20

A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
65 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics

A is A is Aristotle's Law of Identity. Rand adopted this as a basic axiom. It is one of the cornerstones of Objectivism. The law states that everything that exists has a specific, particular nature. Every thing one perceives has characteristics that are inherent in its nature. These characteristics are apprehended and can be described. An entity may be described as smooth, blue, round, etc. A person may be tall, slim, and intelligent. These traits give an entity its identity. The particular traits or characteristics are not important. The number of traits is not important. The fact that every entity has traits is what matters.

An entity without form, without traits, is a non-entity. It does not exist. It would be nothing. To exist is to have identity. Identity is the concept of the aspects of existence. Existence requires something to exist as a particular something, with a particular identity. It can not have multiple identities. It is what it is and can be nothing else. A horse is not a camel and a house is not an automobile. Every characteristic of a specific entity is part of its identity.

There can be no contradictions. Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature. Having a definite nature and an identity means it is knowable. Existing according to its nature and identity is without contradictions.

Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly, but the entity itself is not subject to one's perceptions or whims. It is what it is. The characteristics of its existence are not subject to the will of man. If a color blind man cannot perceive properly, the color of an entity, it does not change the true nature or color of the entity. A magician and an observer see the same event, but only the magician has the better perspective and understanding. Either way, knowledge of the characteristics of an entity is independent of its nature; its nature is what it is, whether someone or no one knows it.

The Law of Causality is also a fundamental law essential to Objectivism. It is related to the Law of Identity. It is the result of the interactions of entities, or the action of a single entity, having identity, applied over time. Actions, identified are the result of the Law of Causality. No action can occur without an entity. Action, presupposes existence of an entity for an action to occur or exist.

Actions themselves have a particular nature and depend upon the entity or entities' individual identity and characteristics. Action is the change of a particular characteristic of an entity. If a moon changes location while it orbits its planet, it has changed, but it is bound to the nature of its characteristics and those of the other objects involved. The gravity, mass, speed, etc., are factors and characteristics of the entities involved which the actions are dependent upon. Actions change the nature of an entity, but only within the confines of the nature of the entity or entities involved in the action. They cannot produce an action contrary to their nature. Change is dependent upon and determined by the properties of the entities involved whether the action is momentary or continual. For example: A body such as a moon may impact another body and stop or it may bounce off and continue on a new path, continuously changing characteristic of location or speed. For something to change it must be acted upon by some prior action. This is a cause- thus the term Causality.

A change is an effect of a cause or action. A cause is the result of a prior cause or causes, and each cause is the result of and dependent upon the specific nature of the agents and their identities that affect the change. Newton's laws of motion are a good example.

The Law of Identity and the Law of Causality are interrelated. According to objectivist metaphysics all existents in existence are subject to these laws. The law of Identity declares that all existents are real, with identifiable attributes, but not subject to one's apprehension. Existence exists and the Law of Causality explains the means by which that which exists operates. These laws are the essential foundation for a philosophy congruent with logic.

Objectivism: More of the Basics
Introducing Objectivism - Rand's own words in less than ten minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBG...
"Reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts." Ayn Rand (Time frame 2:24)

Respectfully,
O.A.

Addendum: A is A (though commonly referred to as Aristotle's law of identity) has been claimed by some to be more properly attributed to Gottfried Lebnitz, while the law of non-contradiction is that of Aristotle.
Regardless, together they are essential elements of the law of identity.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Nature cannot be proven to be deterministic at all levels." This actually has to be the case. Man is part of nature, and if nature is totally deterministic man cannot have free will. It’s either-or.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Nature cannot be proven to be deterministic at all levels." I see another option that could explain this perception. There is a random element to interactions in nature, just as there are a multitude of possibilites on a pool table; the universe is an infinitly larger table... I do not postulate either a first cause or God. I posit that existence exists. That based on unasailable evidence there is only an ongoing expansion of our universe with an infinite number of random interactions occuring and resulting in unpredictable combinations, producing unimaginable creations and results...that we do not know if the big bang was a singular event, or if the universe will collapse and start anew, etc. We do not know why subatomic particles act as they do. No, there is much we do not know. That is also congruent with these laws.

    We have theories and probabilities. What is lacking is certainty. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/cer...

    Evidence, incontrovertible, empirical, proof. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pro...
    Proof that can be corroborated by our senses. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...
    We are now drifting well into epistemology... "[Man’s] senses do not provide him with automatic knowledge in separate snatches independent of context, but only with the material of knowledge, which his mind must learn to integrate. . . . His senses cannot deceive him, . . . physical objects cannot act without causes, . . . his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort . . . the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives."_ Galt's speech. To suggest there is no reason, or cause for an event may only mean we have yet to discover it. It may only be a product of our limited capacity/knowledge. Proving there is no cause is not incumbent upon me and sounds like a greater challenge. Either way, these laws are a sound foundation for a philosophy that directs one's life in the macro level and just as useful as Newtonian physics.
    Right or wrong, that is what I believe.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    P.S. I had to edit and repost this reply. I originally mistakenly typed something that was imprecise and contrary to what I meant to express.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The act of changing does not prove that that act began by being caused, only that that action was a cause of the change (the effect). The effect of that action, of course, was caused but the original change action may not have been an effect of another cause. Nature cannot be proven to be deterministic at all levels, only that macroscopically it acts deterministically to a high degree with regard to measurement but not necessarily having a first cause in every instance of action. To almost everything in nature it would be hard to find a cause. The belief in a universal law of causality is the way many try to keep their sanity to the extent of postulating the existence of a god to cause every action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello irshultis,
    In each of your examples is it not the internal components working upon each other according to their nature? Change simply being measured in time? Many things change over time... Things decay... The fact that they are changing proves that some action has occurred which you are able to perceive in time.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 3 months ago
    "For something to change it must be acted upon by some prior action. This is a cause- thus the term Causality."

    Is that necessarily true? Does the fission of element 235U require the action with a neutron to fission into two other elements (many possible results) and go out of existence or can the act of fission happen without being acted upon. There are many things which change with time without needing to be acted upon by a previous action, e.g., an oscillating clock reaction where a fluid will periodically change to four different colors over and over until the chemicals in solution are fully used. Nothing other than the composition of the solution was necessary to cause the action no prior action, unless the mixing of the solution can be considered the prior action.
    The main thing is that 'A is A' is static at a particular time while 'identity' is not static in that it can change within ranges for each property depending upon the action. Concepts are define without specifying, other than generally, the ranges of values of relationships in their definitions. Causality basically says that nature is consistent but not that there cannot be any actions that cannot be in a cause and effect relation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello minorwork,
    No need for examples. I understand the extraordinary actions of things on the atomic level do not appear to adhere to classical physics and probability is better, or the best we can currently accomplish in predicting their actions. Please refer to the above commentary between myself, dbhalling and CBJ. I believe we have addressed this issue sufficiently. The utility and validity of these rules in the macro world in which we operate have not been proven false. In other words, what I find of import is that we live in the macro world and these laws serve us well in that world. A new understanding or perhaps exceptions to the rules may be required for things in the micro world, but that is something for others beyond my capacity to determine.
    I quite agree that "The use of Quantum Mechanics is hardly an idealistic endeavor."
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When incomplete knowledge on the very small scale is considered that determines the human scale experience, probability performs better at forecasting for control. Quantum Theory prevails over hard determinism. The use of Quantum Mechanics is hardly an idealistic endeavor. Do I need to provide real examples?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello CBJ,
    Indeed. Serious food for thought. I'm afraid as much as it interests me, I only have a basic understanding of the fundamentals. I must defer to those more knowledgeable about such matters. From what I can gather, there is still much debate among them and theories yet to be proven definitively. Perhaps statistical probability is all we can hope for within our present capacity/instrumentality. Tomorrow is another day.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: “ . . . at the atomic level entities demonstrate changing states that apparently defy classical physics, they still operate according to their nature and can not do otherwise, even if we do not fully understand what that nature is.” This appears to be extending a principle derived from our macro observations and experience to the extremely micro level, where an individual quantum entity’s behavior can be predicted and understood only in terms of statistical probability. The “nature” of a quantum entity may be to behave in a probabilistic manner, one which can lead to any one of an infinite number of possible outcomes. Quantum entities may be the “black swan” within reality, or as you put it “the exception that proves the rule.”
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello DB,
    Excellent. I concur. Your arguments regarding perfect knowledge and probable knowledge get right to the heart of the matter.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed. Knowing your thoughts generally on this matter from previous exchanges, my reply was really for the benefit of others that might read this thread. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    HI OA,

    I was not asking a question, but enjoyed your input. As for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the physicists responsible purposed interpreted the experiments to get these result. Wiener Heisenberg admits this in his book Philosophy and Physics. The CIQM is leading to more and more nonsense - dark matter, dark energy, black holes all around us, etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello minorwork,

    "Who says?" Every philosopher since the beginning of time that is categorized as a realist (ascribes to realism).

    Two philosophers, a realist and an idealist are walking down the sidewalk talking and the idealist says there is no evidence that things exist outside of the mind- that there is no evidence that his dining room table exists at all until he is in the room and observes it; then again, it is only in his mind. The realist, hearing this, slows a half step and promptly thumps the idealist on the back of the head with his cane. The idealist protests and asks why the realist struck him with his cane. The Realist replies, but you did not see the cane strike your head, so it must be all in your mind... :)

    I read this story in one of my philosophy books and had to share it. I have undoubtedly paraphrased it since I do not recall exactly where and in which book I read it.

    I'm afraid I do not put much stock in the philosophy of idealists. It appears to me as navel gazing sophistry.

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philoso...
    You may find one side or the other persuasive; I know where I stand and where objectivist metaphysics lead me.

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello dbhalling,
    Hume was wrong and in my opinion is undeserving of the title of empiricist. He twisted and distorted empiricism. His example that generalizations based on inductive reasoning are false stands only because he is willing to draw generalizations. A generalization is always subject to error. He argued that if a person observes many white swans, but no black ones, they might conclude that all swans are white, but that would be an assumption. That is a bridge too far. He argued that no matter how many times one observes something the next time it may turn out differently, but again that is irrelevant, because it just means he has not yet observed all instances or collected all data, thus proving only that generalizations can be faulty. All the while despite one's personal observations such as the white swan example, the black swan exists independent of observation.

    As for the quantum physics question, one might consider it an anomaly, or the exception that proves the rule, but I still maintain that though at the atomic level entities demonstrate changing states that apparently defy classical physics, they still operate according to their nature and can not do otherwise, even if we do not fully understand what that nature is. Like the question of whether light is a particle or a wave... there is duality... In any case since I live in the macro world; any exception to these classical physics on the atomic level should not affect my course of action, or understanding of the macro world I operate in. Thus, my philosophy serves me well. :)
    Is this a satisfactory answer?
    Regards,
    O.A.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm...
    https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 8 years, 3 months ago
    "Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly, but the entity itself is not subject to one's perceptions or whims. It is what it is."

    Who says? There is a metaphysical axiom whose truth is dependent on the unknowable noumena, the source of perceptions. Unknowable, so the axiom escapes verification and is dependent on perception.

    "A Spoon is Like a Headache. This is a dangerous idea in sheep's clothing. It consumes decrepit ontology, preserves methodological naturalism, and inspires exploration for a new ontology, a vehicle sufficiently robust to sustain the next leg of our search for a theory of everything." ~ https://www.edge.org/response-detail/...

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/ar...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 3 months ago
    Hume and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both deny causality and the law of Identity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello rbroberg,
    Thank you for your thought provoking examples and applications. They add flavor, to what could be to some, rather dull material.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 8 years, 3 months ago
    When one man's perception is altered by another's belief and not by observing what has really changed then it is easy for others to control that man, immorally take his possessions and time without compensation the man with the incorrect perception believes he is free while he is but a slave. Discovering reality and accepting it is key to then being able to make decisions on how to live ones life and let others live theirs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh good. I look forward to great philosophic discussions, debates and learning more. That is afterall what I thought was the main objective of this site, not a rehashing of politics and/religion.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo