Why Identity Does Not Entail Causality

Why "A=A," does not mean "cause causes effect."

James Stillwell's channel: www.youtube.com/user/OpenAirAtheist

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Identity
• quantum uncertainty
• b-theory of time
• a-theory of time
• determinism
• indeterminism
• philosophy of time

[ErebusGodOvDarkness]

Will closed time like curves still be possible in something like LQG after the continuous space has been removed?

[JohananRaatz]

@ErebusGodOvDarkness Well I don't see why it shouldn't be. Granted it may be that some unanticipated detail of QG will prevent time travel, though I don't see a reason to expect that either. It may just break down CTC's into pixels as well, but preserve the same basic structure.

[JohananRaatz]

@OpenAirAtheist "you may know a bit of QM but you're not philosopher"

Well I did minor in philosophy.

"first assuming determinism/cause and effect."

Ok, I see what you're getting at. The thing here though is that QM is indeterminate, but it's measure of randomness is still exactly mathematically described. So while it's indeterminate, not just anything can come from that. The randomness is truly random, but is still based on a deeper level of non-random mathematical order.

[JohananRaatz]

@OpenAirAtheist 1.) My apologies. I was assuming that was "the" (the main anyway) argument. What was your argument then?

"always be searching for a cause, but not find one"

&

"haven't found a cause then you are arguing from ignorance"

But what if the converse is shown? -that a cause can't be found because it is shown that any possible cause has been ruled out? (aka Bell's theorem). You can adopt non-local hidden variables, but that doesn't fit with realism&materialism.

[JohananRaatz]

@hippo11222 Yes. According to the MWI I could in theory ask him "which future?"

[hippo11222]

@JohananRaatz

"All probability means is that one lacks knowledge of the future." -OpenAirAtheist

He's clearly assuming determinism right off the bat, which is begging the question.

[hippo11222]

@TheFunkyTheist If God is truly transcendent, then his sovereignty is so absolute that it could not even be properly called determinism. It would be beyond such a label. Anyone espousing the views of either the open theist or determinist is in my opinion bringing God down to their level, so that they can put him in a tight little box, in order to understand the nature of his providence better. Surly ifGod is God then nothing could be so foolhardy.

[hippo11222]

@TheFunkyTheist God or you? Me thinks someone is setting up a false dichotomy. The view that we could even function independent of God is nonsense anyway, but this does not imply determinism. Surely this is a mistaken inference based on a linear and un- dynamic view of causality. *sigh*

[hippo11222]

@JohananRaatz An indeterminist believes that potentials have an ontological reality to them and that they are more then just a conceptual device. This has become the predominant view as the classical determinism of Newton's time was rendered obsolete.

[hippo11222]

@JohananRaatz Makes me question if he knows what determinism entails. Based on what I'm getting from him, he seems to think that Determinism=Causality and that Indeterminism=No Causality. This is not what each entails. To be a true determinist, you would have to deny the ontic reality of potentials. To someone like that, possibility is just a conceptual device we use because we lack knowledge of all the essential variables that go into the system. A indeterminist does not deny causality.