Re: "It's a causal world."

[John Kineman <***>]

Howard,

Your points are good, in my estimation, but cheapened by labeling some
ideas in science as "anthropomorphic metaphores" while implying that
others, which are equally subject to the limitations you describe, are
somehow better than that. The pejorative labels don't say why you think
they are better. Can you kindly point out any concept in science that is
not an "anthropomorphic metaphore?" It would have to be a concept held
by another species, would it not?
JK

Howard Pattee wrote:

> 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