2

Things have properties and what it means by being in a causal connection is one object's property/properties determines the property/properties of the other object with which the first object maintains a causal connection.

But if determinism is the reality, then 2 objects that are causally isolated can never become a causally connected pair since the properties of 1 object has determined all the future states of itself.

So is it right to say that if we take time, causality, and determinism as fundamental features of our reality things that didn't get causally connected in the very beginning can never become causally connected ?

Has any philosopher written on this and what could be some objections to this argument ?

**EDIT 2018/10/05******************************************************

I thought this question requires more clarification.

In my argument, I have reduced everything in this universe into particles. They aren't the subatomic particles that are known to us at the moment since it's possible that they might turn out they are emergent phenomena of something more fundamental just like we realized that atoms are not really atoms but composite things made of much smaller things. Even proton turned out to be a composition of another type of particles. So what I'm assuming in this question is the most fundamental level there is in reality. They can never turn out to be an emergent phenomena of something more fundamental by definition.

These most fundamental particles have properties and what it means by maintaining a causal connection between any 2 particles is that one particle's properties are determined by its and its causal partner's properties.

(1) Suppose there are 2 particles A and B. What it means by A is causally isolated from B is that if A's properties have certain values at time T1, values of its properties in all future times are determined by the values it had on time T1. It doesn't matter how B's properties evolve. They have no effect on A whatsoever.

(2) But if we assume B somehow gets causally connected with A at some time after T1, let's call that moment T2, what it means is after time T2, properties of A starts evolve depending on both A's and B's properties at time T2.

(3) But in point (1) we said that all A's future states were determined only by its own properties and point (2) contradicts it. Therefore the assumption that B could somehow get causally connected with a causally isolated particle must be wrong. Therefore a causally isolated particle should destined to live in causal isolation for eternity.

**Edit end****************************************************************

  • 1
    Things also have relations, i.e. "properties" that attach to pairs, triples, etc., and under determinism the future is determined not just by one-object properties at present, but by their relations as well. A simple example from relativity physics, objects that are outside each others' light cones are causally isolated, but if they are moving towards each other they will eventually come into causal contact. – Conifold Oct 3 '18 at 17:32
  • If another object comes close to a given object then it causes changes in that object's future, even under determinism. There is no basis for the deduction. – user9166 Oct 3 '18 at 18:42
  • @Conifold I don't think this matter can be neither understood nor explained using any physical theory. They are made to explain observations. Not to explain how the underlying reality works. There are observations that contradicts physical theories. They could get falsified. But this question is based on purely a priori reasoning. – Astro Oct 4 '18 at 17:40
  • @jobermark As in the reply to Conifold what you are saying is based on our current physical theories. – Astro Oct 4 '18 at 17:42
  • Take the relativity example as an a priori hypothetical then. Since it answers the title question affirmatively the reasoning in the post has to be flawed. Also, there is no such thing as "purely a priori reasoning", "causality", "time", etc. are all a posteriori concepts. – Conifold Oct 4 '18 at 17:44
3

Jaegwon Kim, 'Noncausal Connections', Noûs, Vol. 8, No. 1, Symposia Papers to be Read at the Meeting of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association in St. Louis, Missouri, April 27-29, 1974 (Mar., 1974), pp. 41-52, explores issues that are at least within the region of what you are looking for.

But if determinism is the reality, then 2 objects that are causally isolated can never become a causally connected pair since the properties of 1 object have determined all the future states of itself.

I am hesitant about this. Determinism determines, let's say, the future relations of objects. But reality does not consist of only two objects. If object 1 and object 2 are causally unrelated at time t1, there is still an indefinite number of other objects (3,4,5, ... n) with causally determined trajectories - futures. I can't see how it is true a priori that two objects, 1 and 2, which are causally unrelated at t1 cannot, as a result of the causally determined trajectories of other objects (3,4,5, ... n), be or become causally related at some future time, t2, t3, t4 or whenever.

You've raised a thoroughly interesting question.

Reply - 1

The clarification has usefully been given :

I used only 2 objects so the question is clear. I was actually thinking about all the things that exist in our universe.

My response is that I don't think the logic of my argument is upset however many causally isolated objects you have. What are isolated at t1 can, as a result of the causally determined trajectories of n objects, be or become causally related at some future time, t2, t3, t4 or whenever. Or at least I can't see what's to rule this out a priori.

Reply - 2

That's the problem. If there are 2 causally isolated objects, A and B, according to the definition of determinism, all future states of A are predetermined by its properties at time t1. Situation is same for B. But if they somehow get causally connected at time t2, then from t2 onwards A's future states are determined by both A's and B's properties. But we have argued that since A is isolated from B, all its future states are determined by the properties of itself. Therefore this is a contradiction. So it's not possible for A and B to have been causally isolated t1.

A nice piece of argument, indeed. Like it. I think what I want to say is that because A and B are causally isolated at t1 and in a determinist world all future states of A and B are predetermined, it does not follow that there is not another object, C, whose future is also ex hypothesi predetermined, which does not in the course of its causally determined trajectory bring A and B into causal relation. How is that not possible ? And if it's possible, we can't know a priori that the initially causally related A and B will not be brought into causal relations with one another. This is quite consistent with all future states of both A and B being predetermined at t1.

I am relying here on your concession that 'I used only 2 objects so the question is clear. I was actually thinking about all the things that exist in our universe.' That's where C comes from.

  • 1
    I used only 2 objects so the question is clear. I was actually thinking about all the things that exist in our universe. – Astro Oct 4 '18 at 17:37
  • 1
    Hello, thanks for clarification. I don't think the logic of my argument is upset however many causally isolated objects you have. What are isolated at t1 can, as a result of the causally determined trajectories of n objects, be or become causally related at some future time, t2, t3, t4 or whenever. Or at least I can't see what's a priori to rule this out. – Geoffrey Thomas Oct 4 '18 at 17:46
  • 1
    That's the problem. If there are 2 causally isolated objects, A and B, according to the definition of determinism, all future states of A is predetermined by it's properties at time t1. Situation is same for B. But if they somehow get causally connected at time t2, then from t2 onwards A's future states are determined by both A's and B's properties. But we have argues that since A is isolated from B, all its future states are determined by the properties of itself. Therefore this is a contradiction. So it's not possible for A and B to have been causally isolated t1 – Astro Oct 4 '18 at 17:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.