RE: I am a Catholic, ask me a question!
July 28, 2009 at 10:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 28, 2009 at 11:36 pm by Jon Paul.)
The discussion of quantum physics seems to be at least partially offtopic. Me defending causality is not because my theological model depends upon it, but because I consider the attack against causality to be disordered and unwarranted, not for theological reasons, but simply for logical reasons.
If we were to go back to my theological model, what we would find is that my model does not rely on causality; it describes causality.
To the contrary, it relies on contingency or potentiality. That potentialities become actual, even though they needed not in and of themselves become actual before they actually became so. If quantum physics is truly acausal (which I don't believe it is), then that would even add to the fundamental contingency and potentiality I am talking about in my theological model.
The issue is rather that I don't want to sacrifice the highly empirically attested and highly reasonable principle of causality, no matter whether it supports or doesn't support my theological model. Luckily, my model is compatible both with causality and acausality, even though I used it to describe causality.
That there is causality within the universe is not a controversial claim, either, though my theological model doesn't even rely on that (though it is compatible with that being the case). The matter is rather if that causality is universal or not. Even anti-causalist QM perspectives affirm that there is causality in the universe, even if they don't ascribe it universally due to the indeterminacy of some causes; the wave function equation is fully causal, for instance, and the general causality on the macroscopic level is never denied.
In my theological argument I do affirm what I also call causality; but only because my model is broad enough to do so. I realise it is confusing of my model. What I did was describe causality with my model; "clothe" my model in causal terms, to make it easier to understand my model in familiar (causal) terms.
I was trying to show what causality is in terms of my model; but this doesn't mean my model relies on causality. I was just describing causality in terms of my model, naively so, because a) my model doesn't depend upon it, b) I hadn't thought that anyone would deny causality and use that as an argument against my model. Which in turn, is a fallacious argument, but maintaining that causality is real, I simply counter-attacked instead of pointing this out.
The way I described causality was namely the actualisation (which I ascribe as cause) of a potential (which I ascribe as effect). However, this is a much broader notion, which does apply to causality; and therefore it is causality, in that it encompasses causality; but it also applies to acausality.
Because the actualisation of the potential does not depend upon there being a "preceding causal constellation" which mandates that actualisation. It's fully independent of that detail. Indeed, this actualisation of a potential only depends upon a potentiality (such as a particle) being actualised (even if it appears spontaneously), before we can say it has happened. It doesn't depend upon there being a causal explanation.
In other words, my model is fully compatible with both what you call "causality" and "acausality". Because acausality does not mean a-actuality/un-actuality (of a potentiality); and if it did, we would not be speaking of an actuality, and thus not of something demanding antecedent causal explanation to begin with. And causality does not mean unactuality either, since both ideas are merely describing actualities but disagreeing on whether there is a causal explanation of them.
If we were to go back to my theological model, what we would find is that my model does not rely on causality; it describes causality.
To the contrary, it relies on contingency or potentiality. That potentialities become actual, even though they needed not in and of themselves become actual before they actually became so. If quantum physics is truly acausal (which I don't believe it is), then that would even add to the fundamental contingency and potentiality I am talking about in my theological model.
The issue is rather that I don't want to sacrifice the highly empirically attested and highly reasonable principle of causality, no matter whether it supports or doesn't support my theological model. Luckily, my model is compatible both with causality and acausality, even though I used it to describe causality.
That there is causality within the universe is not a controversial claim, either, though my theological model doesn't even rely on that (though it is compatible with that being the case). The matter is rather if that causality is universal or not. Even anti-causalist QM perspectives affirm that there is causality in the universe, even if they don't ascribe it universally due to the indeterminacy of some causes; the wave function equation is fully causal, for instance, and the general causality on the macroscopic level is never denied.
In my theological argument I do affirm what I also call causality; but only because my model is broad enough to do so. I realise it is confusing of my model. What I did was describe causality with my model; "clothe" my model in causal terms, to make it easier to understand my model in familiar (causal) terms.
I was trying to show what causality is in terms of my model; but this doesn't mean my model relies on causality. I was just describing causality in terms of my model, naively so, because a) my model doesn't depend upon it, b) I hadn't thought that anyone would deny causality and use that as an argument against my model. Which in turn, is a fallacious argument, but maintaining that causality is real, I simply counter-attacked instead of pointing this out.
The way I described causality was namely the actualisation (which I ascribe as cause) of a potential (which I ascribe as effect). However, this is a much broader notion, which does apply to causality; and therefore it is causality, in that it encompasses causality; but it also applies to acausality.
Because the actualisation of the potential does not depend upon there being a "preceding causal constellation" which mandates that actualisation. It's fully independent of that detail. Indeed, this actualisation of a potential only depends upon a potentiality (such as a particle) being actualised (even if it appears spontaneously), before we can say it has happened. It doesn't depend upon there being a causal explanation.
In other words, my model is fully compatible with both what you call "causality" and "acausality". Because acausality does not mean a-actuality/un-actuality (of a potentiality); and if it did, we would not be speaking of an actuality, and thus not of something demanding antecedent causal explanation to begin with. And causality does not mean unactuality either, since both ideas are merely describing actualities but disagreeing on whether there is a causal explanation of them.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
-G. K. Chesterton
