What is Causation? | Episode 1511 | Closer To Truth

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
  • Why does one thing ‘cause’ another thing? Is causation fundamental, primitive, real-not reducible to, or explainable by, anything else? Or is causation a human construct, derivative, artificial? At stake is what existence is about. Featuring interviews with Simon Blackburn, Richard Swinburne, Robin Le Poidevin, Huw Price, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
    Season 15, Episode 11 - #CloserToTruth
    ▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
    Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
    ▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
    Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
    #Causation #Existence

КОМЕНТАРІ • 612

  • @jackrabbitism
    @jackrabbitism 3 роки тому +153

    There isn’t really any other series like this. It is an endlessly thought provoking series. It’s very special.

    • @ShowUsTruth
      @ShowUsTruth 3 роки тому +5

      This is the kind which respect the audience minds

    • @koolzjackz8401
      @koolzjackz8401 3 роки тому +7

      It's in large part to Roberts interviewing skills. He asked such profound questions and has stood toe to toe with...... Everyone. Super inquisitive conversation from Robert. The guy just never disappoints.

    • @seanleith5312
      @seanleith5312 3 роки тому +2

      What makes someone a philosopher is the ability to talk nonsense endlessly, while every sentence he says is neither obviously right nor wrong.

    • @brandoncrutchfield5201
      @brandoncrutchfield5201 2 роки тому +2

      I agree, this channel is so good. One thing I think makes it so good is Robert always asks really great questions

    • @bryanmc9174
      @bryanmc9174 2 роки тому +1

      I had this similar thought before reading this comment. This is a real public service in exposing people to these ideas.

  • @davidr1620
    @davidr1620 4 роки тому +177

    I've said this before on another one of his videos, but regardless of the wide varieties of disagreement on his videos, can we all agree that Kuhn is one hell of a host? The guy is so well read.

    • @johnbrzykcy3076
      @johnbrzykcy3076 4 роки тому

      Hey David... didn't Kuhn write a book himself?

    • @mikebell4649
      @mikebell4649 4 роки тому +5

      If he can stop using theistic opinions just to grab a wider audience he would be taken more seriously! He wants a big tent n sacrifices epistemology n truth

    • @mikebell4649
      @mikebell4649 4 роки тому

      Why dont u ask him to Demonstrate how he know ure god makes choices and who told him! Presuppositional !

    • @davidr1620
      @davidr1620 4 роки тому +22

      @@mikebell4649 Why would he and should he be so prejudicial in his investigation? Especially since a great number of modern philosophers are theists. I think getting a wide variety of opinions and considering them is a sign of intellectual maturity.
      And this is especially true given that Kuhn has stated on multiple occasions that the existence of God and the possibility of an afterlife is one of the subjects that troubles him most of all the deep questions.

    • @davidr1620
      @davidr1620 4 роки тому +3

      @@mikebell4649 ...what?

  • @nicoboer
    @nicoboer 4 роки тому +63

    I love the fact that "Closer to Truth" is provided freely on UA-cam (and without ADs).. the series brings up great questions that trigger more and more questions!!.. Curiosity is the base of learning, and to have this for free open doors for people to learn and ask more all around the world.
    The main problem is how to bring this kind of stuff to more people, a youtuber talking about whatever gets more views than these type of series.

    • @sirluoyi2853
      @sirluoyi2853 3 роки тому

      Join this WhatsApp group for Philosophical discussions...
      👇
      Link: chat.whatsapp.com/IibF9JUazRF9IExVk5Qmh1

    • @melgross
      @melgross 3 роки тому +2

      There are Ads now.

    • @canyoubeserious
      @canyoubeserious 2 роки тому +1

      Without ads? What? The way I’m watching they are relentlessly mercilessly appearing.

    • @l.h.308
      @l.h.308 Рік тому

      Adblock removes them! It's free (donations appreciated)

  • @vivekmg2300
    @vivekmg2300 3 роки тому +6

    closer to truth has become my bedtime story. I go to sleep listening to one of the videos

  • @paxdriver
    @paxdriver Рік тому +3

    If reality tv were replaced by Closer To Truth I don't think the world's politics would look anything like the circus we see today. This sort of programming is such an understated benefit to the species. Very work Dr Kuhn 👍

  • @maspoetry1
    @maspoetry1 3 роки тому +5

    the only fact this guy is a noble searcher makes me smile for him. great person

  • @mentuemhet
    @mentuemhet 4 роки тому +76

    i don't understand why your videos aren't getting millions of views.

    • @Bldyiii
      @Bldyiii 4 роки тому +6

      Doctor Who 2002 Cause & Effect. I drank too much wine, and now must take a piss.

    • @mentuemhet
      @mentuemhet 4 роки тому +1

      @@Bldyiii lol, the matrix 😁

    • @nastyHarry
      @nastyHarry 4 роки тому +14

      people would rather watch mindless entertainment like fat guys chugging 10 gallons of coke. Thinking is hard work

    • @lifeisshortpeace7783
      @lifeisshortpeace7783 4 роки тому +4

      Only those interested in ultimate truth will watch,but most people is interested satisfying their sensual needs.

    • @rogermouton2273
      @rogermouton2273 3 роки тому +6

      people en masse are insufficiently intelligent

  • @gustavodeoliveira702
    @gustavodeoliveira702 4 роки тому +51

    Extraordinary content! This is what UA-cam need.

    • @sirluoyi2853
      @sirluoyi2853 3 роки тому

      Join this WhatsApp group for Philosophical discussions...
      👇
      Link: chat.whatsapp.com/IibF9JUazRF9IExVk5Qmh1

    • @theclassicfan7002
      @theclassicfan7002 2 роки тому +1

      couldnt agree with u more

    • @gustavodeoliveira702
      @gustavodeoliveira702 2 роки тому

      @@sirluoyi2853 You still host a whatsapp group?

  • @DrGooseDuckman
    @DrGooseDuckman 2 роки тому +6

    New to this series and digging it. IMHO it's draw is it's genuine curiosity, and the excitement encircling it. That's really tough to fake. The host, ofc is a perfect conductor for all this.

  • @TheLlywelyn
    @TheLlywelyn 3 роки тому +1

    Firstly - taken together, Mr Kuhn, these many chapters of Closer to the Truth constitute one of the most profound philosophical explorations of our time (i actually can't think of a comparable work in print of this scope.) In pushing into some of the deepest questions of existence - you tease out and weave together connections across disciplines, across world views, across perspectives - and all the time simply exposing the competing threads to allow us to see how they lie. You respect those you interview, and you respect your listeners. You meet with great minds and ask many of the questions I want to ask, and so many more I wouldn't have thought to ask. (Secondly - am I the only one who is, of course, at once impressed by these great minds - but then equally surprised at how many demonstrate an underlying almost emotive commitment to their own presuppositions about reality by sometimes presenting as sureties the More Speculative Ideas (eg, multiverse, backwards causation) alongside those Things More Verified as if they are the same?

  • @SpittinSquirell
    @SpittinSquirell 3 роки тому +11

    I love this series but the more episodes I watch the more I realize that we actually know very little. There are very few absolute truths if any, and I wouldn't be surprised if in 300+ years people look back at our time and are amazed at what we believed and thought was true.

    • @donteatthepaint8412
      @donteatthepaint8412 2 роки тому +1

      Try 50.

    • @jakecostanza802
      @jakecostanza802 2 роки тому

      I have the same feeling when I hear songs from the 80's

    • @louisbullard6135
      @louisbullard6135 Рік тому +1

      Interesting and I mostly agree. I know most people think we will become increasingly advanced in the future but I often wonder could we regress. Could we lose even our current technology and have to start over. I am not sure I could start a fire without a match and that scares the hell out of me!!!

    • @deandsouza
      @deandsouza Рік тому

      I agree a bit. But these are deep questions and I feel that our understanding of the natural world has increased a lot since I was a kid.

  • @reason2463
    @reason2463 4 роки тому +18

    In 2001, I had a very real motor cycle accident. It resulted in some permanent damage to my right leg. Since then I am reminded every minute of my life that causation is very real indeed and not just a mental construct.

    • @kevinsayes
      @kevinsayes Рік тому +1

      Sorry about your leg, truly. But stating an example of exactly what is being debated doesn’t move the needle at all

    • @Littleprinceleon
      @Littleprinceleon Рік тому

      Sorry for that...
      Technically it was some specific chain of events (only part of what can be called "the accident") that lead to the damage.
      I hope that something could be learned from those events that helps others and also that you can still lead a life worthy to live.
      I have a HUGE RESPECT for each kind of activity that involves things faster than a fast ride on bicycle.
      We've been playing once with a cheap, very HARD frisbee, which was capable of flying rather long distances if thrown with enough POWER. It was me who threw it mostly along the lowest path possible, as that was the most efficient. For reasons, we stood on a hillside, and changed positions, so it wasn't trivial to find the best path.
      Once I threw it in such direction that a boy standing closer to me, than the intended "target", could intervene. So he attempted to catch the damn thing but it was SPINNING VERY VIGOROUSLY and since it was somewhat sharp at its circumference, he instantly pulled away his hand. That sturdy, energetic frisbee hit him right in the head and resulted in such a wound as if hit by a stone. So the cheerful game had an awfully BLOODY END.
      Of course this can't be compared to most of the traffic accidents. What I'd like to HIGHLIGHT is: I knew that frisbee the most, as it was mine and played with it a lot.
      I think most of the players realised it's unusually dangerous properties (I even urged them to be careful) but they had LIMITED EXPERIENCE with it.
      I threw it sometimes the MOST HARD because I was able to aim it precisely and knew that after the given distance it will loose enough energy to be safely catched.
      However after a while we all got "enchanted" and many of us tried the limits (that's what puberty is about, eh?!).
      When more participants of any potentially harmful activity start to loose carefulness also alertness (due to tiredness) then the circumstances can change more quickly than awaited:
      accident is bound to happen.
      If I'm not mistaken: majority of motorcycle riders don't get involved in serious accidents (?)
      What are the major causes that lead to more drastic outcomes?
      On aikido lessons we spent a lot of time, a huge effort went into learning HOW TO FALL. Are there similar trainings for motorbike raiders? Is that even possible to prepare (a bit) in advance?
      If that opens up too painful memories, please ignore my comment

  • @davidanthony6408
    @davidanthony6408 2 роки тому +11

    All of my life I have been concerned with the meaning of things, identifying them, how things work and why, and entity relationships, etc. This made me feel like I wasn't as smart as other people because I never see others bothered by not knowing enough. I eventually learned that most people do not like to think and would rather fake it till they make it. I guess I wasn't really behind, I was just more curious and honest about my level of understanding in the interest of welcoming more understanding.

    • @alwaysgreatusa223
      @alwaysgreatusa223 2 роки тому +2

      The surest sign of intelligence is curiosity, whereas surest sign of stupidity is disinterestedness.

    • @duaneholcomb8408
      @duaneholcomb8408 2 роки тому

      Me too I'm interested in many things. I can't do them all. Not time enough dont live long enough. I've always knew for some time now about the law of cause and effect. Einstein used it. To discover ever thing he ever knew without it nothing can be known about any thing. I'm a very curious person.
      I suppose. ,,,

    • @casudemous5105
      @casudemous5105 2 роки тому

      The things is all of these smart people arent sure of their "intelligence". I assume like most smart people they doubt they are. The difference is that they are people that have done thing i.e they jumped

    • @steveodavis9486
      @steveodavis9486 Рік тому

      Kuhn makes you think, whatever that is. Curiosity is for people who like to think, dogma is for lazy,disinterested people who enjoy being satisfied with group values.

  • @domcasmurro2417
    @domcasmurro2417 4 роки тому +31

    I envy your life, mister Kuhn. Wish i could engage in conservations with so many interesting persons from all areas.

    • @johnbrzykcy3076
      @johnbrzykcy3076 4 роки тому +7

      Hey Dom.. I feel the same. But I'm pretty simple-minded so I don't think my conversation with these people would get very far.

    • @domcasmurro2417
      @domcasmurro2417 4 роки тому +5

      @@johnbrzykcy3076 Well, tbh i would need to improve a lot to talk with many of these people.

    • @terrywbreedlove
      @terrywbreedlove 4 роки тому +4

      You can now easier than ever with social media etc. People like Dr Brian Green has e a weekly show and he answers questions.

    • @xspotbox4400
      @xspotbox4400 4 роки тому

      @@terrywbreedlove Those popular scientists doesn't really answer question, only referee to what they already explained. There are other channels when young researchers and scientists explore their thought models, they do care what community want to know and do repply to every single comment. Greene is a good professor, but he wont waste time with amateurs and risk loosing credibility due to some stupid question he can't really explain.

    • @domcasmurro2417
      @domcasmurro2417 4 роки тому

      @@xspotbox4400 Brian Greene is doing the Daily Equation show at the World Science Festival in the last weeks. They have some Q&A videos there.

  • @pamalogy
    @pamalogy Рік тому +1

    Way to go Lawrence. Another very well done episode. I deeply admire your work.

  • @candidachii
    @candidachii 3 роки тому

    thank u for making this video it helps me in my research!

  • @waltmoyo3700
    @waltmoyo3700 2 роки тому +1

    This is now my favorite UA-cam channel, along with World Science Festival.

  • @ishevel
    @ishevel 3 роки тому +1

    Thanx! Such an interesting and under-covered topic. Your video provides insights into causation at different angles.

  • @AkashThomas99
    @AkashThomas99 2 роки тому +2

    Great host, amazing production quality.

  • @rebellion54678
    @rebellion54678 4 роки тому +15

    Very enlightening ! thank you for this brilliant content.

  • @dougwiles7639
    @dougwiles7639 3 роки тому +2

    You couldn't get me to listen to my 11th grade English teacher. At 53 years of age I can't get enough of this.

  • @4everVillas
    @4everVillas 3 роки тому +3

    It's a shame the program didn't interview statisticians who have puzzled over the concept of causation, determinism, and probability for more than 100 years.

    • @hkumar7340
      @hkumar7340 2 роки тому +1

      Right! Especially, the Granddaddy of them all -- Judea Pearl. His books, "Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference" (for the expert) and "The Book of Why" (for the layman) are the last word on this subject for now.

    • @terryboland3816
      @terryboland3816 Рік тому +1

      They'd be dead by now.

  • @FM-lo9vv
    @FM-lo9vv 2 роки тому +2

    Amazing content, but I must say, the production value is also pretty darn good! Such nice shots, what a delight to watch!! :)

  • @Jonnygurudesigns
    @Jonnygurudesigns 3 роки тому

    Quality top tier conversations... this is the place to come too

  • @EcoTHEgrey
    @EcoTHEgrey 3 роки тому

    Knowledge very well explained!

  • @Slimm2240
    @Slimm2240 4 роки тому +2

    This channel is underated

  • @ajithkumarg3219
    @ajithkumarg3219 4 роки тому +1

    This is exactly what I needed to hear while learning Newtonian mechanics.
    Thank you very much for the content ♥️♥️♥️

  • @mustafaelbahi7979
    @mustafaelbahi7979 4 роки тому +1

    I like the concept of causation, a certain strength of causation that led to the emergence of the world instead of its destruction. This is what we call believers, the uncaused cause or the Lord.

  • @daithiocinnsealach1982
    @daithiocinnsealach1982 4 роки тому +1

    This is why I am subscribed to this channel. For topics like this.
    Swinburne rarely looks you in the eye. I'm the exact same. It's not that common. It's often a trait of shyness it seems.
    Kuhn has very straight shoulders. Swinburne's right shoulder slants at quite a noticeable angle.

  • @jozsefnemeth935
    @jozsefnemeth935 3 роки тому +3

    Enlightening. Thank you. the examples about the dollar etc work well. Backward causation seems absurd. Changing the notion of space seems less problematic as explained in another video of the series.

    • @Littleprinceleon
      @Littleprinceleon Рік тому

      @Islayman what makes any of us able to decide on whatever if future already exists?
      Sorry, one has to peek into what kinds of experiments are done in QM (eg. a bunch of quantum particles showing non-intuitive probability distributions, or the wave like behaviour of matter particles strongly limited by the mass of the system, it's not that long that systems able to re-cohere are studied ...): QM with all the fields and special dynamics is nowhere near to full understanding of even the simplest systems...
      Once you start to develop a solid grasp on basic concepts, suddenly you realize how far stretched are many of even the basic interpretations of the measurement problem, not speaking about the extrapolations they make.
      What the heck is a conscious system in a block universe anyway?

  • @ramosthomas9414
    @ramosthomas9414 2 роки тому

    Keep asking the hardest of questions my brother for all of us we listening

  • @assiah71
    @assiah71 4 роки тому

    Just wow ! Clarity at it best

  • @AlfredoMazzinghi
    @AlfredoMazzinghi 4 роки тому +5

    Great video for a great topic. Thanks Mr. Kuhn for being such a great host! I'd be extremely interested about the same topic seen from a physics point of view.

  • @aclearlight
    @aclearlight 2 роки тому +2

    Another beautiful, elevated, uplifting inquiry, and a lovely bit of vicarious world travel to boot. Your channel ROCKS!

  • @muhammadirfanislami818
    @muhammadirfanislami818 3 роки тому +1

    Hope we can perceive arguments of causation from statistician too

  • @weaseldragon
    @weaseldragon 4 роки тому

    Best apologetics channel on UA-cam!

  • @dag410
    @dag410 Рік тому

    Outstanding

  • @robotaholic
    @robotaholic Рік тому

    Holy wow at 4 and a half minutes in and this guest is awesome. I'm having one of those moments when you're like who is this guy! I've gotta find more

  • @julianmann6172
    @julianmann6172 2 роки тому +1

    Backward causation also resolves freewill V Determinism. Both concepts apply but one is in backward time and the other in forward time. So there is duality on this level.

    • @adriancioroianu1704
      @adriancioroianu1704 Рік тому

      ?? determinism doesn't "become" free will by inverting the arrow of causation and time, it's still determinism. you just perceive it psychologically as free will if you want.

  • @hgracern
    @hgracern 3 роки тому +1

    Excellent, thanks. No time, no cause. No cause, no beginning. Maybe.

  • @davidgalbraith7367
    @davidgalbraith7367 3 роки тому

    causation is our way of attributing purpose to the world in a scientific age.

  • @mondopinion3777
    @mondopinion3777 2 роки тому +1

    "Time is the downhill slope of God's intent, and cause is the joint of flow."

  • @dennistucker1153
    @dennistucker1153 4 роки тому

    I love this subject and this video. Thank you CTT.

  • @firstal3799
    @firstal3799 2 роки тому

    Causation as asked here is best described as an inexorable and all encompassing chain of events.

  • @richardmarker786
    @richardmarker786 4 роки тому

    The subject of causation provides the very crux of discovering "bedrock reality". I would love to be able to discuss this with Kuhn. Unfortunately, such a discussion to be of value would almost certainly take more of his time than he would be willing to spare. There exists a fundamental causal mechanism that starts with "something" that has no physical characteristics; and with "nothing" that is absent even the fabric of space itself. It took many decades of pursuing this causal mechanism to arrive at a definitive relationship of such precision to know the path was more than simply a curious exercise in logic.
    Thank you for a superb video!

  • @stevekane8609
    @stevekane8609 2 роки тому +1

    It's much easier to make the case that causation is an illusion than it is to make the case that consciousness is an illusion.

  • @earthjustice01
    @earthjustice01 Рік тому

    Excellent move to come back to the theist/atheist divide to understand the divide between seeing causality as a fundamental or seeing it as derivative from human experience. Think of Aristotle's four kinds of cause - formal, efficient, material, and final -... These are four different ways of framing the world to focus on what is really significant or basic in it. What things are made of, what their "essence" is, what brought them into existence, or what purpose was behind it happening. You could say that these describe the four basic ways that we (Aristotle, not me) look at everything. As far as causal processes go, why single out any particular series of events rather than another, and why stop with a cause and effect when the whole structure of causation stretches out to infinity in every direction? Any parsing of reality to understand or explain it must be from a human perception, until such time as we encounter intelligent aliens. I side with Blackburn and the Humeans.

  • @micatlan
    @micatlan 4 роки тому +1

    Great videos, Robert. Thank you much.

  • @alwaysgreatusa223
    @alwaysgreatusa223 2 роки тому

    Laws of nature are not patterns of things, rather they are the essence of things !

  • @9Ballr
    @9Ballr 4 роки тому +2

    It's not clear that Hume is a skeptic about the metaphysics of causation, but he is a skeptic about our knowledge of causation, because he thinks that we cannot properly ground our claim that there is a necessary connection between causes and their effects in sense experience.

    • @davibro
      @davibro Рік тому

      Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. How do you think it could be grounded?

  • @perfectionbox
    @perfectionbox 4 роки тому +1

    Patterns of events are mandatory for consciousness to function. Observers will always find themselves in a causal reality.

  • @markheller197
    @markheller197 4 роки тому +13

    Seemed like a Monty Python skit.

    • @0626love
      @0626love 4 роки тому

      haha

    • @tilik13
      @tilik13 4 роки тому

      philosophers (aka b.s. artists) are only good for Monty Python skits.

    • @eucariote79
      @eucariote79 4 роки тому +6

      @@tilik13 so you did not understand a thing.

    • @tilik13
      @tilik13 4 роки тому +1

      @@eucariote79 why do you think so, mimzi?

    • @concernedcitizen780
      @concernedcitizen780 3 роки тому

      I’m not sure what caused me to watch this.

  • @JeffChen285
    @JeffChen285 4 роки тому +1

    Causality is a fundamental nature of mental logic. Without it, mountain goats will jump off cliffs without hesitation. In other words, the phenomenon of life shall be characterized as causal purpose, not only purpose. Nature laws shall have their own full-scale causalities, not necessarily be fully compatible with human mental causality though. Therefore, using terms such as pattern to deny the causality of the physical world is self-deceiving.

  • @discogodfather22
    @discogodfather22 4 роки тому +1

    Causation is a concept based on time, which is still the least talked about or well defined concept in physics. No one has seen or proposed a subatomic carrier particle for time or an intrinsic field theory. Ask a physicist what time is and they will give you a series of indirect answers. "Timespace" is usually the accepted concept., which analyzes the geometry of it, but nothing else. What is time specifically? If it's the thing we are all confused about and hung up on, maybe as a construct of reality that doesn't exist, maybe this explains causality. If everything happens at once in reality, there is no need for time, and no need for causes.

  • @followyourbliss973
    @followyourbliss973 6 місяців тому +1

    A basebal breaks a window, it makes a loud noise, people come out to see what happened, somebody gets in trouble, somebody feels guilty, the glass must be ckeaned up, the window must be repaired, the repair costs money, somebody has to pay, somebody learns a lesson, on and on and on!

  • @dennisalwine4519
    @dennisalwine4519 4 роки тому

    One of the best CTT episodes!

  • @jamesruscheinski8602
    @jamesruscheinski8602 3 роки тому +1

    Causation is one thing / will adding a new experience to another thing / will.

  • @cofa4011
    @cofa4011 4 роки тому

    Beautifull ! Thank you for your work and the upload !

  • @aaron2709
    @aaron2709 2 роки тому

    Good one.

  • @putjack3703
    @putjack3703 4 місяці тому

    the beginning of causality seems to be mystery, but who knows it came from mystery

  • @UTArch1
    @UTArch1 2 роки тому

    Isn't this question the modern equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

  • @kimsahl8555
    @kimsahl8555 3 роки тому

    Causation is a potential going to a realization and a realization going to a potential.

  • @hamzahbakouni6208
    @hamzahbakouni6208 3 роки тому +2

    Thanks. Maybe one need a unifying quantum gravity theory to better depict reality and understand causation, whether it is a fundamental element of reality or a one among other mental constructs.

  • @derektomko1015
    @derektomko1015 4 роки тому

    I follow all of the concepts in this wonderful series, however I dont understand this particular subject one bit

  • @DistortedV12
    @DistortedV12 4 роки тому +1

    Causation can be formally described by mathematics, it is a model that is able to predict the effect of interventions or a prediction model that correctly adjusts for confounders. No philosophical speculation is needed or theist vs atheist concepts.

    • @nicolasargon1436
      @nicolasargon1436 4 роки тому

      Can you say more? Or point to resources that explain this more thoroughly? I'm very interested!

  • @malayangrago5628
    @malayangrago5628 2 роки тому

    Better than cable tv.

  • @stevenmartinellimusic
    @stevenmartinellimusic 2 роки тому

    I have some great examples of overdetermination that actually happened to me in fairly close succession.

  • @markuspfeifer8473
    @markuspfeifer8473 3 роки тому +1

    Causation is an effective language that turns a description of the universe of the form "t -> X" into the form "e -> (X -> X)". The former is great when you try to answer how a system evolves in general, the latter is great when you try to answer how events or actions affect the evolution. The former is like having a computer program that is completely evaluated at compile time and presented to the user as some kind of movie, the latter provides an interface to the user so the user can interact with the program (which necessarily means that some parts are evaluated at runtime). The former tries to be objective and assumes a passive observer, the latter is somewhat subjective and permits an active experimentator. The former allows for continuous time, the latter inherently has time quantized into events.

  • @ameremortal
    @ameremortal 4 роки тому

    In my opinion, this is one of the most important questions. It’s something we can actually study.

    • @demiurge1608
      @demiurge1608 4 роки тому

      Amere Mortal you can not study it. by definition, the tool you would use to study is science which is based on the cause and effect. So, it would not be an objective quest for truth. does it make sense ?

    • @sirluoyi2853
      @sirluoyi2853 3 роки тому +1

      Join this WhatsApp group for Philosophical discussions...
      👇
      Link: chat.whatsapp.com/IibF9JUazRF9IExVk5Qmh1

    • @ameremortal
      @ameremortal 3 роки тому +1

      @@demiurge1608 It does, unfortunately.

  • @firstal3799
    @firstal3799 2 роки тому +1

    Good duscussion

  • @Nickelodeon81
    @Nickelodeon81 2 роки тому

    Q "Can't we just all get along??"
    A "That would violate causation."

  • @goranjohansson2495
    @goranjohansson2495 2 роки тому

    Causation is the development of a dynamical system from one state to another governed by the evaluation rules of that particular system

  • @johnpayne7873
    @johnpayne7873 2 роки тому +1

    Just beautiful, Robert!
    My thoughts:
    If experience is wired to the phenomenon of causation and (Aristotlean) logic - our most reliable tool for studying experience - fundamentally embeds cause through the construct of propositional statements, aren’t we trapped in desconstructing the nature of cause?

    • @caricue
      @caricue 2 роки тому +1

      I really liked this video myself. My conclusion is that the concept of causation is being used backwards in many cases. It is very helpful and enlightening to look for causes to explain observations or experiences, but you get in trouble when you take these imagined "causes" and try to use them to judge nature. What you observe or experience is assumed to exist, but your explanation is just an opinion that is subject to being revised or rejected based on new data.

  • @ledgermanager
    @ledgermanager 3 роки тому +1

    a new thought ;
    you do know the max speed = the transfer(or transmission) rate of causality
    so all that goes slower then the speed of light is under the same hood, bound to causality..
    then there is a gap, the size of a (maybe that famous)
    planck length, that any 'causal tick'(lack of better word) has to jump before it gives you that transmission .
    it has to buildup tension to jump that gap, thats why black holes are weird, gaps are gone, no jumps whatsoever all is one big soup of causal incoherence

  • @dm.6133
    @dm.6133 3 роки тому

    Energy transforms and moves as a river finding the path of less resistance.

  • @lalsenarath
    @lalsenarath 10 місяців тому +1

    Causation is also probability! Let me explain. When you throw a stone at the window, the window always breaks is wrong! most probably it will break, out of many other things that can happen. It can be shown better the striking of a billiard ball, we provide a smooth top for the ball to roll, the table is well prepaired, the ball is perfectly round, ... etc. etc. So as humans we have prepaired the situation by minimising the probabilty of other things happening. But not all, a pilot training an air plan might crash on the building! We always tend to forget that the place of the experiment is carefully prepared by the experimenter to minimize the probability!

  • @deandsouza
    @deandsouza Рік тому

    Love this series. I wish that for this episode, however, he would discuss causation with a scientist such as theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. But really nice hearing all these different perspectives.

  • @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
    @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 2 роки тому

    Introducing backward causation doesn’t undermine *causation;* it undermines the uni-directionality of time. But the very idea of backward causation presupposes causation. It’s in the name lol.
    Causation is a subcategory of explanation, a category we can’t get rid of per certain formulation of PSR, which Ed Feser defends brilliantly in his 2017 “Five Proofs” book (in the chapter on the Rationalist Proof).

    • @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
      @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 2 роки тому

      Ps. I know that Feser denies backward causation, but he’s just wrong about that. It’s not merely theoretical, as there’s experimental evidence for it! But his case for PSR remains solid.

  • @kimsahl8555
    @kimsahl8555 3 роки тому

    Causation is the alternation between a state and a state change.

  • @olbluelips
    @olbluelips 2 роки тому

    Enjoyed this! But are there really 1500 episodes?!

  • @dinaray2025
    @dinaray2025 3 роки тому

    Start sharing his channel!

  • @dottedrhino
    @dottedrhino 3 роки тому

    I agree largely with mr. Armstrong. In fact, I thought exactly these things out and now I hear mr. Armstrong saying them. :)

  • @partydean17
    @partydean17 3 роки тому +1

    I need a video on probability. I do not understand it and it drives me crazy. Why are things random?!

  • @mikedziuba8617
    @mikedziuba8617 4 роки тому +1

    Causation is basically making something happen. Which requires some kind of a mechanism that connects the cause and effect this way.
    Sometimes this causal mechanism is very simple and straightforward. But more often, effects have multiple causes and very complicated mechanisms that connect each cause to the effect.
    You can find all kinds of patterns in event sequences using statistical correlations. But most of such correlations don't have a causal relationship, even though one follows the other in time. Because quite often, there is some third hidden cause that first causes the first event and then the second.
    That's why people say correlation isn't causation. So, just finding a sequence pattern doesn't necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship between the first event and the second.
    To establish a causal relationship, you need to describe a mechanism of how one event causes the other. And you need to show beyond reasonable doubt this mechanism exists and it works the way you say it works.
    "How?" is the question any claim of a causal relationship must answer. Because if you don't describe and explain the mechanism of how it happens, then there is no way to tell if your pattern is just a correlation, or if it has a causal relationship. It's the mechanism that establishes the causal relationship.
    So, it's no so much a question of whether causation exists. It's a question of whether a mechanism exists that enables one event to cause another. And this question you can answer only through scientific investigations for each seeming cause and effect.

    • @jrd33
      @jrd33 4 роки тому +1

      Good post, but science assumes causation. It can't investigate it, by definition.

    • @mikedziuba8617
      @mikedziuba8617 4 роки тому

      When you describe the mechanism of how one event makes another event happen and show beyond reasonable doubt that this mechanism exists and it works like this in every experiment, then this is experimental evidence and not an assumption.
      An assumption is when you make an untestable and an unfalsifiable statement and assume that it's true. But this clearly isn't the case when describe a mechanism of how one event makes another event happen, and show with various experiments that this mechanism actually exists and it works the way you say it works. Because if this mechanism doesn't exist or doesn't work the way you say it works, then the experiments will show it. And other people can test it too independently of you.
      Perhaps the problem here isn't the answer. The problem is the question. It's a badly worded question that uses an abstract word which doesn't describe what exactly it is that you are looking for.
      Albert Einstein once said, “ If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
      www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/determining-the-proper-question
      I think you can remove the word 'causation' and just talk about one event making another event happen through some kind of a mechanism that can be tested and shown to work in various experiments. And then you don't have any philosophical dilemma to worry about. It's just a mundane scientific question about whether one event plays a role in making another event happen or not.

  • @jmzorko
    @jmzorko 3 роки тому

    One of the best things about CTT is that, for every episode about total bunk ideas like ESP and whether it exists or not, there are at least a dozen episodes, like this one, about _far_ more worthy and interesting questions.

  • @MichaelDembinski
    @MichaelDembinski 2 роки тому

    This show was originally aired in 2015.

  • @jesusbermudez6775
    @jesusbermudez6775 2 роки тому +1

    the future cannot change the past. If the future changes the past, what is happening is that an event in the future is changing an event further into the future.

  • @dennisgalvin2521
    @dennisgalvin2521 Рік тому

    I think the opinion of causality being primitive, basic, fundamental is in accord with reality because if you rake the 4 fundamental forces of nature into consideration, they're responsible for every interaction in the universe and causality is a result of interactions,. You don't get much more primitive, basic or fundamental than that.

  • @dhnguyen68
    @dhnguyen68 6 місяців тому

    Computer scientist Judea Pearl explains causation, it is now part of AI field grounded in maths.

  • @stephenlawrence4821
    @stephenlawrence4821 Рік тому

    Well the future does change the past in a sense. The future will be different depending on whether I do A or B. But what we forget (and many deny) is the past was also different depending on whether I do A or B.
    Dependent connections definately run both ways.

  • @Ndo01
    @Ndo01 4 роки тому +4

    If there's no time then everything that has, is, or ever will happen, exists at once. Causation then could just be a matter of perspective, dependant on which sequence is viewed in a particular order. Humans view things 'forward', but there could be infinite degrees and possible pathways to sequence every event that already exists.

    • @organicalgorithms
      @organicalgorithms 4 роки тому +2

      Nando N I agree. Also is a perspective of being outside time that you could (theoretically) view all of space-time, past and present at once. And as you say, it’s all about perspective.

    • @alwaysgreatusa223
      @alwaysgreatusa223 2 роки тому

      "At once" already presupposes the existence of time. What does 'once' mean except at a single time?

    • @alwaysgreatusa223
      @alwaysgreatusa223 2 роки тому

      The imagination can imagine a million things, if you only allow it by ignoring any contradictions.

    • @Ndo01
      @Ndo01 2 роки тому

      @@alwaysgreatusa223 Semantics. Sure, you could say that 'at once' means at a single 'time', but the word 'time' here is just used to reference and juxtapose the common use and understanding of time to be flowing. Where time is static, and not flowing, relative to the common grasp of it, it would be reasonable to say that there would be no time there, which could also be referred to as static time.

    • @alwaysgreatusa223
      @alwaysgreatusa223 2 роки тому

      @@Ndo01The idea that things happen in no time having passed is absurd. It's not just words, it's concepts that are the issue here. To speak of time as being static is to destroy the concept of time by making it unintelligible.

  • @2000yearOldYogiAspirant
    @2000yearOldYogiAspirant 4 роки тому

    I wonder if Rupert Spira has ever been on 'Closer to Truth' and if not I'd like seeing it

  • @realnumber9show326
    @realnumber9show326 3 роки тому

    Every cause has an effect! This is a universal law

    • @rohmann000
      @rohmann000 2 роки тому

      Yes, but this is a rather trivial observation; the relevant and important question is why it is supposedly a universal law, and on what grounds it can be so described, discovered, or conceived.

  • @SabiazothPsyche
    @SabiazothPsyche 2 роки тому

    Causation = impact. And reaction = agent.

  • @arekk.9266
    @arekk.9266 2 роки тому

    Hello. Very good series indeed. From me observations about causation I may add, for your consideration, a concept of End of Time, and the idea of Circular, Loop type of causation, which I call the Real Discovery of a Wheel. Events repeat themselves and effects become causes. Like the Uroburos snake. Consider this...

  • @summerbreeze5115
    @summerbreeze5115 Рік тому +1

    If you cant form memories can we then experience causality ?

  • @ailblentyn
    @ailblentyn 2 роки тому

    It’s a bit upsetting the way Huw Price says that “It’s a fundamental challenge to 21st-century physics to reconcile GR and Quantum Physics.” And the 21st century is a quarter over and no progress!

  • @hassansaeed5633
    @hassansaeed5633 2 роки тому

    The theme of the Question isn’t end till the questioner end .

  • @oblodoblodob
    @oblodoblodob 3 роки тому

    I do not see why his conclusion follows: that if causation is fundamental it's 'more likely' existence goes 'beyond the physical'. That seems a total non-sequitur, to the extent that the inverse is equally common and equally unfounded (making some necessary assumptions about what nonphysical might mean). That said, thank you for the programme, even if I find its epistemology curious

  • @ER-cy8zi
    @ER-cy8zi 7 місяців тому

    It could well be that there're TWO kinds of causation: inner "in-causation" along with outer "out-causation". More in E. Ransford's Galileo Commission papers (see at the GC website)...