And now for something completely different...
Have you ever considered the question of whether everything needs a cause or reason? A lot of scientific method relies upon the assumption of cause and effect, and subsequent inductions are made. And the argument of "Sufficient Reason" assumes that the world, composed of contingent objects which have an external cause, must have some being or event which is the reason of itself, not consequential of a contingent other. It concludes the existence of a 'necessary being'.
On the other hand, it's been suggested that perhaps events merely occur in 'causal chains', whereby the first cause in the chain has no antecedant cause. In these cases of first cause, it would seem to suggest that there is room for chance (something happening without cause). Take the quantum transition of atoms, for example.
So what do you think? Is there true chance in the world, or is it just our lack of knowledge that leads us to appeal to chance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Something that has come about from my wider reading of the issues concerning global warming and climate change of late, is that we all too often discount the possibility of cybernetic systems. They are systems of multiple variables, sometimes hundreds or thousands (possibly in the realm of billions when it comes to the global climate), wherein seemingly small changes affect other variables in seemingly small ways, which in turn... and so on. The idea is , the logic of it is not cause-effect, it is most often circular. Some processes produce effects that feed back into the same process. These are called feedback loops, funnily enough. Positive feedback loops are systems like reflectivity of ice and the radiation from the sun. As the climate warms, ice melts and becomes warmer, thus absorbing more solar radiation, thus increasing the rate at which the climate warms, thus increasing the rate at which the ice melts, and so on.
I personally really really dig the realisation in the scientific community that cause-effect isn't the sole means of explaining reality.
It's an interesting point you make. I also feel that cause and effect can be an over-simplified process, and that the inductive method is not altogether rational.
Of course, in your example of climate change, it might be claimed that there was originally a first cause (water vapour, co2) to set off the feedback loop. Your point also raises the more ominous possibility that an irreversible feedback loop may have been set in motion.
Post a Comment