Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'causality'.
Found 2 results
David Harriman mentioned pilot-wave theory in his series "Philosophic Corruption of Physics" For those who are interested in a conceptual look at how the randomness of quantum mechanics could be explained causally: It's a very positive sign to see mainstream science considering causality as viable again. This is my favourite theory of quantum mechanics for the simple reason that in my mind it's the ONLY theory of quantum mechanics. It's probably no deep philosophical shift, but I guess that after half a century of non-theories, physicists are getting bored enough to try something else.
Law of causality: Why must a non-conscious entity only have one possible action in any given circumstances?
Neo-Aristotelian posted a topic in 1 - MetaphysicsI agree that causality is derived from entities and not linked by events (this mistake led to Hume's skepticism of causality). However, I disagree with what Peikoff said in OPAR: In other words, the possible number of actions of non-conscious entities—to not contradict Objectivism's tenet that human beings are capable of choice between multiple possible actions, I've taken the liberty to specify non-conscious entities—is necessarily one in any given circumstances. How is this validated? I would think that to know how many actions are possible for any entity, conscious or non-conscious, comes much later after discovering these basic axioms/corollaries; it requires study of that entity, and that study requires an accumulation of advanced knowledge. If we can't be certain of how many actions are possible for non-conscious entities in any given circumstances, are there any negative implications that would prevent us from later discovering the answer? An interesting rebuttal is that if there are multiple possible actions in any given circumstances, the entity must choose among these actions; thus, multiple possible actions are only available for conscious entities because it's consciousness that produces multiple possible actions. An example of such entities are human beings, but even I doubt that (see my thread on free will). However, such multiple actions of non-conscious entities can be explained by randomness (e.g. quantum randomness). I know it's said that randomness is actually a limitation in knowledge, but that presupposes that non-conscious entities are limited to one action in any given circumstances. So to maintain this in light of this presupposition is circular.