Causality - Revision history

Sir Andrew: Formatting

2010-08-28T04:49:55Z

Formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:49, 28 August 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	== Validating Causality ==		== Validating Causality ==

	''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''		===All things that exist have a single, finite identity.===

	That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, but it is a fundamental necessity -- an inarguable fact -- that every single existent possesses a single, finite identity, composed of everything that it is, and lacking everything that it is not. If an existent had no identity, then it wouldn't exist -- there wouldn't be a single thing that it is. If an existent had an infinite identity, then it would possess the characteristic 'visibly impaled through my right hand at this very moment,' which nothing possesses. Multiple identities ascribed to an existent would either combine to form one identity, or would contradict each other. A contradiction is impossible, because all contradictions can be reduced to claiming that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, which is likewise impossible. To see how this reduction works, take the example "this ball is all red and all green." Implicit to the concept 'red' is 'not green,' and so this example can be rephrased as "this ball is all not green and all green;" the characteristic 'green' is both existing and not existing. Assuming you can get your opponent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.		That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, but it is a fundamental necessity -- an inarguable fact -- that every single existent possesses a single, finite identity, composed of everything that it is, and lacking everything that it is not. If an existent had no identity, then it wouldn't exist -- there wouldn't be a single thing that it is. If an existent had an infinite identity, then it would possess the characteristic 'visibly impaled through my right hand at this very moment,' which nothing possesses. Multiple identities ascribed to an existent would either combine to form one identity, or would contradict each other. A contradiction is impossible, because all contradictions can be reduced to claiming that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, which is likewise impossible. To see how this reduction works, take the example "this ball is all red and all green." Implicit to the concept 'red' is 'not green,' and so this example can be rephrased as "this ball is all not green and all green;" the characteristic 'green' is both existing and not existing. Assuming you can get your opponent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.

	''Actions are actions of entities.''		===Actions are actions of entities.===

	Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.		Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.

	''Entities must act in accordance with their identities.''		===Entities must act in accordance with their identities.===

	This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is for an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.		This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is for an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.

	''Causality''		===Causality===

	This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its identity. If a billiard ball is smacked by another billiard ball, the identities of all of the circumstances involved (forces, motion, the balls themselves) permit only a single course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.		This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its identity. If a billiard ball is smacked by another billiard ball, the identities of all of the circumstances involved (forces, motion, the balls themselves) permit only a single course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.
Line 24:		Line 24:
	At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.		At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.

	''Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs''		==Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs==

	Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to the fundamental absolute of philosophical causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the philosophical defense of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the nature of this causality is limited by the context of our knowledge. The latter, philosophical causality, is rooted in fundamental axioms and is utterly inarguable. Your opponents are not supporting an argument against causality (no one can). They are claiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way.		Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to the fundamental absolute of philosophical causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the philosophical defense of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the nature of this causality is limited by the context of our knowledge. The latter, philosophical causality, is rooted in fundamental axioms and is utterly inarguable. Your opponents are not supporting an argument against causality (no one can). They are claiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way.

	~~Also see forum thread:~~		==Further Reading==
	http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152		*See this [http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152 forum thread on ObjectivismOnline.net]
			*[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/causality.html "Causality" on the Ayn Rand Lexicon]


	{{M_Nav}}		{{M_Nav}}

	[[Category:Axiom]]		[[Category:Axiom]] [[Category:Metaphysics]]

Sir Andrew: Added navigation table to improve wiki traffic flow

2010-08-27T06:09:14Z

Added navigation table to improve wiki traffic flow

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:09, 27 August 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Also see forum thread:		Also see forum thread:
	http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152		http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152

			{{M_Nav}}

	[[Category:Axiom]]		[[Category:Axiom]]

GreedyCapitalist: Reverted edits by 81.169.183.122 (Talk); changed back to last version by GreedyCapitalist

2007-01-15T08:48:57Z

Reverted edits by 81.169.183.122 (Talk); changed back to last version by GreedyCapitalist

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:48, 15 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].		The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].

	~~Cnse of induction); causality~~ is ~~absolutely necessitated, but our understanding~~ of the ~~natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity~~ of s		Causality is a direct corollary of the three inarguable axioms of Objectivism; there is simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.
	~~Cnse of induction)~~; causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way. simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is ~~fundamentally impossible.~~
	~~cientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way.~~ simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.


Line 10:		Line 8:
	''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''		''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''

	That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, ~~your opponent to agn~~		That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, but it is a fundamental necessity -- an inarguable fact -- that every single existent possesses a single, finite identity, composed of everything that it is, and lacking everything that it is not. If an existent had no identity, then it wouldn't exist -- there wouldn't be a single thing that it is. If an existent had an infinite identity, then it would possess the characteristic 'visibly impaled through my right hand at this very moment,' which nothing possesses. Multiple identities ascribed to an existent would either combine to form one identity, or would contradict each other. A contradiction is impossible, because all contradictions can be reduced to claiming that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, which is likewise impossible. To see how this reduction works, take the example "this ball is all red and all green." Implicit to the concept 'red' is 'not green,' and so this example can be rephrased as "this ball is all not green and all green;" the characteristic 'green' is both existing and not existing. Assuming you can get your opponent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.
	~~Cnse of induction); causality~~ is ~~absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating~~ an ~~argument against the validity of scientific induction~~ -- ~~and you should treat their argument in~~ that ~~way. simply~~
	~~Cnse~~ of ~~induction); causality~~ is ~~absolutely necessitated~~, ~~but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so~~, ~~while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction~~ -- ~~and you should treat their argument in~~ that ~~way~~. ~~simply no grounds to argue against~~ it, ~~as any alternative~~ to ~~causality~~ is ~~fundamentally~~ impossible.
	~~no grounds~~ to ~~argue against it~~, ~~as any alternative to causality~~ is ~~fundamentally~~ impossible.
	~~se of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated~~, ~~but our understanding of~~ the ~~nature of~~ this ~~causality~~ is ~~limited by~~ the ~~context of our knowledge. The latter, philosophical causality~~, is ~~rooted in fundamental axioms anme~~ time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.

	''Actions are actions of entities.''		''Actions are actions of entities.''
Line 20:		Line 14:
	Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.		Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.

	an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.		''Entities must act in accordance with their identities.''

			This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is for an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.

	''Causality''		''Causality''

	This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its ~~idele~~ course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.		This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its identity. If a billiard ball is smacked by another billiard ball, the identities of all of the circumstances involved (forces, motion, the balls themselves) permit only a single course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.

	At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. ~~Mimply~~ cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.		At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.

	''Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs''		''Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs''

	Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to ~~hilosophical~~ causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the ~~phThe Law~~ of ~~Causality~~ is ~~a corollary~~ of the ~~Law~~ of ~~[[Identity]].~~		Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to the fundamental absolute of philosophical causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the philosophical defense of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the nature of this causality is limited by the context of our knowledge. The latter, philosophical causality, is rooted in fundamental axioms and is utterly inarguable. Your opponents are not supporting an argument against causality (no one can). They are claiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way.

	~~Causality~~ is ~~a direct corollary of~~ the ~~three inarguable axioms~~ of ~~Objectivism; there is simply no grounds to argue against it~~, ~~as any alternative to~~ causality is ~~fundamentally impossible.~~


	~~== Validating Causality ==~~

	~~''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''~~

	~~That~~ is~~, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them~~. ~~This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list is~~ not~~. If~~ an ~~existent had~~ no identity, then it wouldn't exist -- there wouldn't be aonent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one ~~identity~~). So, an ~~entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.~~

	~~''Actions are actions~~ of ~~entities.''~~

	~~Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.~~

	~~''Entities must act~~ in ~~accordance with their identities.''~~

	This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is fctions cannot exist. The only possibility is that ~~entities act in accordance with their identity.~~

	~~''Causality''~~

	~~This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional conscite identity~~.

	~~At the effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above~~. ~~Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply cannot be~~. ~~The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has onlThe Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]]~~.		Also see forum thread:
			http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152

	~~Causality is a direct corollary of the three inarguable axioms of Objectivism; there is simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.~~		[[Category:Axiom]]

81.169.183.122: editied overly verbose passages

2007-01-15T08:30:14Z

editied overly verbose passages

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 15 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].		The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].

	~~Causality~~ is ~~a direct corollary~~ of the ~~three inarguable axioms~~ of ~~Objectivism~~; ~~there~~ is simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.		Cnse of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of s
			Cnse of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way. simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.
			cientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way. simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.


Line 8:		Line 10:
	''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''		''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''

	That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, but ~~it is a fundamental necessity --~~ an ~~inarguable fact~~ -- that ~~every single existent possesses a single~~, ~~finite identity, composed~~ of ~~everything that it is~~, ~~and lacking everything that it is not. If~~ an ~~existent had no identity, then it wouldn't exist~~ -- ~~there wouldn't be a single thing~~ that ~~it is~~. ~~If an existent had an infinite identity, then~~ it ~~would possess the characteristic 'visibly impaled through my right hand at this very moment~~,~~' which nothing possesses. Multiple identities ascribed~~ to ~~an existent would either combine to form one identity, or would contradict each other. A contradiction~~ is impossible, ~~because all contradictions can be reduced~~ to ~~claiming that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, which~~ is ~~likewise~~ impossible. ~~To see how this reduction works~~, ~~take~~ the ~~example "~~this ~~ball~~ is ~~all red and all green~~.~~" Implicit to the concept 'red' is 'not green~~,~~' and so this example can be rephrased as "this ball~~ is ~~all not green and all green;" the characteristic 'green' is both existing and not existing. Assuming you can get your opponent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same~~ time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.		That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, your opponent to agn
			Cnse of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way. simply
			Cnse of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the natureclaiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way. simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.
			no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.
			se of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the nature of this causality is limited by the context of our knowledge. The latter, philosophical causality, is rooted in fundamental axioms anme time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.

	''Actions are actions of entities.''		''Actions are actions of entities.''
Line 14:		Line 20:
	Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.		Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.

	~~''Entities must act in accordance with their identities.''~~		an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.

	~~This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is for~~ an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.

	''Causality''		''Causality''

	This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its ~~identity. If a billiard ball is smacked by another billiard ball, the identities of all of the circumstances involved (forces, motion, the balls themselves) permit only a single~~ course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.		This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its idele course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.

	At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. ~~Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply~~ cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.		At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. Mimply cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.

	''Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs''		''Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs''

	Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to ~~the fundamental absolute of philosophical~~ causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the ~~philosophical defense~~ of ~~induction); causality~~ is ~~absolutely necessitated, but our understanding~~ of the ~~nature~~ of ~~this causality~~ is ~~limited by~~ the ~~context~~ of ~~our knowledge. The latter~~, ~~philosophical~~ causality, is ~~rooted in fundamental axioms and~~ is ~~utterly inarguable~~. ~~Your opponents~~ are ~~not supporting an argument against causality~~ (no one ~~can~~). ~~They~~ are ~~claiming~~ to ~~do so~~, ~~while actually formulating~~ an ~~argument against~~ the ~~validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way~~.		Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to hilosophical causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the phThe Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].

			Causality is a direct corollary of the three inarguable axioms of Objectivism; there is simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.


			== Validating Causality ==

			''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''

			That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list is not. If an existent had no identity, then it wouldn't exist -- there wouldn't be aonent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.

			''Actions are actions of entities.''

			Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.

			''Entities must act in accordance with their identities.''

			This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is fctions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.

			''Causality''

			This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional conscite identity.

	~~Also see forum thread:~~		At the effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has onlThe Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].
	~~http://forum~~.~~objectivismonline~~.~~net/index~~.~~php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152~~

	~~[[Category:Axiom]]~~		Causality is a direct corollary of the three inarguable axioms of Objectivism; there is simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.

GreedyCapitalist: Reverted edit of Peta76, changed back to last version by GreedyCapitalist

2005-10-27T02:46:04Z

Reverted edit of Peta76, changed back to last version by GreedyCapitalist

New page

The Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of [[Identity]].

Causality is a direct corollary of the three inarguable axioms of Objectivism; there is simply no grounds to argue against it, as any alternative to causality is fundamentally impossible.

== Validating Causality ==

''All things that exist have a single, finite identity.''

That is, all things that exist have a finite set of characteristics that describe them. This is not to say that humans will ever know this exhaustive list, but it is a fundamental necessity -- an inarguable fact -- that every single existent possesses a single, finite identity, composed of everything that it is, and lacking everything that it is not. If an existent had no identity, then it wouldn't exist -- there wouldn't be a single thing that it is. If an existent had an infinite identity, then it would possess the characteristic 'visibly impaled through my right hand at this very moment,' which nothing possesses. Multiple identities ascribed to an existent would either combine to form one identity, or would contradict each other. A contradiction is impossible, because all contradictions can be reduced to claiming that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, which is likewise impossible. To see how this reduction works, take the example "this ball is all red and all green." Implicit to the concept 'red' is 'not green,' and so this example can be rephrased as "this ball is all not green and all green;" the characteristic 'green' is both existing and not existing. Assuming you can get your opponent to agree that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, this proves that contradictions are impossible (and that multiple identities are either impossible, or become one identity). So, an entity cannot possess no identity, infinite identity or multiple identities: All entities possess a single, finite identity.

''Actions are actions of entities.''

Actions don't exist separate from the entities that act. There is no 'walking' separate from the entity that walks. All actions are performed by entities.

''Entities must act in accordance with their identities.''

This follows from the above point. If actions are actions of entities, then the action must adhere to the single, finite identity of the entity acting. The only alternative is for an entity to act in contradiction to its identity, which is impossible -- contradictions cannot exist. The only possibility is that entities act in accordance with their identity.

''Causality''

This leads to causality. Given any set of circumstances, there is only one course of action available to an existent (well, aside from the choices made by a volitional consciousness, but that's a unique instance of causality and should be tackled separately): The course of action that is in accordance with its identity. If a billiard ball is smacked by another billiard ball, the identities of all of the circumstances involved (forces, motion, the balls themselves) permit only a single course of action for each existent -- the action that is in accordance with its single, finite identity.

At the heart of cause-and-effect is the assertion that any given cause can only have a single given effect -- and that's exactly what is being said above. Multiple possible effects would absolutely necessitate multiple identities, or contradicting identities, which simply cannot be. The opposite, that effects cannot happen without causes, is implicit as well -- a billiard ball with no forces acting on it is has only one action available to it, as with any other cause: Its only possible action is to remain still, which is in accordance with its identity and the identities of everything around it.

''Scientific versus Philosophic Proofs''

Now, the problem you're experiencing is that these people are linking our scientific understanding of physical causality (mechanical cause-and-effect) to the fundamental absolute of philosophical causality (action applied to identity). The former is based on induction and is a matter of science (and a matter of the philosophical defense of induction); causality is absolutely necessitated, but our understanding of the nature of this causality is limited by the context of our knowledge. The latter, philosophical causality, is rooted in fundamental axioms and is utterly inarguable. Your opponents are not supporting an argument against causality (no one can). They are claiming to do so, while actually formulating an argument against the validity of scientific induction -- and you should treat their argument in that way.

Also see forum thread:
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3060&view=findpost&p=75152

[[Category:Axiom]]