Tom,
Me: "Perhaps it is helpful for me to point out that empirical evidence does not give us the answers about the natures of either cause or consciousness."
Tom: "More than that, empirical evidence (observed phenomena) gives us no answers at all about *anything*, other than by means of a theory that incorporates the observation."
Me: We don't need the theory. The information is in the empirical evidence. My point is that the empirical evidence always consists of effects. We do not know what cause is, but, empirical evidence tells us everything we can know about what it does. We interpret meaning from the empirical evidence before we force that meaning to fit into theory. The theory is a constraint on ahieving understanding about the nature of the universe. Theory consists of adding guesses about the nature or natures of cause or causes onto physics equations. The damage done is that those invented causes represent artificial endpoinst in understanding the meaning conveyed to us by empirical evidence.
Tom: "The relevant question is, where does one stop the infinite regress of cause? If I say that consciousness causes life, and you ask in turn what causes consciousness, the word "cause" loses all meaning entirely. On the other hand, because we know -- empirically -- that many forms of causality are hidden in the feedback between a system and its environment, we can form closed logical judgments by setting boundary conditions on the environment. As George Ellis has also allowed, no real physical phenomenon is infinite."
Me: There is no infinite regress of cause. I understand that the common usage of the word cause gives that impression. When I speak of cause, I am referring to that which results in patterns in changes of velocity at the level of the foundation of physics. For example, a line of billiard balls is set up with small gaps between them. The first in line is hit with a cue stick and each ball hits the next ball causing all to move in turn. This example contains the common usage of the word cause. At the foundational level the cause for all those effects is the same one. It is called electric charge. Electric charge is a theory. Mass as the cause of gravity is a different theory. Those two theories restrict our understanding of cause by the role they play, due to the theorists, in introducing fundamental disunity onto physics equations.
Tom: "With what boundary conditions would you be satisfied, James? None? You might be right -- there may be no absolute standard by which we can understand "cause." I find that the capacity for infinite regress is a unique product of human imagination, however, in that no bounded system -- e.g., a scientist performing a quantum experiment or a computer performing a calculation -- contains in itself any information beyond the arbitrary boundary conditions assumed in the initial condition. There's a way out:
A self organized system is, in its definition, self-limiting; therefore, all cause-effect relations are local. Experiments aren't self organized, and computers aren't self organized -- so allowing a self organized universe, unless we include metaphysical realism we cannot even say what is real. A universe of infinitely regressive cause is not a real universe."
Me: The infinite regression of cause is actually an infinite regression of effects. Effects are not causes regardless of superficial appearances. One effect leads to another, but, no effect causes another. There are no self-organized systems except in appearance. All effects that have and will ever occur in the universe were provided for right from te beginning of the universe. That is the way it has to have been if we are to rule out allowing theorists to introduce later miracles. That first cause is unknown but it certainly was real. These theoretical causes, by their presence in physics equations, restrict and mislead us in learning about the original and truly foundational cause. It didn't go away. Theory helps to hide it, but, it is always the same cause behind all effects. That cause must account for what physics theory cannot account for. For example, intelligence. We receive all information from a constantly changing wildly mixed storm of photons. Intelligence makes sense out of that mess and it doesn't use theory to do it.
James Putnam
