A Metaphysical A Metaphysical Theory of CausationTheory of Causation

Daniel von WachterDaniel von Wachterhttp://daniel.von-wachter.dehttp://daniel.von-wachter.de

What is the philosophical What is the philosophical problem of causation?problem of causation?

Is it about the Is it about the concept concept of causation?of causation?• Humeans are concerned with the Humeans are concerned with the

conceptconcept of causation of causation• counterfactual analysis of the counterfactual analysis of the concept concept of of

causationcausation• Can causal statements be replaced or Can causal statements be replaced or

paraphrased by some other statements?paraphrased by some other statements? Or is it about Or is it about causation?causation?

The semantical vs the The semantical vs the metaphysical problemmetaphysical problem

SemanticalSemantical q.: Can statements of the type q.: Can statements of the type “A caused B” be replaced by certain other “A caused B” be replaced by certain other statements?statements?

MetaphysicalMetaphysical q.: What in reality makes q.: What in reality makes causal claims true? What in reality do we causal claims true? What in reality do we refer to in causal claims? refer to in causal claims?

Plan: criticise the Humean line of thought Plan: criticise the Humean line of thought and say how it is about the semantic q;and say how it is about the semantic q;present a metaphysical theory of present a metaphysical theory of causation.causation.

The Humean theory of The Humean theory of causationcausation

Disclaimer: exegetes debate whether Hume Disclaimer: exegetes debate whether Hume really held this view denying causal connexions. really held this view denying causal connexions. (But cf. David Lewis)(But cf. David Lewis)

A caused B iff A was followed by B and if events A caused B iff A was followed by B and if events like A on all other occasions were and will be like A on all other occasions were and will be followed by events like B.followed by events like B.

There are no causal connexions. There are no causal connexions. This theory seems false because, e.g., the This theory seems false because, e.g., the

falling of barometers is regularly followed by falling of barometers is regularly followed by bad weather, but the falling of barometers bad weather, but the falling of barometers usually does not cause bad weather. usually does not cause bad weather.

This theory seems false because there seem to This theory seems false because there seem to be causal connexions.be causal connexions.

The Humean line of thoughtThe Humean line of thought

““The origin of ideas”: All our concepts are copies The origin of ideas”: All our concepts are copies of sense impressions or are composed of such of sense impressions or are composed of such concepts. (HGC)concepts. (HGC)

Hume’s philosophical method: for all philosophical Hume’s philosophical method: for all philosophical terms we must ask terms we must ask “from what impression is that “from what impression is that supposed idea derived”.supposed idea derived”.

We have no sense impressions of causal We have no sense impressions of causal connexions. We never observe anything like connexions. We never observe anything like “power, force, energy, or necessary connexion”. “power, force, energy, or necessary connexion”. (HOC) (cf. Al-Ghazali; Malebranche)(HOC) (cf. Al-Ghazali; Malebranche)

If we could discover a connexion in a cause we If we could discover a connexion in a cause we could foresee the effect “with certainty” and just could foresee the effect “with certainty” and just “by reasoning”.“by reasoning”.

Humean line of thought (cont)Humean line of thought (cont)

It follows from HGC and HOC that “we have It follows from HGC and HOC that “we have no idea of connexion or power at all, and no idea of connexion or power at all, and that these words are absolutely without any that these words are absolutely without any meaning” meaning”

So why do we apparently have the concept So why do we apparently have the concept of a connexion? of a connexion?

It arises because when we observe A-events It arises because when we observe A-events often being followed by B-events we often being followed by B-events we become accustomed to expect A-events to become accustomed to expect A-events to be followed by B-events and we being to be followed by B-events and we being to “feel a connexion between A-events and B-“feel a connexion between A-events and B-events” events”

Objection 1 contra HumeansObjection 1 contra Humeans

Hume (or Pseudo-Hume) uses the wrong Hume (or Pseudo-Hume) uses the wrong method for finding the meaning of a term. method for finding the meaning of a term.

What one means with a certain expression What one means with a certain expression is best discovered simply by thinking hard is best discovered simply by thinking hard and by trying to spell out the thought and by trying to spell out the thought more clearly and by considering paradigm more clearly and by considering paradigm examples. examples.

If one is not aware of the meaning of a If one is not aware of the meaning of a term one cannot even begin to look for the term one cannot even begin to look for the corresponding sense impressions. corresponding sense impressions.

Objection 2 contra HumeObjection 2 contra Hume

Humeans often seem to hold that insofar as Humeans often seem to hold that insofar as the by arguing that causal talk can be the by arguing that causal talk can be replaced by talk about regularities they have replaced by talk about regularities they have defended that there are no causal connexions. defended that there are no causal connexions.

The transition from the claim that the idea of The transition from the claim that the idea of a connexion is not part of the idea of a cause a connexion is not part of the idea of a cause to the claim that there are no causal to the claim that there are no causal connexions is illegitimate. connexions is illegitimate.

It may be that causal claims can be replaced It may be that causal claims can be replaced by other claims, but that there causal by other claims, but that there causal connexions which make true the causal claims connexions which make true the causal claims as well as their substitutes. as well as their substitutes.

Objection 3 contra HumeObjection 3 contra Hume The Humean method is not the right one for The Humean method is not the right one for

finding out whether there are causal connexions. finding out whether there are causal connexions. In order to find out whether there are Xs (e.g. In order to find out whether there are Xs (e.g.

luminupherous ether) one does not need a luminupherous ether) one does not need a theory about our concept of X. theory about our concept of X.

In order to find out whether there are causal In order to find out whether there are causal connexions we have to consider connexions we have to consider • whether things are as we should expect them to be on whether things are as we should expect them to be on

the assumption that there are causal connexions, and the assumption that there are causal connexions, and • how likely it is that things would be as they are on the how likely it is that things would be as they are on the

assumption that there are no causal connexions. assumption that there are no causal connexions. • The metaphysician’s anti-semanticist creedThe metaphysician’s anti-semanticist creed

Humeans Humeans

Humeans seem to be concerned with the Humeans seem to be concerned with the conceptconcept of causation. of causation.

David Lewis seems to be concerned with David Lewis seems to be concerned with the the conceptconcept of causation.. of causation..

Humean theories may have some Humean theories may have some plausibility if taken as theories about the plausibility if taken as theories about the conceptconcept of causation, but not as theories of causation, but not as theories of causation.of causation.

Now comes a metaphysical theory. Now comes a metaphysical theory.

A metaphysical considerationA metaphysical consideration

Consider a universe, U, that is quite like Consider a universe, U, that is quite like ours but consists just of two rocks slowly ours but consists just of two rocks slowly moving away from each other at time t...moving away from each other at time t...

What will be after t, say at t2? What will be after t, say at t2? What could there be after t? What could there be after t? How is U likely to carry on after t? Are all How is U likely to carry on after t? Are all

possible ways of carrying on equally likely? possible ways of carrying on equally likely? Why not? (And why can we predict Why not? (And why can we predict

successfully?)successfully?) Al-Ghazali’s (1058-1111) answer: Al-Ghazali’s (1058-1111) answer:

occasionalismoccasionalism

Tendency theoryTendency theory

There was at t a There was at t a tendency tendency towards there towards there being at t2 two rocks at certain positions.being at t2 two rocks at certain positions.

There are not only tendencies concerning a There are not only tendencies concerning a whole universe but also parts of it (states of whole universe but also parts of it (states of affairs). (E.g. planets, gravity.) affairs). (E.g. planets, gravity.)

What tendency there is at t depends on what What tendency there is at t depends on what is the case at t: that there are two stones, is the case at t: that there are two stones, etc.etc.

For the obtaining of a tendency certain things For the obtaining of a tendency certain things are relevant, others are not. A tendency is are relevant, others are not. A tendency is basedbased on a on a state of affairsstate of affairs. Example: two . Example: two planets, gravity. planets, gravity.

Tendency theory (cont)Tendency theory (cont)

By a state of affairs I mean a thing having a By a state of affairs I mean a thing having a certain property. Referred to by specifying certain property. Referred to by specifying time, thing, and property. That apple (with all time, thing, and property. That apple (with all its properties, now) is a state of affairs too.its properties, now) is a state of affairs too.

By a state of affairs I do not mean a meaning By a state of affairs I do not mean a meaning entity, proposition, etc. (What does Mellor entity, proposition, etc. (What does Mellor mean by “fact”?)mean by “fact”?)

By a state of affairs I mean the same as by an By a state of affairs I mean the same as by an event. event.

State of affairs A at t1 was basis of tendency State of affairs A at t1 was basis of tendency T towards B at t2. T towards B at t2.

Tendency theory (cont)Tendency theory (cont) The tendency The tendency was realizedwas realized: the world carried on : the world carried on

according to the tendency so that B occurred. according to the tendency so that B occurred. The tendency The tendency led toled to B. B.

A A causal processcausal process is a continuous series of states is a continuous series of states of affairs each of which is basis of a tendency of affairs each of which is basis of a tendency towards a later one.towards a later one.

Of two events in the same causal process I say Of two events in the same causal process I say that they are that they are causally connected.causally connected.

Two tendencies that are towards incompatible Two tendencies that are towards incompatible states of affairs are states of affairs are conflictingconflicting. Either one . Either one overrides the other, or they form together a overrides the other, or they form together a resultingresulting tendency. Processes can tendency. Processes can intersect.intersect.

Total tendency.Total tendency.

Tendencies and causationTendencies and causation State of affairs A(t1) caused B(t2) iff A was the State of affairs A(t1) caused B(t2) iff A was the

basis (or a part thereof) of a tendency towards B basis (or a part thereof) of a tendency towards B (or a part thereof), and the tendency was (or a part thereof), and the tendency was realised.realised.

Or: A caused B iff A was a constituent of a process Or: A caused B iff A was a constituent of a process of which B was a later constituent.of which B was a later constituent.

So where there is causation there are tendencies, So where there is causation there are tendencies, but not every tendency gives rise to causation. but not every tendency gives rise to causation. “Cause” is a success-term. “Cause” is a success-term.

I only speak about I only speak about singular causationsingular causation. We also . We also say things like “Smoking causes cancer”, which is say things like “Smoking causes cancer”, which is only true if some people’s smoking causes them only true if some people’s smoking causes them to have cancer. to have cancer.

Deterministic vs indeterministicDeterministic vs indeterministic

A deterministic tendency is one for which it is A deterministic tendency is one for which it is impossible that it is not realized unless impossible that it is not realized unless something intervenes. something intervenes.

An indeterministic tendency is one for which An indeterministic tendency is one for which it is possible that it is not realised even if it is possible that it is not realised even if nothing intervenes. nothing intervenes.

This diverges from the common This diverges from the common understanding of “determinism” but yields an understanding of “determinism” but yields an adequate conception of “deterministic laws”. adequate conception of “deterministic laws”.

Causes are never (nearly) sufficient for their Causes are never (nearly) sufficient for their effects.effects.

Newtonian forcesNewtonian forces

Forces are a kind of tendencies: Forces are a kind of tendencies: tendencies that concern the spatial tendencies that concern the spatial position of something. E.g. gravity. position of something. E.g. gravity.

This gives us the link between forces This gives us the link between forces and causation, and it takes into and causation, and it takes into account that forces may not yield account that forces may not yield actual results. actual results.

Concluding remarkConcluding remark

The tendency theory attempts to The tendency theory attempts to describe the truthmakers of causal describe the truthmakers of causal claims. claims.

I do not claim that there is a I do not claim that there is a conceptual equivalence between “A conceptual equivalence between “A caused B” and caused B” and “A was basis of a tendency that led “A was basis of a tendency that led to B”.to B”.

5. Juli 20045. Juli 2004

Nachtrag zum DeterminismusNachtrag zum Determinismus „„Die Herausforderung der Die Herausforderung der

Quantenphysik“Quantenphysik“ EvaluierungsfragebögenEvaluierungsfragebögen

Laplacescher DeterminismusLaplacescher Determinismus ““An intelligence knowing all the forces An intelligence knowing all the forces

acting in nature at a given instant, as well acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes.” the past would be present to its eyes.” (Laplace 1820, quoted in Earman 1986, 7)(Laplace 1820, quoted in Earman 1986, 7)

Laplacescher DeterminismusLaplacescher Determinismus

M.a.W.: Jedes Ereignis hat eine M.a.W.: Jedes Ereignis hat eine vorangehende (vollständige, vorangehende (vollständige, “hinreichende”) Ursache“hinreichende”) Ursache

Jedes Ereignis ist Ergebnis eines nicht-Jedes Ereignis ist Ergebnis eines nicht-zufälligen Prozesses.zufälligen Prozesses.

Daraus folgt: kein Ereignis ist geschehen Daraus folgt: kein Ereignis ist geschehen durch: durch: • Entscheidung eines freien Handelnden Entscheidung eines freien Handelnden • durch einen Poltergeistdurch einen Poltergeist• durch einen Eingriff Gottes, etc. durch einen Eingriff Gottes, etc.

Variationen von „Determinismus“Variationen von „Determinismus“

Zwei Arten von DefinitionenZwei Arten von Definitionen• Def mit Bezug darauf, wie alle Ereignisse Def mit Bezug darauf, wie alle Ereignisse

zustande kommenzustande kommen Sind alle Ereignisse Ergebnis von (nicht-zufälligen) Sind alle Ereignisse Ergebnis von (nicht-zufälligen)

Prozessen?Prozessen? Schließt Wunder ausSchließt Wunder aus

• Def mit Bezug darauf, was für Tendenzen alle Def mit Bezug darauf, was für Tendenzen alle (physischen?) Ereignisse begründen. (physischen?) Ereignisse begründen.

Gibt es zufällige Prozesse, z.B. beim Zerfall von Gibt es zufällige Prozesse, z.B. beim Zerfall von Atomen? Atomen?

Sind also alle Theorien wie die Newtonsche Sind also alle Theorien wie die Newtonsche Bewegungstheorie? Bewegungstheorie?

Starker DeterminismusStarker Determinismus Every state of the world is the result of any Every state of the world is the result of any

deterministic tendency whose basis is, deterministic tendency whose basis is, according to unchanging laws, an earlier according to unchanging laws, an earlier state of the world.state of the world.• Wäre ein Begriff von „Determinismus“, der Wäre ein Begriff von „Determinismus“, der

nicht einen eingreifenden Gott ausschließt? nicht einen eingreifenden Gott ausschließt? • Was für Evidenz gibt es? Welche Form von Was für Evidenz gibt es? Welche Form von

Determinismus stützt sie? Determinismus stützt sie? Gibt es Argumente für den Determinismus, die auch Gibt es Argumente für den Determinismus, die auch

zeigen, daß es keinen eingreifenden Gott gibt? zeigen, daß es keinen eingreifenden Gott gibt? • Alternative: Definiere „Determinismus“ so, daß Alternative: Definiere „Determinismus“ so, daß

nur auf dem Spiel steht, ob es nur auf dem Spiel steht, ob es indeterministische Prozesse gibt. indeterministische Prozesse gibt.

Schwacher DeterminismusSchwacher Determinismus Every state of the world is, according to Every state of the world is, according to

laws, basis of a deterministic tendency laws, basis of a deterministic tendency towards states of the world at every later towards states of the world at every later time.time.• Newtonsche Systeme sind i.d.S. Newtonsche Systeme sind i.d.S.

deterministisch. deterministisch. • Schließt „indeterministische“ Prozesse aus.Schließt „indeterministische“ Prozesse aus.• Ist eine These über die NaturgesetzeIst eine These über die Naturgesetze• Schließt nicht aus: Eingreifen Gottes, Beginn Schließt nicht aus: Eingreifen Gottes, Beginn

von Prozessen durch Handlungen.von Prozessen durch Handlungen. Vorteil: Die Verteidigung des schw.D. bedarf keiner Vorteil: Die Verteidigung des schw.D. bedarf keiner

Argumente gegen die Existenz Gottes, freien Willen, Argumente gegen die Existenz Gottes, freien Willen, etc. etc.

• Basis Region kann eingeschränkt werden.Basis Region kann eingeschränkt werden.