause" and the other "effect."

It seems to me that more is required. So, the fact that You posted before I went to the store doesn't mean your post caused my going to the store.

Which suggests that the temporal ordering, while necessary, is very far from sufficient for causality.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it might help if you put the word "law" out of your mind. It sounds like the word has you are expecting a rule. Cause-and-effect reasoning is the primary function of the reasoning mind. You observe an effect and you ask "What caused it?" That's how we learn and accumulate knowledge.

OK, and how do we answer that question? How do we know that there was a cause?

It's the foundation of science because all knowledge begins with an observed effect: We must first see, hear, smell, taste or feel something.

Science can work quite well without 'explaining', but instead only 'describing'.

We use cause and effect reasoning daily: Observed effect:Your computer doesn't start.
What caused the problem?

Which gets to one of my positions: causality requires a natural law that says a system at one time that is the 'cause' must, at a later time, produce the 'effect'.

So, does it make any sense to talk about causality outside of natural laws?
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
In what way is this creation done? How is it that an effect produces a cause? or, for that matter, the reverse?

I'll use the example of a dog. If you see a dog running, there must be a cause for why the dog is running. The running itself is an effect from that cause. For the example, let's say the cause of the dog running is the effect of throwing a frisbee, because a person notices the dog wants to play. Throwing the frisbee was an effect of noticing the dog wants to play, the cause of this effect. Similarly, the effect of the dog being on the opposite side of a park from its original location originated with the dog running, which is the cause of this new effect.

Many scientists and philosophers believe that the world is a complex interaction of multiple causes and effects like this. And because it is complex, we don't know the original cause or effect. We can pinpoint the original effect to the Big Bang or some creation story, but we don't know what caused it. Or if that cause was originally an effect.

So you can probably see why it's not covered in much detail in many classes. It's both a loop and web, making it hard to have a confident explanation for it, since you end up going in a loop to explain linear situations.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Cause and effect went out with Newtonian physics. Modern physics deals with relationships and how things behave, like in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Causality is a relationship. And "how things behave" can be put into causal terms. So is this supposed to be an improvement?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
OK, and how do we answer that question? How do we know that there was a cause?
I can't assume that all reasoning faculties work like mine, but my mine doesn't expect an uncaused event. So, I assume there's a cause waiting to be discovered.

Science can work quite well without 'explaining', but instead only 'describing'.
Okay, but whether explaining or describing, the scientist still needs that first observed effect to trigger the discovery process. Right?

Which gets to one of my positions: causality requires a natural law that says a system at one time that is the 'cause' must, at a later time, produce the 'effect'. So, does it make any sense to talk about causality outside of natural laws?
I don't know. I haven't considered the question.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Causality is a relationship. And "how things behave" can be put into causal terms. So is this supposed to be an improvement?

Problem; E=mC2 is the relationship between matter and energy. There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor the cause of this relationship, because it simply exists.

Theists propose the cause is Creation, but this a Theistic assumption without objective verifiable evidence. It gets worse when we try and deal with cause and effect in the Quantum world,
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Problem; E=mC2 is the relationship between matter and energy. There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor the cause of this relationship, because it simply exists.
Your use of the word "because" implies causation. They share the root word.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
you can't throw cause and effect out the window, why would anyone consider it non reality?

some kind of mind game about intellectual relevance. drop a rock on your foot.

do humans outsmart themselves? perhaps to be above or different or to cheat someone out of their intellectual obvious senses.

suppose infinite regression is real, and our universe just a single domino, in an endless play of Dominos.

suppose outside of our space and time is more space and time,

The universe is an infinite game.
suppose disorder leads to chaos, and instability.

who the hell can prove my suppositions right, or wrong?

does microwave radiation tell the whole story?

is there hidden reality?
 
Top