Tag: Causality

Categories
f. How to Gain Understanding

How to Gain Understanding

Introduction

People understand the world through pattern recognition. Recurring patterns of events attract our attention, we remember them, attach meaning to them, and later use them as an aid to predicting the world. This trait has evolved to help our survival and the propagation of our genome. Non-recurring events are of lesser interest as they do not permit prediction. We are, therefore, less likely to remember and attach meaning to them.

Causality as a basis

Such recurring patterns of events have their basis in causality. It is likely that our perception of the latter has a hereditary basis. Certainly, other animals seem to understand causality, as evidenced by Pavlov’s famous behavioural experiments. Also, we have probably all experienced a young child repeating the question “why?”. This is probably him or her exercising hereditary skills in the recognition of causality.

Recognition

Noticing these patterns is highly tentative at first. We merely notice similarities between events and feel an intangible sense of order. We do not have the words to describe what we notice, and it is not integrated into our general worldview. However, as our brains absorb the new information and make the necessary connections our understanding grows, and we can find words to communicate the insights. A general rule forms that we can use predictively. Unfortunately, this can be a slow process often involving several nights of good sleep and some research into the topic. This is effectively the same as the creative process of saturation, incubation, inspiration, and verification described in an earlier article, but with saturation replaced by experience.

We can also seek the fundamental origins of the recurring patterns that we observe. For example, the very concept of causality was discovered in this way. Patterns were recognised and causality was recognised as another pattern within them.

Limitations

When we seek meaning we are essentially attempting to understand a pattern that describes the universe in its entirety. Unfortunately, however, pattern recognition is limited by our cognitive abilities. The principle of darkness applies, and our minds are simply not complex enough to model such a pattern. We can only recognise relatively simple ones such as causal relationships and feedback loops, and even those with difficulty. If there is any meaning to the universe, then it is certainly beyond our ability to perceive it. It would be more sensible to recognise this, rather than invent simplistic or mystical explanations. In practice, we must satisfy ourselves with understanding small parts of the world around us. For example, the purpose of this blog, is to convey an understanding of human nature and society.

Explanation

As explained above, to understand a recurring pattern, it must be integrated into our general worldview. Obviously, if our worldview is a mystical or religious one, then we may give those patterns an explanation of that type. On the other hand, we will give the patterns a scientific explanation if our worldview is of that nature.

Feedforward

The process of predicting events and acting proactively is known in systems science as feedforward. This term is also used in personnel management to describe the training of staff to meet future business needs. The term feedforward suggests that it is the negative of feedback. However, this is only so in the sense that feedback is reactive to past events, whilst feedforward is predictive of future events. Feedforward relies on a knowledge of causal patterns. It is, therefore, a feature of agents or of systems created by agents.

How to Use this Process

We can reverse this recognition process. This involves designing a causal pattern and then looking for it in the world around us. Another approach is to generalise theories from specialised fields into general causal patterns. Once a pattern, for example the replication of information, has been created, we can then look for manifestations of it in the real world. In this way we may, for example, notice cellular division, the viral spread of misinformation on the internet, and so on. As explained in the previous article, there are many ways in which information can be altered during replication. So, two copies of the same information can contain contradictions. This in turn can lead to competition regarding which is correct, and, as will be described in a future article, to conflict. From this model it is possible to suggest reasons for real world events such as conflicts between closely related religious factions, etc.

In different fields and specialities, different words are often used for similar concepts. This tends to obscure similarities between the causal processes involved. However, once we have a pattern in mind, its recognition in the real world or in another field of expertise becomes much easier.

Categories
a. Causality in More Detail

Causality in More Detail

We take it for granted that the universe operates according to the laws of causality. People may disagree on what causes a particular effect, but there is no disagreement on the existence of causality. This is universally accepted. But what is causality? In this and the next few articles I will attempt to explain.

We are well used to thinking in terms of causality, which we understand to mean a cause leading to an effect. However, this apparently simple concept contains much complexity. Firstly, we do not always use the word “cause” when describing causality. For example, rather than saying that a factory causes cars, we say that a factory manufactures them.

Secondly, we normally regard an effect as being the beginning of an event, object, or circumstance. However, it can also be the end, a change of state, or the ongoing event, object, or circumstance in its entirety. Thus, we refer to one event (the cause) as causing another (the effect) to begin, end, alter in state, or be ongoing in its entirety.

Thirdly, although the names cause and effect are singular, both are, in fact, plural collections of events, objects or circumstances of a particular type. Any single member is known as an instance of the cause or effect.

Causality describes the ways in which instances of these two collections can match. The Scottish philosopher David Hume observed that for a causal relationship to exist:

  1. an instance of the effect must always begin after an instance of the cause; and
  2. the instances of the effect and cause must be contiguous in space.

In other words, for a causal relationship to exist, the region of space-time occupied by an instance of the cause must contain the region of space-time occupied by an instance of the effect. The region of space-time occupied by something is the space occupied by it at every point in time during its existence.

Causal rules are derived from the way in which individual pairings of the instances are repeated. Two sets of events are described as being causally related if one of the following conditions apply.

  1. If an instance of the cause is sufficient for an instance of the effect, then the region of space-time occupied by the former always contains the region of space-time occupied by the latter. Fig.1 shows this diagrammatically. In other words, an instance of the effect always takes place in the presence of an instance of the cause. However, it is not necessarily the case that every instance of the effect results from an instance of the cause.
  2. If an instance of the cause is necessary for an instance of the effect, the region of space-time occupied by the latter is always contained by the region of space-time occupied by the former. Fig.2 shows this diagrammatically. In other words, an instance of the effect cannot take place in the absence of an instance of the cause. However, it is not necessarily the case that every instance of the cause leads to an instance of the effect.
Fig.1 A space-time diagram showing instances of a sufficient cause as white ellipses, and instances of the effect as black lines at the beginning of events shown by grey ellipses.
Fig. 2 A space-time diagram showing instances of a necessary cause as white ellipses, and instances of the effect as black lines at the beginning of events shown by grey ellipses.

If an event of a particular type occurs, then these causal rules allow us to deduce, with varying degrees of certainty, what causes have taken place or what effects will take place.

Causality can be complex, with several causes combining to produce an effect. The epidemiologist, Ken Rothman, explained that, for an effect to take place, it is often the case that several necessary causes must combine to create a sufficient cause. The combination of necessary causes of type A, B and C may be sufficient to result in an effect of type D. For example, the presence of gas, oxygen and a spark are each necessary and together sufficient to cause a gas explosion. Fig.3 shows this diagrammatically.

Fig.3 A space-time diagram showing instances of three necessary causes as coloured ellipses, which together comprise sufficient cause, and instances of the effect as black lines at the beginning of events shown by grey ellipses.

One aspect of causality which is often overlooked is the existence of inhibitors. In the same way as a cause and an effect, an inhibitor is a plural collection of physical events, objects, or circumstances of a particular type. However, it is the opposite of a cause in that it prevents an effect from taking place. Depending on its type, the presence of an instance of the inhibitor can prevent an event from beginning, ending, changing state, or occurring in its entirety, irrespective of any causes which might dictate otherwise.

In the same way as causes, inhibitors can be necessary to prevent an event or sufficient to do so. If an inhibitor is necessary but not present, then the effect can occur. However, this does not necessarily mean that it will occur. This depends on what causes are present. On the other hand, if an inhibitor is sufficient and present, then the effect cannot occur. In practice, a sufficient inhibitor can be a combination of several necessary inhibitors. The region of space-time in which the effect is prevented is the overlap between them.

Causality is, of course, a physical process. This process will be described in more detail in the next article.

Categories
k. Causality and Behavioural Strategies

Causality and Behavioural Strategies

We interact with the physical world and influence events using the rules of causality. Most of us do this unconsciously, but there is advantage in understanding the process. This better enables us to verify our decisions.

Causality can be complex, with several causes combining to produce an effect. These causes can be of two types: necessary causes, in the absence of which the effect cannot occur; and sufficient causes, in the presence of which the effect must occur. The epidemiologist, Ken Rothman, explained that, for an effect to take place, it is often the case that several necessary causes must combine to create a sufficient cause. For example, the presence of gas, oxygen and a spark are each necessary and together sufficient to cause a gas explosion.

Causality also involves inhibitors, i.e., those things which always prevent an effect from taking place, even if sufficient cause is present. These inhibitors can also be of two types: sufficient inhibitors, in the presence of which the effect cannot occur; and necessary inhibitors, or those things required to prevent an effect. Again, a sufficient inhibitor may comprise one or more necessary inhibitors.

We can use this knowledge in our strategies to achieve a desired outcome. This is best demonstrated by a simple example. Suppose we know that an effect, e, occurs as a result of two necessary causes, a and b. Together, a and b are a sufficient cause.  In the absence of a, b, or both, e cannot take place. So, if we wish to prevent e, then our strategy may be to prevent one of a or b, whichever is easiest. However, the effect can also be prevented by two sufficient inhibitors, c or d. In the presence of c, d or both, e cannot occur. Thus, an alternative strategy for preventing e, is to cause one of the inhibitors c or d, whichever is the easiest.

In this example, the presence of a and b and the absence of c and d result in e. If some but not all of these conditions exist, and e is undesirable, then this is a risk. However, if e is desirable, then it is an opportunity.

Our behaviour often steers events by increasing or decreasing their likelihood, rather than directly causing or preventing them. For example, we may lack the resources to directly cause an event, and may only have sufficient to enable it. To benefit from such behaviour, we must observe our environment, identify the opportunities and risks that it presents, and intervene to our advantage.

Typical strategies are as follows.

Enablement means acting to remove any existing inhibitors. Note that sufficient cause may not be present. So, the effect may not actually occur, but only become able to occur.

Facilitation means acting to introduce necessary causes where previously they were absent. Note that not all necessary causes may be present and not all inhibitors absent. So the effect may not actually occur, but merely become more likely.

Risk Reduction means acting to reduce the likelihood of an effect. It will not yet have occurred, either because an inhibitor is present, or because not all necessary causes are present. We can reduce the risk yet further by removing more necessary causes.

Prevention means acting to introduce an inhibitor where none is present. Note that the effect will not yet have occurred because not all necessary causes were present.

Categories
a. Do We have Free Will?

Do We Have Free Will?

Introduction

Free will is the idea that we can influence the direction that our lives and those of others will take by the choices that we make. Whether we have free will or whether we live in a world in which our fate is predetermined is one of the unresolved questions of science and philosophy. What we believe to be the answer to this question has profound implications for our personal wellbeing and that of society. I will, therefore, begin this series of articles with a discussion of whether we have free will.

Causality and Determinism

Causality relies on objects and events occupying a region of space-time so that the beginning of one, the cause, precedes the beginning of another, the effect. The region of space-time occupied by the cause must also contain the beginning of the effect.

A deterministic universe is one in which everything, including events and physical objects, has a cause. This implies that everything can be traced back to one original cause, the big bang, and that everything which subsequently occurred, including our decisions, was predetermined at that time.

Acausality and Indeterminism

Not everything in the universe has a cause. Space, time, and the laws of the universe are thought to have originated with the big bang. Thus, the big bang cannot be said to have had a cause. Some other mechanism may have been in play but, although we do not know what, it was certainly not causality.

There are other events which appear to be acausal. The radioactive decay of atoms and the appearance of virtual particles seem to occur at random, without any apparent cause. It may be that these events do result from some, yet unidentified, mechanism, but if anything “beyond” space-time is involved then, in the same way as the big bang, this mechanism is acausal.

Some of these acausal events interact with existing particles creating very small changes. As time passes, these changes can propagate and become magnified to such an extent that circumstances after the interaction are fundamentally different to those which might have prevailed without it. Furthermore, there will be infinitely many consequences of acausal events propagating through the universe. If they are truly acausal, then the result will be a probabilistic and unpredictable universe.

There would be no simple rules from which the state of the universe could be derived. Rather, such rules would be at least as complex as the universe itself. This, in turn, implies either that there is some entity as complex as the universe capable of holding those rules or that the rules and the universe are one and the same thing. The latter is, of course, the simpler and more likely explanation.

So, the existence of acausal events would imply that the universe was not predetermined by the Big Bang but rather by the most recent acausal event of any significance.

Implications

Determinism suggests that, after the point in time called “now”, the state of the universe is already mapped out and may even pre-exist. Indeterminism, on the other hand, implies that the future is uncertain or probabilistic, and, as it becomes ever more remote, increasingly so. Thus, knowing the situation at any point in time, we could only predict the future with reasonable accuracy a very short time ahead.

We cannot visit the future to know whether determinism or indeterminism is correct.  However, if the former, then we are following a path already mapped out and have no free will. On the other hand, if the future is probabilistic and only becomes certain as “now” progresses through time, then it is possible that we do have free will.

There is no proof one way or the other.  However, a popular acceptance of determinism has implications for us as individuals and for society. These include a fatalist attitude and a belief that we are powerless in the face of humanity’s difficulties. They also include a denial of personal responsibility for our actions and the damage that this might cause to society.

In my next post, I will discuss the evidence in favour of free will and expand on the consequences of its denial.