A Metaphysical Theory of Causation

1
A Metaphysical Theory of Causation

• Daniel von Wachter
• http//daniel.von-wachter.de

2
What is the philosophical problem of causation?

• Is it about the concept of causation?
• Humeans are concerned with the concept of
  causation
• counterfactual analysis of the concept of
  causation
• Can causal statements be replaced or paraphrased
  by some other statements?
• Or is it about causation?

3
The semantical vs the metaphysical problem

• Semantical q. Can statements of the type A
  caused B be replaced by certain other
  statements?
• Metaphysical q. What in reality makes causal
  claims true? What in reality do we refer to in
  causal claims?
• Plan criticise the Humean line of thought and
  say how it is about the semantic qpresent a
  metaphysical theory of causation.

4
The Humean theory of causation

• Disclaimer exegetes debate whether Hume really
  held this view denying causal connexions. (But
  cf. David Lewis)
• A caused B iff A was followed by B and if events
  like A on all other occasions were and will be
  followed by events like B.
• There are no causal connexions.
• This theory seems false because, e.g., the
  falling of barometers is regularly followed by
  bad weather, but the falling of barometers
  usually does not cause bad weather.
• This theory seems false because there seem to be
  causal connexions.

5
The Humean line of thought

• The origin of ideas All our concepts are
  copies of sense impressions or are composed of
  such concepts. (HGC)
• Humes philosophical method for all
  philosophical terms we must ask from what
  impression is that supposed idea derived.
• We have no sense impressions of causal
  connexions. We never observe anything like
  power, force, energy, or necessary connexion.
  (HOC) (cf. Al-Ghazali Malebranche)
• If we could discover a connexion in a cause we
  could foresee the effect with certainty and
  just by reasoning.

6
Humean line of thought (cont)

• It follows from HGC and HOC that we have no idea
  of connexion or power at all, and that these
  words are absolutely without any meaning
• So why do we apparently have the concept of a
  connexion?
• It arises because when we observe A-events often
  being followed by B-events we become accustomed
  to expect A-events to be followed by B-events and
  we being to feel a connexion between A-events
  and B-events

7
Objection 1 contra Humeans

• Hume (or Pseudo-Hume) uses the wrong method for
  finding the meaning of a term.
• What one means with a certain expression is best
  discovered simply by thinking hard and by trying
  to spell out the thought more clearly and by
  considering paradigm examples.
• If one is not aware of the meaning of a term one
  cannot even begin to look for the corresponding
  sense impressions.

8
Objection 2 contra Hume

• Humeans often seem to hold that insofar as the by
  arguing that causal talk can be replaced by talk
  about regularities they have defended that there
  are no causal connexions.
• The transition from the claim that the idea of a
  connexion is not part of the idea of a cause to
  the claim that there are no causal connexions is
  illegitimate.
• It may be that causal claims can be replaced by
  other claims, but that there causal connexions
  which make true the causal claims as well as
  their substitutes.

9
Objection 3 contra Hume

• The Humean method is not the right one for
  finding out whether there are causal connexions.
• In order to find out whether there are Xs (e.g.
  luminupherous ether) one does not need a theory
  about our concept of X.
• In order to find out whether there are causal
  connexions we have to consider
• whether things are as we should expect them to be
  on the assumption that there are causal
  connexions, and
• how likely it is that things would be as they are
  on the assumption that there are no causal
  connexions.
• The metaphysicians anti-semanticist creed

10
Humeans

• Humeans seem to be concerned with the concept of
  causation.
• David Lewis seems to be concerned with the
  concept of causation..
• Humean theories may have some plausibility if
  taken as theories about the concept of causation,
  but not as theories of causation.
• Now comes a metaphysical theory.

11
A metaphysical consideration

• Consider a universe, U, that is quite like ours
  but consists just of two rocks slowly moving away
  from each other at time t...
• What will be after t, say at t2?
• What could there be after t?
• How is U likely to carry on after t? Are all
  possible ways of carrying on equally likely?
• Why not? (And why can we predict successfully?)
• Al-Ghazalis (1058-1111) answer occasionalism

12
Tendency theory

• There was at t a tendency towards there being at
  t2 two rocks at certain positions.
• There are not only tendencies concerning a whole
  universe but also parts of it (states of
  affairs). (E.g. planets, gravity.)
• What tendency there is at t depends on what is
  the case at t that there are two stones, etc.
• For the obtaining of a tendency certain things
  are relevant, others are not. A tendency is based
  on a state of affairs. Example two planets,
  gravity.

13
Tendency theory (cont)

• By a state of affairs I mean a thing having a
  certain property. Referred to by specifying time,
  thing, and property. That apple (with all its
  properties, now) is a state of affairs too.
• By a state of affairs I do not mean a meaning
  entity, proposition, etc. (What does Mellor mean
  by fact?)
• By a state of affairs I mean the same as by an
  event.
• State of affairs A at t1 was basis of tendency T
  towards B at t2.

14
Tendency theory (cont)

• The tendency was realized the world carried on
  according to the tendency so that B occurred. The
  tendency led to B.
• A causal process is a continuous series of states
  of affairs each of which is basis of a tendency
  towards a later one.
• Of two events in the same causal process I say
  that they are causally connected.
• Two tendencies that are towards incompatible
  states of affairs are conflicting. Either one
  overrides the other, or they form together a
  resulting tendency. Processes can intersect.
• Total tendency.

15
Tendencies and causation

• State of affairs A(t1) caused B(t2) iff A was the
  basis (or a part thereof) of a tendency towards B
  (or a part thereof), and the tendency was
  realised.
• Or A caused B iff A was a constituent of a
  process of which B was a later constituent.
• So where there is causation there are tendencies,
  but not every tendency gives rise to causation.
  Cause is a success-term.
• I only speak about singular causation. We also
  say things like Smoking causes cancer, which is
  only true if some peoples smoking causes them to
  have cancer.

16
Deterministic vs indeterministic

• A deterministic tendency is one for which it is
  impossible that it is not realized unless
  something intervenes.
• An indeterministic tendency is one for which it
  is possible that it is not realised even if
  nothing intervenes.
• This diverges from the common understanding of
  determinism but yields an adequate conception
  of deterministic laws.
• Causes are never (nearly) sufficient for their
  effects.

17
Newtonian forces

• Forces are a kind of tendencies tendencies that
  concern the spatial position of something. E.g.
  gravity.
• This gives us the link between forces and
  causation, and it takes into account that forces
  may not yield actual results.

18
Concluding remark

• The tendency theory attempts to describe the
  truthmakers of causal claims.
• I do not claim that there is a conceptual
  equivalence between A caused B and A was
  basis of a tendency that led to B.

19
5. Juli 2004

• Nachtrag zum Determinismus
• Die Herausforderung der Quantenphysik
• Evaluierungsfragebögen

20
Laplacescher Determinismus

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

21
Laplacescher Determinismus

• M.a.W. Jedes Ereignis hat eine vorangehende
  (vollständige, hinreichende) Ursache
• Jedes Ereignis ist Ergebnis eines
  nicht-zufälligen Prozesses.
• Daraus folgt kein Ereignis ist geschehen durch
• Entscheidung eines freien Handelnden
• durch einen Poltergeist
• durch einen Eingriff Gottes, etc.

22
Variationen von Determinismus

• Zwei Arten von Definitionen
• Def mit Bezug darauf, wie alle Ereignisse
  zustande kommen
• Sind alle Ereignisse Ergebnis von
  (nicht-zufälligen) Prozessen?
• Schließt Wunder aus
• Def mit Bezug darauf, was für Tendenzen alle
  (physischen?) Ereignisse begründen.
• Gibt es zufällige Prozesse, z.B. beim Zerfall von
  Atomen?
• Sind also alle Theorien wie die Newtonsche
  Bewegungstheorie?

23
Starker Determinismus

• Every state of the world is the result of any
  deterministic tendency whose basis is, according
  to unchanging laws, an earlier state of the
  world.
• Wäre ein Begriff von Determinismus, der nicht
  einen eingreifenden Gott ausschließt?
• Was für Evidenz gibt es? Welche Form von
  Determinismus stützt sie?
• Gibt es Argumente für den Determinismus, die auch
  zeigen, daß es keinen eingreifenden Gott gibt?
• Alternative Definiere Determinismus so, daß
  nur auf dem Spiel steht, ob es indeterministische
  Prozesse gibt.

24
Schwacher Determinismus

• Every state of the world is, according to laws,
  basis of a deterministic tendency towards states
  of the world at every later time.
• Newtonsche Systeme sind i.d.S. deterministisch.
• Schließt indeterministische Prozesse aus.
• Ist eine These über die Naturgesetze
• Schließt nicht aus Eingreifen Gottes, Beginn von
  Prozessen durch Handlungen.
• Vorteil Die Verteidigung des schw.D. bedarf
  keiner Argumente gegen die Existenz Gottes,
  freien Willen, etc.
• Basis Region kann eingeschränkt werden.