DAVID HUME

[arch8887]

at 4:08 Think you mean "deism".

[AEVautomatic]

Don't you think he is right? You can't find something called causation and isolate it and say what it is.

[AEVautomatic]

wasn't he a homosexual too?

[mrswozzle]

Dear Lord..for a man who thinks that nothing can be proved or discussed, he doesn't half waste a lot of pages telling us this. Of course, I might change my mind tomorrow because there's no proof that what I believe today will still be what I think tomorrow. What a silly man!

[mustardfields]

I am using the transcription of causation in art as a research paper for my thesis. I'm

Currently pursuing my masters in Fine arts.

I'm reading about disconnection in causation and I'm putting it in relation to deconstructing a painting of it's representational imagery and the end product will be something really abstract.

And also writing about the process of causation in relation to painting. Would u mind sharing how I should start or go about this paper. I'm am fine arts train and this who

[vegetta00]

What is the name of the piano music that is played in the video`s introduction?

[hansanity]

thomas aquinas pioneered the idea of the prime mover....check out the quinque viae for more on the cosmological arguent

[nahzrat]

@hansanity Aquinas didn't invent the prime mover concept, if that's what you mean by "pioneered" here. All he did was borrow it from Aristotle, as he did most of his philosophy (like all of the other Scholastic philosophers...that was the primary effort of medieval philosophy - to incorporate Aristotle's logic into the established orthodox Christian docrtine of the day).

[timothy51886]

Actually, the chicken came first.  The shell as its molecular origins in the ovaries.

[thelamestcool]

4,520 views from people who know enough to know they know nothing at all.

[JACMAN02]

couldnt you just obstruct any causal relation?

[JACMAN02]

couldnt there be obstructions in the link. like were watching this because he made it. well i couldnt watch it if i didnt have internet.

or. if one ball hits the other then its a causal relation. but if you put something inbetween it wouldnt it hit it.

[BusinessButterfly]

Correct the prime move of sense I guess it has to do with what is given to the powers of be. All is up to the thought in process of being and let be. I think that when you proclaim a theory you have to have proof. Culture makes part in what a human being will develop in the paths of knowledge what is this and why is this so? When and why happen to be the most simple forms of knowledge induce mental curiousity that apply to GOD is also play as is or is not?

[dan012345]

A baby cries and is given food, this repeatedly occurrs and thus the baby comes to believe that by crying he his fed (a cause and an effect). How though, does this explain our perception of causality in cases where results vary? If a baby cries and is fed MOST of the time, yet occasionally is smacked or has it's diaper changed how does it develop a link between cause and effect? Since this is the case in most instances I find it hard to understand.

[michalchik]

@dan012345 Probablistically. Organisms do not rely upon absolute consitentcey and infact can detect and learn from correlations that are very close to random chance. Neural networks just reuire a higher likleyhood of one correlation to develop strong biases. Further, when contradictions are perceived the network will start trying to correlate other factors into the causation, i.e. crying when mom vs dad is around.

[dan012345]

@michalchik Thank you for the reply, I can see how that would work.

[kenenth84]

New study shows that chicken come first since the materials from the egg only can be found in Chicken's overy. Thus, if Egg contain Materials inside Chicken, Chicken must cause the Egg. Question is, What cause the first chicken? Evolution?

[michalchik]

Nothing has a single cause. To create an apple pie from scratch you need to create a universe like ours. There is no need to be a first cause, the universe could be infinitely old. A universe that goes through a point of complete indeterminacy can exist without a cause also.

[TheRugbyidiot]

@michalchik If the universe is infinitely old and has no first cause (as I think you are saying); then the universe is ultimately unintelligible. In other words, nothing can be completely known about the universe since the answer is an infinite regression in causes. This means that ultimately, truth itself only exits as an infinite regression in causes. Therefore, the truth as we know it conventioneally does not exist. In order for truth to exist, a singular cause of the truth must exist.

[michalchik]

@TheRugbyidiot Even if your reasoning is correct, there is no reason to believe that an absolute truth must exist. In fact, It does not. There is no absolute position or velocity, only relative velocity. Even these relative characteristics can not exist more exactly than planks units. Godel showed that in mathematics and most formal systems of use, there are statements that can not be true or false.

[TheRugbyidiot]

@michalchik Just because statements can exist that are neither true nor false does not mean that truth does not exist absolutely. Also, your statement with regard to the existence of absolute truth; "if fact it does not" is itself a truth statement about abosulte truth not existing. If absolute truth does not exist, then nothing can be said or thought to be true, even the non-existence of truth. Your logic here is contradictory.

[michalchik]

@TheRugbyidiot We have nothing but statements to describe the universe. Things can be relatively, proximally or contextually true. You are creating a false dichotomy. A bit like saying an object is moving or it is not without taking into account who is observing it.. Reality just is. Truth is a mundane concept that may not be applicable once we leave the realm of ordinary human affairs. It has a lot of emotional resonance for us, but that does not mean that it has universal significance.

[nahzrat]

@TheRugbyidiot This argument doesn't work at all. The statement "My cup is on the table" doesn't in any way require a singluar cause as a truth-origin. Propositions are only true or false in relation to other porpositions. All that's required to know the truth-value of "My cup is on the table" are concepts such as ownership (something belongs to me), cup (the object that I own), on (the idea that describes a spacial relationship between objects), and table (a specific kind of object).

[TheMichlink]

@michalchik yes I would agree with you that it's possible for a universe to exist without a cause. However, if universes has no cause then it simply exist. This also leads to a proposition that all things (plants, animals, humans, etc exists) has no cause. Therefore, we are immortals, which is absurd. Since we have ideas of death or ideas of mortality we could conclude that we are mortals and have a causal existence. Thus, also the same with the causal existence of the universe. :D

[michalchik]

@TheMichlink Interesting perspectives that are making me think, but I see several problems. The components of a thing do not necessarily share all its properties. Acausal genesis is another alternative to eternal existence. There is no reason to think that something that is a causal is immortal.

[TheMichlink]

@michalchik I am basing my argument from the causal perspective. All that moves are caused by something or someone that causes. However, this is problematic to some people because of the regress, which is reasonable. Therefore there must be something or someone "the uncause that causes". It is absurd to think that universe has no cause because it seems we are living in a world which almost everything are series of causes.

[michalchik]

@TheMichlink The claim that everything has a cause because everything we know about has a cause is inductive leap and factually wrong. We have empirically determined (trumps any argument) that at the level of planks constant physical phenomena are acausal though stochastically predictable. Mortal beings and natural forces clearly can create mortal beings. The former we do all the time. Once again, the part does not have all the properties of the whole so it does not follow we are immortal.

[TheMichlink]

@michalchik Only an immortal being can create mortal being. Only the uncaused can cause the things that causes and so on. Since we are part of the whole universal system that would imply that we are not cause by something or someone and therefore, we are immortals which is absurd.

[chriscannotbecool]

@michalchik things can happen without a cause? I need more evidence to believe this.

[michalchik]

@chriscannotbecool It is very good that you question this. This idea seemed like nonsense to me until I seriously started to study quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, multiple experiments have proven that at very small scales the properties of reality are undefined and then randomly come into and out of existence. Even hard vacuums lacking all matter and energy are a boiling sea of things popping in and out of existence. I don't have enough space to explain the experiments.

[CurryCobra]

@michalchik it cannot be infinite, there would be infinite time between now and a point. Think of dominoes, if we are a certain point, time must traverse an infinite number to arrive at our point which is impossible. It would never arrive.

[michalchik]

@CurryCobra "there would be infinite time between now and a point" Between now and what point? The start? This is tricky stuff. You are making a common mistake with infinity and thinking of it as if it has a beginning. Claiming that it takes an infinite amount of time to get here rests on the assumption that it has a start. An infinite time scape just IS. All points on it are real. It is time itself so it does not have to traverse time to now. Pass present and future just are.

[CurryCobra]

@michalchik I realize it cannot have a start if it is infinity, I cant quite articulate that as I wanted though. :/

[michalchik]

@CurryCobra I understand your frustration. English doesn't capture these issues very well. That is mainly because our intuition doesn't. Think about what I said an then consider that the time line does not exist in time. Also consider that there is no point on the line that is not a finite distance from any other point. It is really not any different from the fact that we can never reach the end of time, it is just that we are used to time going one way.

[michalchik]

@ORAKAR You are right, this is weak on several counts. I don't know Hume well, but I see many areas in my sphere of knowledge that just are off.

[Winchesterjournalism]

You are right - Deism is the correct term for Newton, I was digressing in my talk and it is a slip of the tongue, so many thanks for correcting that.

[ORAKAR]

When he's discussing the 'prime mover' he means the 'cosmological argument' not the 'ontological argument' (which is an a priori argument about God being maximally great)

[winolnews]

a good point but both propositions have to be rejected as scientific because both fail the verification AND falsification tests. It might be possible to conduct an experiment whereby you observe a billion gestations of crocodile eggs awaiting the random mutation towards a chicken. That's not very practical. But by analogy you can do this with fruit flies, which I think have thousands of generations in a year - genetic mutation/adaption is observable. The theory is inductive requires verification

[mrjoeawesome23]

In the theory of evolution, the egg caused the chicken because the chicken would have evolved from another animal so the egg would have came from another animal. If you believe in god though, the chicken would have came first because god created it.

[IcedPhoenix666]

@mrjoeawesome23 Well, technically, the first organisms to appear on the Earth did not propagate by eggs...

[michalchik]

@mrjoeawesome23 Yep, unless you are talking about a chicken egg. Remember a chicken is just an eggs way of making more eggs.