A universe without a completely causal structure would have to have a number of effects that have no cause. (This need not apply to all effects in this universe, merely to a subset of effects). The Steady-state universe, a now abandoned alternative to the Big-bang model, may be an example; in the steady-state universe, if I remember correctly, it was theorised that small bits of matter (hydrogen molecules) appeared out of nowhere at random times, at a very low rate. This is an example of an effect without a cause.
Alternatively; consider a universe where a man suddenly appears out of nowhere in the middle of a public area. He claims to be a time traveller, from fifty years in the future, coming back in time to prevent some terrible disaster. Though his story is unbelievable, the disaster he predicts is prevented. Fifty years pass, and the time traveller is not sent back to the past (since the disaster was, after all, prevented). This does not cause a paradox (the laws of this universe are that matter can appear at any time, in any arrangement, including a person with false memories of time time travel from a non-existant future) Such a potential universe thus has an effect (the man appears) without a cause.
The examples don’t quite work. In that steady-state universe, the appearing matter subsequently interacts and so is causally connected to the rest of the universe. You just have to trace the connections backwards, and eventually you reach a stopping point. Similarly with the false time traveler: he causally affected the world, so he’s clearly part of a chain of causes and effects.
It’s a separate question to ask whether everything has a causal in-connection and a causal out-connection. Both your examples, and epiphenomal theories of mind, are meaningfully about unidirectional causal links.
Hmmm. I had been trying to consider the case where some events have no causes. Now, you’re pointing out—as I understand your argument, and please correct me if I am wrong—that the same event can be a cause, and therefore that it is a part of an interconnected causal universe.
This is an interesting argument. If I notice the existance of something, then that is a causal relationship; it exists, and this causes me to notice it by some means. Therefore, anything that I observe shares a causal relationship with the fact of its observation; if that is enough to consider it part of a causal universe, then I can only observe a causal universe. I cannot imagine anything that I cannot, by definition, observe in any manner (including by any deduction) constraining my experience.
On the other hand, I can (at least in certain imagined universes) observe effects without causes; I can observe the time traveller appearing for absolutely no reason.
I had assumed the question was “a universe where an event can have out-connection but not in-connection” (and the consciousness one was about having an in-connection but no out-connection).
In a universe with NO connections, you wouldn’t get patterns, much less emergent patterns—no atoms, no stars, no planets, no life, not even internet!
Multiple segregated causal networks would be multiple realities (I think the simplest reference would be to think about two different books or virtual worlds, although there’s actually still some connection there)
Individual events which have out-connections but not in-connections, by contrast, seems like a fairly interesting question to explore. Why DO we assume that all evens have in-connections? Why not just assume the weather is because Zeus is mad, and Zeus’ emotions are beyond the ken of mortal minds?
Individual events which have out-connections but not in-connections, by contrast, seems like a fairly interesting question to explore. Why DO we assume that all evens have in-connections?
Not all, the past doesn’t have in-connections and the future doesn’t have out-connections.
Can you explain what you mean by that? I tend to model past events as having even-further-past causes. I definitely model future events as having even-farther-future ramifications. So they’d seem to generally have both in and out.
Yes, to a limited extent I think I can.
A universe without a completely causal structure would have to have a number of effects that have no cause. (This need not apply to all effects in this universe, merely to a subset of effects). The Steady-state universe, a now abandoned alternative to the Big-bang model, may be an example; in the steady-state universe, if I remember correctly, it was theorised that small bits of matter (hydrogen molecules) appeared out of nowhere at random times, at a very low rate. This is an example of an effect without a cause.
Alternatively; consider a universe where a man suddenly appears out of nowhere in the middle of a public area. He claims to be a time traveller, from fifty years in the future, coming back in time to prevent some terrible disaster. Though his story is unbelievable, the disaster he predicts is prevented. Fifty years pass, and the time traveller is not sent back to the past (since the disaster was, after all, prevented). This does not cause a paradox (the laws of this universe are that matter can appear at any time, in any arrangement, including a person with false memories of time time travel from a non-existant future) Such a potential universe thus has an effect (the man appears) without a cause.
The examples don’t quite work. In that steady-state universe, the appearing matter subsequently interacts and so is causally connected to the rest of the universe. You just have to trace the connections backwards, and eventually you reach a stopping point. Similarly with the false time traveler: he causally affected the world, so he’s clearly part of a chain of causes and effects.
It’s a separate question to ask whether everything has a causal in-connection and a causal out-connection. Both your examples, and epiphenomal theories of mind, are meaningfully about unidirectional causal links.
Hmmm. I had been trying to consider the case where some events have no causes. Now, you’re pointing out—as I understand your argument, and please correct me if I am wrong—that the same event can be a cause, and therefore that it is a part of an interconnected causal universe.
This is an interesting argument. If I notice the existance of something, then that is a causal relationship; it exists, and this causes me to notice it by some means. Therefore, anything that I observe shares a causal relationship with the fact of its observation; if that is enough to consider it part of a causal universe, then I can only observe a causal universe. I cannot imagine anything that I cannot, by definition, observe in any manner (including by any deduction) constraining my experience.
On the other hand, I can (at least in certain imagined universes) observe effects without causes; I can observe the time traveller appearing for absolutely no reason.
I had assumed the question was “a universe where an event can have out-connection but not in-connection” (and the consciousness one was about having an in-connection but no out-connection).
In a universe with NO connections, you wouldn’t get patterns, much less emergent patterns—no atoms, no stars, no planets, no life, not even internet!
Multiple segregated causal networks would be multiple realities (I think the simplest reference would be to think about two different books or virtual worlds, although there’s actually still some connection there)
Individual events which have out-connections but not in-connections, by contrast, seems like a fairly interesting question to explore. Why DO we assume that all evens have in-connections? Why not just assume the weather is because Zeus is mad, and Zeus’ emotions are beyond the ken of mortal minds?
Not all, the past doesn’t have in-connections and the future doesn’t have out-connections.
Can you explain what you mean by that? I tend to model past events as having even-further-past causes. I definitely model future events as having even-farther-future ramifications. So they’d seem to generally have both in and out.
I was referring to the past (or future) as a whole.