Do events have causes?

Question

Is it inductively reasonable to say that all events have causes?

Consider these:

1: One might say that 100% of the events that they have observed have had causes (these causes may not all be known)

2: a person can besaid to have observed an infinite number of events (remember that two parts of a large event can be considered separate events. One can "zoom in" on this infinitely, producing an infinite number of caused events)

Does this make it reasonable to believe that all events in the natural universe have causes?

(I am aware that this is a very old philosophical question)

Answer 1

Judging by the answers above me, this "old" question must be raised "anew" and taught in primary schools!!!

Anyway... for deductively:

Accoring to Hume, no. In fact, according to the consensus, most probably not. They say no, because there might be a chance of someone coming up with an argument to refute Hume. Until today, no one has done it. In fact, I also think it is nearly impossible to prove causality in the external world - deductively.

As for inductively...

Induction is a probability game. All it says that is normally happens but there's a 50/50 chance every time that it might not.

As for the infinite thing. That is impossible. Potential Infinites are never reached. And the infinity you're proposing is a potential infinity., One must live for infinity to observe infinite number of events - impossible - infinity can never be reached since it has no value or magnitude.

PS. Yes, I now understood what you mean by the infinity. I personally do not see it as mathematically and logically plausible that motion occurs through a continuum.

Let us assume that causality is true. Therefore, if the continuum model is also true, every event leads to another event in spacetime. But say event 1 was at point 1 and event 2 was at point 2. Just as you said, there is an infinite in between.

Is it not that an infinity cannot be reached? We both agree that it cannot. Therefore an infinite amount of space or time cannot be traversed - since however one moves down the vector-line, there is still more to travel.

Now, since between each point (event) there are infinite points (events), and between each of those infinite points (events) there are another infinite points (events). So it is actually (if possible) "infinite to the power of infinite" which I must say is a h**l of a large number of points in Spacetime for one to traverse.

So I believe it is absurd to think spacetime as a continuum.

Zeno's brilliant paradoxes show that a continuum will lead to one thing:stillness. For a thing to move from A to B, it must pass through half the distance, then half again, then half of the half and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, it will never move which is against the phenomenon we are experiencing.

Now, I understand it that if spacetime is a limit, then it is also limited in the points. That each point on the graph is separate and that the infinity in between is purely mental and not physical.

For example, on a mathematical graph you draw a segment. If I ask you to obtain the length, you will jump from point to point on the axis and count: 1, 2, 3, all the way up to the existing length.

I also believe that motion is not a slide through a continuum (for this was proved impossible as demonstrated above). It is a jump between points so minute that we cannot perceive with our eyes.

Of course, there does exist an infinite of points when we look at, say a segment, but when it comes to motion which is the real manifestation of causality in the phenomenal world, the points are separate.

One can reach this conclusion via maths and logic. But why is it so? This is a whole separate question.

Thus every event is separate from the next event spatially and temporally and thus between two events, there exists a potential infinite number of events but not an actual infinite for this is impossible (Zeno's paradox). So, since there is no actual infinite between the events, one person has never perceived an infinite number of events and thus cannot judge that causality exists outside his/her mind.

Hope I haven't confused anyone.

But I hoped to clarify.

Enjoy!

Answer 2

yes cause and effect

example

you set a rock on the ground and observe

nothing happens

cause " you observed, so something did happen. You observed the rock sitting there.

if there is no one to hear the sound was there sound. (no but there were sound waves)  

Just by being there you create cause

Answer 3

Somebody needs a girlfriend.

Seriously, why do you ask this question?

How will it serve you if you know the answer?

The answer is that the event & the cause are the same thing, OR Yes.

This quote helps:

"We are not punished because of our sins, we are punished BY our sins."

Answer 4

Yamking7, are you implying that having a girlfriend will cause the average male to think less abstractly?

In response to Mr Beasts Query.

Yes, every event has a cause with the exception of the beginning of the time (Assuming that time even had a beginning, as opposed to being ever-lasting with no start or end).

EDIT: Lets assume that time had a begining.  Now lets say that begining classidied as an "event".  If time had a begining then NOTHING preceded it.  That being the case, there can be no cause for an event that had only non-existance preceding it.

Now you could argue that the begining of time was not an event, but rather a cause for the creation of existance.

EG: The beginging of time caused existance and from this existance our universe is born.  (Some argue that this existance zone houses our universe as well as an infinite number of parralel universes.)

Answer 5

Since we are human beings, we cannot find the true answer.  We are too limited.

Science can tell us that it is highly likely that every event has causes, but it is not 100% sure.  Those who do not follow a scientific path are basing their logical deductions on assumptions (as well).

You have to be everything to know how it all really works.