- #1
- 857
- 2
What is 'causally closed' and does it imply materialism?
Thanks for the puzzle:What is 'causally closed' and does it imply materialism?
excerpt from:Causal Closure Over Observables
September 23rd, 2006 — Peter
One of the assumptions of materialism is that the physical world is completely causally closed. Even though this proposition is well supported by evidence some would doubt it (perhaps reasoning that causal closure is broken only in rare cases, and thus explaining why it hasn’t been revealed by our scientific investigations). What is impossible to doubt, however, is that the universe of observable phenomena is casually closed. And if we define as physical that which is observable, which not a radical suggestion, this in turn implies that the physical world is completely casually closed.
From this reasoning we conclude that, by our notions of observable and cause, the observable world must be completely causally closed. And if we define as material that which is observable then the material world is also completely causally closed. Some may object, saying that there are no material causes for observable conscious states, and hence that we can’t claim the observable is identical with material. This would be a problem if we allowed all conscious experience to count as observable, however, as presented here, we can take as observable to mean only those phenomena observed with our outward-directed senses, and the causal closure holds just as well. And from that we could deduce by observing other people that our conscious states really do have a basis in the material / observable, or that they are unobservable by our outward-directed senses but have no causal powers (they are epiphenomenal). And if we reject epiphenomenalism (see here) then we can conclude that the mind really is identical with some material phenomena.
Is this really so firmly established?What is impossible to doubt, however, is that the universe of observable phenomena is casually closed.
The author has slightly addressed your concern hereIs this really so firmly established?
What about things such as gravity, the discrepancy between qm and general relativity, dark matter, black holes, consciousness, and anything else we dont understand?
because we haven't been able to explain, observe or otherwise understand certain events in the universe dosn't mean they won't be understood at a later date through better technology or process.perhaps reasoning that causal closure is broken only in rare cases, and thus explaining why it hasn’t been revealed by our scientific investigations.....
Of course but id rather reason from the situation as it is, and not from some desired situation.because we haven't been able to explain, observe or otherwise understand certain events in the universe dosn't mean they won't be understood at a later date through better technology or process.
Material is described here as 'what is observable', i dont see how the existence of something observable means that anything that caused it is observable aswell?Let's say gravity is X and mass is A and the effects of gravity are B.
We observe A and we observe B and these two observables lead us to a conclusion of X yet we cannot observe X. Is X material or what?
Material is described here as 'what is observable', i dont see how the existence of something observable means that anything that caused it is observable aswell?