Re: "It's a causal world."

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith writes:
I don't see "causality" as being metaphorical in the slightest. I think ordinary logic 
and common sense dictate that my father's parental statement to us growing up ("It's a 
causal world, kid.") was right on the money. The whole notion of "consequences" is built 
on the simple fact that one thing leads to another, either directly or indirectly, in 
this universe.

HP: The idea that ?one thing leads to another? is the linear deterministic Newtonian 
paradigm that I agree is still soundly established in our culture. Modern physics 
recognizes that there is no ?one thing? that causes anything. There are only infinite 
configurations from which we can choose to observe finite aspects that we can compress in 
our mathematical models we call laws. All we know objectively is that the behavior of the 
model in some way parallels our observations. Beyond this objective behavior the 
Aristotelian causes are anthropomorphic metaphors that are transferred from how we think 
about human or divine intentionality.

Every child at some stage of development learns that asking, ?Why?? is an infinite 
regress and a good way to get attention. Every parent learns there is no answer and to 
finally says, ?Because that?s the way nature, or God, works. A smart kid will still ask, 
?Why does nature work that way??

Judith: Human senses and intelligence are built around this fact and have incorporated it 
into nearly every aspect of how our minds process sensory input. The fact that we are now 
rather overpopulated tends to prove that there is a survival benefit to the way our minds 
work-- in other words, we're successfully using those tools to manipulate our survival 
chances.

HP: It is true that the human senses are built around, not this fact, but this metaphor. 
We cannot think or talk without metaphors. I would say that the fact we are overpopulated 
is not a good example of objective success of a causal model. I think it will be 
civilization?s downfall.

Judith: In one of the presentations I attended of my father's-- I can't remember if it 
was in Linz, Austria or Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA)... but he was talking about the limits 
and the goals of science... and he said, "We all have to agree on two things: First, that 
there are consistent causal pathways in all phenomena in the natural world and Second, 
that our minds and senses are capable of perceiving and interpreting meaningful 
information about these causal pathways. If either of these two things are not true, then 
we can all go home."

HP: Of course I agree there are useful models of the natural world, but I would say that 
only the simplest, usually artificial, models are viewed as linear causal pathways. The 
real world is more like a network of forces all interacting at once in which no isolated 
causal path makes sense. As an exercise, try thinking of an event that can be fully 
explained by only one proximate cause or even a chain of causes.

Howard