Talk:Causality/Archive 3

this article should not be about moral philosophy, but there is some effort to make it so
The new edit about karma is about moral philosophy, not the core issue of efficient causality, which is the main and I think proper topic of this article. Efforts to mix in various non-core topics work in various ways. One is to try to conflate the other three elements of Aristotle's aetiology with efficient causality. Another is to try to tie in moral questions about right and wrong on the grounds that they are affected by ideas about determinism and causality. This and this are the latter kind.

I have undone them because I think they are off topic, though pretending to be on topic.

I am sorry if their editor thinks I am mistaken about this. I think if he wants to take it further, this page is the place to do so.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This article should cover the topic appropriately, the source is causality. Where you get all the aristotle stuff in relation to the source is off topic, stick to the sources, save the view pushing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)


 * Thank you for this comment. Perhaps your advice "save the view pushing" is something you might reconsider.


 * The edits which I undid were seeking to change the direction of the article. You feel that such a change of direction is called for by "the source". You write "the source is causality"; I think you intend by that 'the topic is causality' ? I think your comment does not seem to try make a reasoned case for a change of direction of the article. Rather, it reads as a tad peremptory.


 * The present content of the article is mainly on efficient causality. It is true that the concept of karma is a kind of efficient causality. But it is fraught with moral or ethical philosophy, and in that respect it is off topic. Mention of karma here needs to rest on its characteristic of efficient causality. A general account of karma, unrestricted to indicating its character of efficient causality, would open the article to a vast expansion that would be off topic.


 * As you observe, in the article there is significant load about Aristotelian aetiology, included because by chance it is in philosophy customary to render the notion of aetiology by the word 'causality', an unfortunate historical relic of language. I think the article's loading about Aristotelian aetiology is excessive, and to a degree also off topic, as I tried to indicate in my just previous edit to this talk page. I think one editor disagrees with me about the latter.


 * The relevant result in the article, of the edit that I undid, is a section as follows:

Buddhist philosophy

According to the theory of action and result (karmaphala), our karmic actions are the principal cause of our happiness or suffering. From the Buddhist point of view, a positive or wholesome action is one that will lead to greater happiness for ourselves and others, and a negative or unwholesome action is one that will lead to greater suffering for ourselves or others.

The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent origination" or "dependent arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. A traditional example in Buddhist texts is of three sticks standing upright and leaning against each other and supporting each other. If one stick is taken away, the other two will fall to the ground.

Faith, morality, concentration and pratityasamutpada cause the path to effect the exalted state in the individual.


 * As I read it, the second paragraph of that section is on topic. The first paragraph of it might be generously regarded as introductory and consequently in place. But the third paragraph, newly inserted by the edit that I undid, is pure moral philosophy with no significant weight of causality as such, and is consequently off topic and out of place in this article.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe start the Moral Causality article to fabricate your point, cause all the fuss to exclude a relevatly sourced sentence could be productive. I disagree that this is pure moral philosophy, interdependent orgination is highly integrative and would subsume. An alternative, is to agree on a dispute and pursue objectified resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course you are free to start any new article by the proper processes. I think for the present article, it may be good if some other editor should also comment.


 * That a sentence is sourced is not sufficient to place it in an article. The sentence needs also to be fitting for the place.


 * The sentence in contention is

Faith, morality, concentration and pratityasamutpada cause the path to effect the exalted state in the individual.


 * You are proposing that this sentence is fitting for this place in this article because it uses the concept of cause and effect. I am proposing that such a reason is inadequate. If mere use of the concept of cause and effect were admitted as a reason for including something in this article, that reason would indicate the inclusion of most of the physical sciences in detail, and plenty more besides; this is reductio ad absurdum. Tighter relevance is needed than mere use of the concept of cause and effect. I think the sentence does not fit in this section.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is reliably relevant and the sentence is the essence of buddhist history. Your orginal research is unconvincingly distracting article progress. i am going on break. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

law of cause and effect
"Causality, determinism, and existentialism

The deterministic world-view is one in which the universe is no more than a chain of events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect. "

You refer to "law of cause and effect" but there is no definition of it at all. As far as I understand "Causality" == "law of cause and effect" but first: it's not explained in the article and second: if that's the case then how can you refer to definition in definition? To me it sounds here like tautology (a is a according to a) when it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.83.163 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have deleted from the article its only use, the one you cite, of the phrase 'law of cause and effect', because it was superfluous and undefined. The assertion in the article is not significantly affected by this.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've found reference to it's Cause Action Effect. The act is karmically now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This last comment is so telegraphic that it leaves me none the wiser. Perhaps you will say here what is "it" in your phrase "it's Cause Action Effect". Your second sentence has me utterly bluffed.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

rewrite of lead
I have mostly rewritten the lead.

The lead that I overwrote was, I think, verbigerative. It did not make clear what is the topic of the article.

The need to rewrite was made clear by the just previous edit, that wanted to distinguish partial and whole causality. If a process X is wholly responsible for a process Y, then it must be that Y is a proper part of X. Then it hardly makes sense to say that X is a cause of Y. Talk in terms of "events", such as that of the lead that I overwrote, brings in the distracting ambiguities that are evident in the linked Wikipedia article entitled Event. In contrast, 'process' is an ordinary-language word that consequently does not have its own Wikipedia article.

There has been, perhaps, some tendency to try to make the present article about what in Aristotelian philosophy is covered by the traditional philosophical term of art "cause". That would be proper for an article about Aristotelian philosophy, but is only a side issue for the present article. I have tried to make this clear in my edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

request for explanation
Pardon, i'm trying to add some information about the work of the russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kozyrev, his theory of Causal Mechanics, for wich he recieved many attentions through the past century and the beginning of this one. Someone is erasing my improvements. Can I ask who, and why. Can we speak about it? ([User talk: Vesprolatuna 00.00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespro Latuna (talk • contribs)


 * Though I am not one who removed from the article the Kozyrev material, I concur with those who did so. The material might be proposed as biographical, about the works of Kozyrev. In that case, this is not the article for it. Or the material might be proposed as about causality as such. In that case, it is not adequate for this article. I have looked at the sources offered, and I judge them to be less than reliable sources, written about fringe- or pseudo-science. Perhaps other editors may also comment on this.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is likely working to have high quality content.  Nikolai Kozyrev's Casual Mechanics sounds interesting to me, now that the objectives have acted, maybe additional sources to make a high quality contribution, and maybe less advocative narrative. See WP:RS Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To achieve reliable sourcing and notability, I think it would need very much better quality sourcing, as distinct from merely additional sourcing. What I read of the offered sources did not make me optimistic about that. It is not enough that material 'sounds interesting'. It must have substantial notability. An editor supporting it should offer convincing reasons that it is not fringe- or pseudo-science.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

new material
To the sub-section Hindu philosophy, by edits here and here, EditorZuluPapa5 has added the following:


 * According to Monier Williams, in the Nyāya causation theory from Sutra I.2.I,2 in the Vaisheshika philosophy, from casual non-existence is effectual non-existence; but, not effectual non-existence from casual non-existence. A cause precedes an effect.  With a threads and cloth metaphors, three causes are:


 * Co-inherence cause: resulting from substantial contact, 'substantial causes', threads are substantial to cloth, corresponding to Aristotle's material cause.
 * Non-substantial cause: Methods putting threads into cloth, corresponding to Aristotle's formal cause.
 * Instrumental cause: Tools to make the cloth, corresponding to Aristotle's efficient cause.


 * Aristotle's and the Nyaya's causality are considered conditional aggregates necessary to man's productive work, according to Chambers Cyclopaedia article writers.

The given reference is to this page of Monier-Williams. The reference to the Chambers Cyclopaedia is not specified so far.

The edit relies on Monier-Williams' reading of Aristotle, as well as, of course, the Sanskrit sources.

Right now, I have some urgent non-Wikipedia business (a cup of tea with friends, to be exact), but after that I will examine this new material.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, not surprised, check these source too            Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this careful bibliography. I have been able to access a good part of it, but not all. It will take me some time to digest all this.
 * At a glance, I see the new material as probably useful for this article. Some aspects of it need further work. At a glance, I am not convinced by Monier-Williams' reading of Aristotle. Aristotle is not the unique ultimate authority on the subject matter of this article. I will need some time to look at these matters.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

current version
The current version of the new material reads:


 * According to Monier Williams, in the Nyāya causation theory from Sutra I.2.I,2 in the Vaisheshika philosophy, from casual non-existence is effectual non-existence; but, not effectual non-existence from casual non-existence. A cause precedes an effect.  With a threads and cloth metaphors, three causes are:


 * Co-inherence cause: resulting from substantial contact, 'substantial causes', threads are substantial to cloth, corresponding to Aristotle's material cause.
 * Non-substantial cause: Methods putting threads into cloth, corresponding to Aristotle's formal cause.
 * Instrumental cause: Tools to make the cloth, corresponding to Aristotle's efficient cause.


 * The 18th century Chambers Cyclopaedia article authors wrote that Aristotle's and the Nyaya's causality are considered conditional aggregates necessary to man's productive work.

Comments:

The two citation needed tags seem excessive or unreasonable. It seems that the editor who posted them did not look at the cited page 81, which pretty much supplies adequate sourcing, as I see it? The cited page contains the following:


 * Sūtra I. 2. 1, 2 states —
 * From non-existence of cause (kāraṇa) is non-existence of effect (kārya), but there is not from non-existence of effect non-existence of cause.

There is some redundancy in the words "The 18th century Chambers Cyclopaedia article authors wrote ..." As I see it, there Monier-Williams is citing his own contribution to the Chambers' Cyclopaedia. I don't see that there is too much need to actually mention there that he wrote those words in the Chambers' Cyclopaedia. It seems enough that they are to be found on the cited page. I will therefore remove those two tags.

The English expression seems more telegraphic that ordinary encyclopaedic. I think ordinary encyclopaedic wording is needed, but at present I am not sure enough of what is being said to try to do the re-wording myself. I don't feel I necessarily confidently understand the philosophy that is being presented here. That is partly because I am unfamiliar with the context, ideas and material, and I think partly because of the telegraphic and highly technical nature even of Monier-Williams' original.

I am at present inclined to think that this material might perhaps be better presented by giving a few key Sanskrit words and expressing their meanings in context. What is Nyāya? I am inclined to think that the English speaking reader will be rather unfamiliar with the conceptual frame of this material. Better give some idea of the conceptual frame than try to go into such detail as Monier-Williams does. The words kāraṇa and kārya might well be defined in their own rights, and one might say why they are translated as 'cause' and 'effect'. Also perhaps it would be good to define nimitta in context. It is very interesting that there seems to be some similarity between the Sanskrit Nyāya and Greek Aristotelian philosophy. I wonder why is that so? I have a feeling that Monier-Williams is taking a liberty by conflating instrumental cause with efficient cause? Is there some other source that might throw light on that question? In summary, I am not sure that we are here really looking at the present-day Western idea of causality. Looking at the Monier-Williams source, I am open to the suggestion that perhaps 'co-inherent cause' might be closest to the present-day Western idea of causality, not exactly what Monier-Williams thinks. What Sanskrit word(s) are being rendered here as 'co-inherent cause'?

This material is not at all easy to present in Wikipedia. Some thought and care is needed for it.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking more at the article, I see it already answers several of the questions that I have posed just above.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

some investigation
Looking at our source, Monier-Williams, I see him saying that the Vaiśeshika is a development of the Nyāya philosophy. He says that the Vaiśeshika has some parallels with European philosophy. He says further on, on the page linked hereabove, that 'cause' is mentioned in the Sūtra $I$. 2. 1, 2. This mention is rendered in the present version of the article. I think this mention is a bit recherché, and probably not very notable for the present purpose. But Monier-Williams then quotes the Tarka-san·graha as saying that a cause is "that which invariably precedes an effect which otherwise could not be". This is close to one definition (p. 274) in the 1899 edition of his Sanskrit-English dictionary: "in phil., i. e. that which is invariably antecedent to some product". I am inclined to think that this should replace in the article the historical mention, and the sentence "A cause precedes an effect". In my thinking it seems pretty close to a necessary nomic cause. I think it would be useful to actually quote the words kāraṇa and kārya here.

I think it of some interest to ask what kind of entity is intended as an antecedent, and as a consequence. The primary root of both kāraṇa and kārya given by Monier-Williams is kṛi, a verb meaning "to do, make, perform, accomplish, cause, effect, prepare, undertake, execute, carry out, manufacture, work at, elaborate, construct" and more (p. 301). This may remind one of Whitehead's conception of an actual entity as a process as distinct from a material object.

I am not yet persuaded that a detailed comparison with Aristotle is needed here. The article is about causality, not Aristotle. Having said that, I now cautiously suggest that kārya might even be compared also with Aristotle's final ""cause"". After all, a completion is a kind of effect or accomplishment. Enough for today.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

new edit on Buddhist philosophical history
Editor Zulupapa5 has here added some material. It seems that he has a habit of posting material that is expressed in language that is pretty nearly telegraphic, so that it is mostly incomprehensible to someone who does not already know the details; not good enough. He wants, I suppose, to put in much material, but does not want the post to be too long. I think he should fix the telegraphic expression problem; it must be fixed.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind and thoughtful comment to my editing, feeling educated in my style. I prefer to write in the active voice removing "of the" because, action is the essence between cause and effect.  Also, since training in "Three Words Essence Hitting"  been reducing things even further.  English articles kill infinitives; for which emptiness aims.   I'll like to fix by expanding with other sources. There are many areas in the article where the style can be cleaned up.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is the policy of Wikipedia that it should be written in plain ordinary English. In particular, that means that it is against Wikipedia to write in eccentric style. It seems obvious that 'three words training' is leading you to write in eccentric style. If you want to continue to edit Wikipedia, you should follow Wikipedia policy. In particular, you should not write in eccentric style. You you should edit in plain ordinary English. You should remedy your telegraphic edits.


 * I agree that action is essential in the nexus between cause and effect. It is of the essence, but is not the whole of the essence. There is more to the essence than action. For Wikipedia editing, it is wrong to effectively deny this by editing according to a special doctrine such as 'three words training'.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * English is so accusatory. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)


 * !Another telegraphic and hardly comprehensible expression! Still, this is the Wikipedia.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor ZuluPapa5, you should correct your above-mentioned edits, by putting them into proper English. That is the policy of Wikipedia. It is not acceptable that you use your special jargon for edits here. If you don't fix the language of your edits yourself, you can't expect others to do it for you. The edits, as they stand at present, in jargon, are not acceptable. Something must be done about them.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed it, since no improvement was forthcoming. It wasn't obviously notable either William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What would make it obviously notable WMC? There are so may sources for this material, and such little patients. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

edits on history of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy
Editor ZuluPapa5 has added some material to the sub-section headed Buddhist philosophy. It has some flaws of grammar, and still is a little telegraphic. I don't feel like myself fixing these defects. Also he has not fixed his excessively telegraphic posts in the sub-section headed Hindu philosophy. I wish he would attend to these tasks, which are incurred by his actions. If he doesn't, or keeps on with this kind of editing, I suppose I should make a Request for Comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you be specific? Thanks for pointing out my telegraphic grammar flaws.  Take your time, you can get to it when you feel less overwhelmed ... like ... liking it.  If you would rather go after me, then maybe edit the article, don't let me stop you.  If you just don't like it, it's Ok to say that too. Would be best to focus on the sources to improve the article.  Buddhist causality sources are in abundance, the article bottom could telescopically expand, like adiabatic perfection at a negative temperature inflection, with erogtic indirection to teleology misdirection and poetically elaborated axiomatic intrinsic extrinsic nonsense to aimed at building a better engine.  Yes, entropy can be reversed, in collaborative effort. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't want to go after you. But I do think you should check your grammar. I don't have the leisure to do it. As far as I can tell, not too many editors are active in this article, though the topic is important. I am not well enough clued up on Hindu and Buddhist philosophy to undertake editing about them. Years ago I did attempt to study Sanskrit because I think they are important and valuable and I wanted to improve my limited knowledge of them.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

undid good-faith edit; why
I undid this good faith edit.

The article was there cataloging views of historical figures. It is not appropriate at that point in the article to engage in original research debate with those historical figures, no matter how wrong or right they may be.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

citation on probabilistic causation
The new edit by Editor Dananbar is fine. According to Wikipedia policy, a citation or two of reliable sources are needed for this sub-section. The policy is that a reader should be given sourcing information that enables checking of entries. A reliable source is preferably at least an established high-quality textbook, with a specific statement that exactly verifies the Wikipedia entry. The citation should give pages where the supporting statement is to be found. I guess this will not be a problem for the poster of the new edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

citation on probabilistic causation
The new edit by Editor Dananbar is fine. According to Wikipedia policy, a citation or two of reliable sources are needed for this sub-section. The policy is that a reader should be given sourcing information that enables checking of entries. A reliable source is preferably at least an established high-quality textbook, with a specific statement that exactly verifies the Wikipedia entry. The citation should give pages where the supporting statement is to be found. I guess this will not be a problem for the poster of the new edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A reminder to Editor Dananbar that it will be good if he supplies a reference or two for his edit here on probabilistic causality.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

no such thing as morality
Ridiculous to state that there is "no such thing as morality". Depends on the definition. It certainly doesn't empirically follow from the deterministic world view that morality doesn't exist. Morality is just another effect caused by the workings of the human mind, etc. Unless the authors want to get into morality, which is so vast a subject that it is best left to a subject by itself, I suggest this quaint reference be eliminated.

Norm

The just foregoing comment was posted here] at 20:50, 7 January 2007 by IP editor 68.44.91.155. (Source was tracked down by Chjoaygame (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC).)

.

"Thus, the notion of causality is metaphysically prior to the notions of time and space."
I saw this statement and wondered what it actually meant. In terms of axiomatic descriptions of the laws of physics, I don't see why causality need necessarily occur before constructions of the topology of spacetime (though this may appear 'natural', surely it is just as viable to have the structure of spacetime give rise to causality in a natural way so that causality is not metaphysically prior to the notions of time and space). I think that this section could do with some mathematical detail, or are least further explanation, as what it states is not necessarily true.

ASavantDude (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Does Causality Exist?
Now, without a working definition of Causality, it will be a bit difficult to answer this question. Nevertheless, it seems to me that one would try to say that Event Distribution A is the necessary and sufficient cause of Event Distribution B IF : (i) A occurs before B (ii) Without A, B Would not occur (iii) A is sufficient for B (ie: A GUARANTEES that B will occur, that is, once A occurs, B will Definitely occur).

All of this clearly requires belief in counterfactual definiteness, that is, that it would make sense to speak about what WOULD happen if A did not occur, or the belief that the chain of causality can follow a different path to the path that it DID follow. Such a belief does not seem compatible with determinism in the sense that, if you are a determinist, you believe that events can ONLY occur the way that they do, and not any other way. So determinism should reject counterfactual definiteness. This does not seem to make much sense intuitively (as when tossing a coin, we accept that the coin could turn up either heads or tails).

Nevertheless, the point remains, you can't have 'causality' (as approximately defined above) without counterfactual definiteness, for otherwise, how would you say "Without A, B would not occur" if such a question were ultimately meaningless (that is, it would NOT make sense to speak about what would happen if A did not occur, as A DID occur).

I'm aware that certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics DO allow for counterfactuals to exist. ASavantDude (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Causality (physics)
I have moved a lot of what was in the "Physics" section of this page to causality (physics) and have added a link to that page. There was some text in the physics section that didn't seem to me to have much to do with physics, so it was placed under the new heading of "philosophy".

--Anakolouthon 22:41 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces: gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are said to be the four fundamental forces which are the causes of all other events in the universe. " -- This is on a more fundamental level not true in several ways, and in a more everyday sense irrelevant. I'm not sure what is the point of putting that sentence there, but it's irrelevant to the article and badly worded.


 * Agreed. Does "causality" mean anything in physics other than criteria on characteristics ("signals")? I understand that stuff, since I can do PDEs and relativity and all that, and still haven't a clue what people mean when they say that A caused B.137.205.101.74 (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Causality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501095157/http://www.thomist.org/journal/1970%2C%20vol.%2034/April/1970%20April%20A%20May%20web.htm to http://www.thomist.org/journal/1970%2C%20vol.%2034/April/1970%20April%20A%20May%20web.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Causes must precede effects?
The article repeatedly says that causes must precede effects, so this must be very well-established in the literature. But I don’t see why simultaneity is not possible. For example, with my hand on a doorknob, I twist my hand (the cause) and simultaneously the doorknob turns (the effect).

Is there anything in the literature about simultaneous causation? Loraof (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is in the nature of causal efficacy that causes precede effects. The twisting of your hand, moment by moment, precedes the moment by moment turning of the door handle. Different moments may overlap each other in time and space, and so may different causes, and so may different effects, but in each momentary causal link, the respective cause precedes its effect. Such precedence is more real than the notion of simultaneity, which is derivative from the more fundamental notion of causal efficacy. Something in the literarure about simultaneous causation would belong in the same department as items about dehydrated water, and would not affect the basic idea of causation.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Mathematical Definitions of Causality in Terms of 'Causal Chains'
The article does not seem to provide 'Mathematical' definitions of what Causality actually is. I feel that the introduction, and the article, would do well to at least provide tentative definitions of what Causality is. For example :

1) In what follows below, we consider a distribution of mass-energy in spacetime with respect to a given inertial reference frame. A 'point Event' can be thought of as a coordinate (x1,t1) in the spacetime diagram.  A simply connected 'Event distribution' is some Simply connected subset of the spacetime diagram (associated with a given mass energy distribution) that can contain worldlines (which themselves correspond to a sequence of point events).  We say that Event distribution A is the cause of Event distribution B if A occurs before B.  And that's all, because special relativity is deterministic...


 * It is worth remarking that the notions of time and space are derivative from the more fundamental notion of causality. Time and space are relative concepts, while causality is absolute, and may be used to generate the notions of time and space.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Causal calculus and QM
The section on Causal Calculus states:

"It is specifically characteristic of quantal phenomena that observations defined by incompatible variables always involve important intervention by the experimenter, as described quantitatively by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[vague] In classical thermodynamics, processes are initiated by interventions called thermodynamic operations. In other branches of science, for example astronomy, the experimenter can often observe with negligible intervention."

For two reasons, I suggest that these be removed from the article:
 * First, this has nothing to do with the section's topic, (Pearl's) causal calculus: rules for transforming interventional factors into observational factors.
 * Second, even if it were germane, it is wrong. The author has conflated the challenge of making measurements in the physical world (whereby the effect of an "intervention" might be wider than the intended target) with the infamous ontological complementarity of certain pairs of quantum mechanical quantities (e.g., position and momentum) addressed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The latter is an incredibly subtle and fraught subject worthy of much more than the vague comment here.

Any way, it is well known (says I!) that quantum mechanics (and other microscopic physical laws) are not "causal"; they are time reversal invariant (with few, negligible exceptions, such as the weak nuclear force / beta decay) and work just as well "backwards" as "forwards"; there is no "causal" directionality (at the microscopic level). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriboErgoSum (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Delay-insensitive communication
The edit of HuubSchols, adding the parenthesis (more precise: none lie in its future) is in good faith, but is deeply misguided. In effect it allows the possibility of causality when there is only correlation. It denies the prime feature of causality, that it propagates at a finite speed, bounded above by light speed. Such a denial may seem more precise in a sense, that it draws a fine distinction; but it is not more verifiably true; indeed it is verifiably untrue. Ideas based on Bell's theorem do not alter the nature of causality; they simply deny it. The edit needs to be undone.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

reasons for undo
I have undone a goodfaith edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causality&type=revision&diff=889049746&oldid=887805709, for the following reasons.

In general, every process (or event or state) is the effect of several or of many causes. The analysis of the class of possible causes usually yields no unique and exhaustive single result. In other words, different analyses of the precursors or antecedents of a process result in different arrays of possible causes. Again, in other words, as noted in the article, "an effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future." The undone edit proposed a more rigid definition, but the rigidity was not an improvement, and indeed contradicted the sentence that follows it in the article. No singly identified cause is necessarily required for a process to occur. A process may be caused by various arrays of other processes.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello; while I appreciate you reaching out on the talk page, I think you are misunderstanding what the word "necessary" means. As stated on the linked page necessity and sufficiency, Q is necessary for P [if] P cannot be true unless Q is true". That is, P requires Q to be true. If we now swap P with 'effect' and Q with 'cause', we get that an effect requires a cause to have taken place. This does not mean that the cause is unique – that would be implied by sufficiency – but it does say that an effect can't take place without any of its (potentially multiple) causes. I will restore my edit for now, as I am pretty sure it was just a simple misunderstanding by you, but if you still disagree, feel free to revert my edit once again and reach back to me here. O l J a 05:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment, Editor Oldstone James. Your comment explains that I misunderstand. I won't now undo your undo, but prefer to discuss the matter here.


 * Your comment focuses on the logical notions of necessity and sufficiency. It does not focus on the nature of causality. Though logic is relevant to it, as logic is relevant to most things, causality is not primarily a logical relation. Causality is a relation of nature, where nature refers to the real processes that are regarded as elements of the world. This is such a fundamental notion that it can hardly be accounted for in terms that are more fundamental. That is why it was so hard for Hume to deal with it. To give a basic account of causality, metaphor can be more helpful than categorical or literal expression. One metaphor is that causality is the glue that holds the world together. One may reasonably ask 'What is meant by "the world"? Which world? The world of mathematical objects? The world of enduring physically material objects? And so on?' It is not too easy to give an answer to that question, beyond that what is meant is the world in which real processes and events occur. It is not a merely logical world. For example, in pure mathematics, there is no concept of causality. In particular, in pure logic, there is no concept of causality.


 * In the real world, causality is a matter of antecedence and consequence, defined as relations that are the same for all observers. From antecedence and consequence, one can derive relations of time and space. These are physical, not merely logical relations.


 * Depending on how one analyzes the relations between processes, various causal relations can be found. For any one particular process, several or many different bundles of causal antecedents may be found. A process that is a cause in one such bundle is not necessarily to be found in another such bundle. This means that the causes of an index process are not in general uniquely identifiable. A particular cause in one particular bundle may not be a cause in another; in this case, it is not necessary as a cause of the index process.


 * Logical entailment is the province of logical necessity and sufficiency. Logical entailment is a relation that is quite different from causality, which belongs to the world of real processes.


 * Perhaps my foregoing remarks are not addressing your concerns. Perhaps now is the moment for me pause and ask do my remarks address your concerns?Chjoaygame (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it may help if I add that, while every process in the real world has causes, and in that sense it is necessary that it has some cause, still, in general, no particular cause is necessary for it, because in general there is no unique bundle of causes for it.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello there again,, and thanks for your reply. I must note that though your ideas may be reasonable, Wikipedia is not a place to publish them (WP:OR). Causality is defined in logical terms as the relationship between cause and effect  , where cause is defined as bringing about the effect , so that is how it should be defined on Wikipedia. If A brings about B, B cannot exist without A, as A is what makes B happen , and, therefore, A is necessary for B . The opening sentence needs to be clear and concise (MOS:LEAD), so the use of metaphors or excessive vocabulary is not advised, in order to avoid ambiguity and preserve clarity. Furthermore, if you do not agree with my formulation, you should propose an alternative formulation; all I have done so far is replaced "partially responsible for" with "necessary for", which is synonymous. If you propose a better definition and cite reliable sources to back it up, I will be more than happy to change it; however, as it stands, I see no reason why the current definition should be changed. All the best,  O l J a  17:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Thank you, Editor Oldstone James, for your comment. It seems that you believe that "partially responsible for" and "necessary for" are synonymous.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it, the better definition would be: "at least one potential cause is necessary for an effect to take place; the cause of that effect is then said to be the potential cause that actually took place". However, I have no sources to back that up, and that would make it WP:OR. The problem with my sourcing was that I took the phrase "make X happen" to mean "is necessary for X to happen", which is false, as "make happen" is a phrase that should not be taken literally (WP:SYN). Therefore, I'll revert my changes and leave "partially responsible for" in the article. O l J a 13:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is part of ordinary language to speak of a given effect as having immediate, proximate, remote, predisposing, precipitating, direct, indirect, usual, and unusual causes. Closely conversely, it is part of ordinary language to speak of a given cause as having primary, secondary, feedback, and other suchlike kinds of effects. Analysis of causal relations does not confine itself to unique conclusions, but can yield various answers. Such various relationships between causes and effects reflect one another.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

efficacy
I am proposing to undo the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causality&type=revision&diff=894016813&oldid=893615726 made by Editor2020. That edit replaces the words "a relation of efficacy that connects" with the words "connection". I propose to restore the words "a relation of efficacy that connects". I am bringing this up on the talk page before I edit the article because I suppose that Editor2020 has careful reasons for his edit, and perhaps would like to state them; and I want to avoid edit conflict. I hope Editor 2020 will reply here.

The words "relation of efficacy" are strong and significant. They help to focus on key elements of the notion of causality. For example, they oppose mere correlation as distinct from the notion of causality as indicating production, from cause to effect. Hume is usually cited for the view that 'efficacy' is an empty or merely nominalistic or merely logical notion, without substantial content; I think such a view is now obsolete. I think that 'production' is essential to the notion of causality as distinct from correlation, and that 'efficacy' is a commonly accepted and good way of expressing the idea of production.

For this I can cite

Mackie, page xvi: "a summary of the previous ten chapters and an outline of the view of efficient causation developed in them, as an introduction to the question whether teleology, final causation, and purposive behaviour can be fully explained in terms of efficient causation, or whether some kind of irreducible teleology should be recognized in addition to efficient causes." (The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation, Oxford University Press, 1980.)

Losee, page 26: "both programs take the meaning of “cause” to include the notion of “productive efficacy.” A cause is something that produces an effect. We are familiar with this notion of “productive efficacy” from everyday experience." (Theories of Causality: From Antiquity to the Present, Transaction Publishers, NB, 2011.)

Frisch, page 242: "Thus, both a Humean, who views the initial randomness assumption to be a property of the Humean mosaic, and someone who believes in metaphysically more robust relations of causal production can allow for causal notions to play an integral role in how physics represents the world." (Causal Reasoning in Physics, Cambridge University Press, 2014.)

Illari & Russo, page 253: "Chapter 6 shows that establishing a causal claim may mean very many different things, from finding the productive cause to establishing efficacy of treatment to establishing how much of a cause is needed to produce an effect." (Causality: Philosophical Theory Meets Scientific Practice, Oxford University Press, 2014.)

Born, page 6: "But causality does not refer to logical dependence; it means dependence of real things of nature on one another." (Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Oxford University Press, 1949.)

Perhaps that is enough citation for the present.

I am not proposing to put these citations into the lead, because the lead is a production from the Wikipedia article itself, not a reproduction of other sources, and so I think that citations in the lead are not appropriate.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Like always, you can revert if you disagree with me, but I don't understand "a relation of efficacy that connects". Could you explain or expand on that? Editor2020 (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Editor2020. You indicate that the wording 'a relation of efficacy that connects' is not too clear. Perhaps I should try to improve it.


 * I think that the first sentence of the lead, usually more or less a definition, should say more than 'connects'. It needs to indicate somehow the notion of productive efficacy. As examples of the meaning of 'cause', Aristotle used illustrations of productive efficacy, for example, of creating a statue. 'Connects' is too vague. Causality is one of the very high abstractions of natural philosophy. It is one of the foundations of natural science, perhaps to be compared with 'energy' and 'matter', but perhaps more abstract. It is not easy, and is perhaps impossible, to explain the idea of causality in terms of other more obvious notions, beyond efficacy and production.


 * Causality is an abstraction that refers to a certain kind of relation between two events (Hume) or states (Kant). To try to distinguish the latter two ideas is perhaps not too urgent here, though it is sometimes important. A relation connects entities. It is a fundamental category. One might say that 'a relation of xxx that connects' is too wordy.


 * Here is a try: 'Causality is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect; the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause.'Chjoaygame (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you wish, but could you link efficacy. Editor2020 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

QM
It seems that there are more and more experiments that suggest that in some cases, quantum mechanics (the actual system that makes the universe work) violates causality. Does that matter here? Gah4 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound right. Examples? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Editor Gah4 writes above: "It seems that there are more and more experiments that suggest that in some cases, quantum mechanics (the actual system that makes the universe work) violates causality. Does that matter here?"
 * My view is that this article seeks to answer the question 'What is causality?' It is not oriented towards the question 'What is the actual system that makes the universe work?'
 * In order to answer the question 'Does the actual system that makes the universe work violate causality?', one must have a notion of what is causality, defined prior to question of the nature of a putative actual system that might or might not violate causality. So this article ought to concern itself with causality without referring to the nature of such a putative system. The nature of such a putative system is the concern of physics, in Wikipedia in the article Causality (physics), where perhaps Editor Gah4's question may be considered.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Link to entity
I have changed the recent link to Non-physical entity to entity. This is because there is apparently no full Wikipedia article on Entity, and because it is misleading to suggest that the Wikipedia article Non-physical entity is a good link for the purposes of the present article.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Propagation of causal efficacy
Editor El C, it is good to see your interest in this topic. I think your edit would do better to be tighter about the use of the word 'process'. 'Process' is often best used to refer to some fully physically real thing, while your edit uses it to refer to abstract elements of a mathematical analysis of the mechanism of a process. A wave phase, with its velocity, is not a process in the ordinary sense of the word. A wave phase 'propagates' only in the physicist's notebook and mind, not as a real physical object. Perhaps you may like to re-word your edit accordingly.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Apology, my mistake. I am sure exactly to whom I should be a dressing my comment above. Perhaps I should be addressing Editor User:165.230.225.156? Whichever, my comment stands, mutatis mutandis.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

When to Add 'Reciprocal Causation' reference to clarify/simplify lead sentence
Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect,[2] where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause


 * Please read this paper's abstract. Causation and cause and effect is 'becoming' more about change. Today, here is different than yesterday or tomorrow...


 * Abstract--Recent calls for a revision of standard evolutionary theory (SET) are based partly on arguments about the reciprocal causation. Reciprocal causation means that cause–effect relationships are bi-directional, as a cause could later become an effect and vice versa. Such dynamic cause-effect relationships raise questions about the distinction between proximate and ultimate causes, as originally formulated by Ernst Mayr. They have also motivated some biologists and philosophers to argue for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). The EES will supposedly expand the scope of the Modern Synthesis (MS) and SET, which has been characterized as gene-centred, relying primarily on natural selection and largely neglecting reciprocal causation. Here, I critically examine these claims, with a special focus on the last conjecture. I conclude that reciprocal causation has long been recognized as important by naturalists, ecologists and evolutionary biologists working in the in the MS tradition, although it it could be explored even further. Numerous empirical examples of reciprocal causation in the form of positive and negative feedback are now well known from both natural and laboratory systems. Reciprocal causation have also been explicitly incorporated in mathematical models of coevolutionary arms races, frequency-dependent selection, eco-evolutionary dynamics and sexual selection. Such dynamic feedback were already recognized by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin in their bok The Dialectical Biologist. Reciprocal causation and dynamic feedback might also be one of the few contributions of dialectical thinking and Marxist philosophy in evolutionary theory. I discuss some promising empirical and analytical tools to study reciprocal causation and the implications for the EES. Finally, I briefly discuss how quantitative genetics can be adapated to studies of reciprocal causation, constructive inheritance and phenotypic plasticity and suggest that the flexibility of this approach might have been underestimated by critics of contemporary evolutionary biology.
 * Thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No to please read; no to please reference; no-just reference it, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In general, it is not a good idea to change the title of a talk page topic because it has a deteriorative effect on replies under the initial title.
 * The article in question is not suitable for any place or reference in the lead of this Wikipedia article.
 * Your now deleted comment "Causality is philosophy for the philosopher" may help to understand why. Causality in Wikipedia is causality for Wikipedia, not just for the philosopher. The article in question is either a spoof or was written by an incompetent writer.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

reason for undo of edit
I have undone this edit, for the following reasons.

The source for the edit is a purely philosophical one, and is distinctly tendentious. I suggest that readers may easily follow the link to the source.

The lead of a Wikipedia article is a summary of the article, not a place for debate in general.

The cited source makes it clear that its author(s) think that the phrase 'causal nexus' is highly problematic. The lead is not a place for highly problematic content. The phrase 'causal nexus' is more nearly a topic for a philosophy department seminar than an item of ordinary language needing mention in the lead of a Wikipedia article, more a word game than a matter of substance.

For the present I will leave it at that.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that the cited source is purely philosophical and highly problematic. However, notwithstanding the philosophical debate is still open, the 'causality nexus' is indeed an item of ordinary language in most countries. As a matter of fact, two fields of vital importance are founded on this principle: (a) Legal Medicine and (2) Civil Law (I'm referring to the legal system different from the Common Law)..
 * For example, a party that appeals to the Court to obtain justice for having suffered biological damage must demonstrate the "causal nexus" between the aforementioned damage and the actions or omissions of the medical personnel who would cause it. In cases where the nexus is not proven (depending on the type of procedure - criminal or civil - varying degrees of certainty are required) the judges cannot condemn the other party.
 * As soon as possible I'll provide a couple of citations to reliable medical and legal sources. In the while, please do reconsider whether or not undoing your revert.
 * I'd also appreciate to read what other editors think of this issue.Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts, Fabio Maria De Francesco.


 * It is not a matter of the truth or validity of your edit that I undid. Discussion of the matter has continued to have a respectable place in philosophy. I am sure you can produce countless reliable sources on it. Everyone knows that Hume wrote sceptically of the notion of causality.


 * It's a matter of appropriateness for a place in the lead of the Wikipedia article; the lead should be short. The term 'causal nexus' is not of such significance that it should be placed in the lead of this article. Usually, as in this case, what goes into the lead is not a question of reliable sourcing; such sourcing is usually in the body of the article. What goes into the lead is a matter of appropriateness as a summary of the body of the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Chjoaygame,
 * Thank you for your kind reply. I must admit that I need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia's style, policy, and other relevant topics. It's a hard work, especially because English is not my mother tongue. I wish to contribute effectively, therefore I really appreciated your effort to tell what is appropriate for the lead and what goes into the body.


 * Now let's return to the article... I'd like to write a new (short) section titled "Causal nexus" into the body. I think it can help readers to better understand that "Causality" differs profoundly from "Correlation", "Coincidence", and the like. "Causal nexus" (verbatim) is broadly used in many fields such as Law (I was wrong about the assumption that this topic is alien to the Common Law legal system), Economics, and Natural Sciences. I can provide links to authoritative sources which uses the words "causal nexus" whenever they refer to changes in the state of systems (the effects) that necessarily only emerge from unequivocally identifiable causes.


 * However I think that this subject deserves careful attention, therefore I want to submit a draft for reviews and advices to more experienced editors before the actual edit. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I hardly need say that you are free to edit as you think fit.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

reason for undo
I have undone this edit. My reason is as follows.

The article is about efficient or "moving" causality. It is not about other usages of the word 'cause', of which there are many. In the following, by 'causality' is meant efficient or "moving" causality.

It is part of the definition or constitution of the notion of causality that, in every time frame, each cause precedes all of its effects, and each effect follows all of its causes. The edit denied this.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Efficacy
I find the use of the word efficacy here interesting. It is commonly used in scientific article where efficiency isn't quite right. It is used for the ability of light sources to convert incoming (usually) electrical power to visible light. It is also used for heat pumps ability to convert incoming electrical power to heat, which is often more than 100% (that being the whole idea behind a heat pump). Given those, the usage here seem strange. Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In the present context, the ability of light sources to convert incoming electrical power to visible light, and the performance of heat pumps, is a specialised topic in physics, and does not provide a "given" by which to examine the usage of the word 'efficacy' here. Engineering and physical science may borrow words from ordinary language and philosophy, but not commandeer them.


 * The language used in the above comment, in physics, is fast and loose. The conversion of incoming electrical power to light in a light source is a conversion from one form of transfer, with respect to the energy source, to another from of transfer, which is as heat, with a high temperature, with respect to the receiver of the light. A heat pump uses incoming electrical power to pump heat, which is its function. Yes, indeed the incoming electrical power is degraded and converted to heat, as in Joule's experiments. But the extra benefit, and primary function, of extracting energy as heat from one part of the surroundings, and putting it out as heat into another part of the surroundings, is incidental to the degradation and conversion of incoming power to heat. The incoming electrical power is completely degraded into heat, through friction and suchlike. The overall process is primarily to set up a temperature inhomogeneity in the surroundings of the heat pump; incidentally it adds energy to the surroundings as heat derived from the incoming electrical power. In principle, one might arrange for the resultant temperature inhomogeneity to drive a heat engine, but of course the power extracted from such a heat engine would be less than the incoming electrical power. Some of the incoming electrical power would be left in the surroundings as some cardinal energy function, for example as internal energy, depending on the details.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems that there are two things. For light sources, efficacy includes the spectral sensitivity of the eye, where different frequencies have different visual effect. In that case, efficiency isn't quite right. One that seems less obvious, is that a heat pump can be more than 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat. Of course Carnot allows for this, but it seems that efficiency isn't supposed to be more that 100%, so they use efficacy instead. So I find the usage here strange. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems that there are two things. For light sources, efficacy includes the spectral sensitivity of the eye, where different frequencies have different visual effect. In that case, efficiency isn't quite right. One that seems less obvious, is that a heat pump can be more than 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat. Of course Carnot allows for this, but it seems that efficiency isn't supposed to be more that 100%, so they use efficacy instead. So I find the usage here strange. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think in scientific usage, efficacy might indeed be used to avoid "efficiency" where not quite right, and probably also sometimes instead of "effectiveness". For some people, efficacy can still imply that we are talking about a measurable/comparable amount of potential effectiveness, rather than just a casual remark as in everyday language, as with "effectiveness".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)