The Plague of Misidentification

Causation: An Introduction

In today's installment of TPOM, we will introduce the concept of causation. The topic of causation or the causes of things is going to take many essays to exegete well. The study of causation is very exciting and will bring about many new thoughts that will help us in our endeavor to see reality with clarity.  

Causation

Causation is the study of the causes of anything existent or non-existent (living in the realm of theory or thought space) that yields why it came about. The concept of causation is inexorably linked with the concept of effect. You have often heard them used together, as in: what was the cause and effect of x thing? Whenever we have a life mystery, we usually seek the cause. Take, for instance, you hear that your neighbor was in a car accident. The inevitable question comes about: how did it happen? How it happened would yield the proximal cause. The distal cause could go back to the universe's beginning and potentially beyond. 

Another example of seeking causation would be: your little child is being watched by your spouse. The child is swinging on a swing set, and all of a sudden, the chain connecting the seat to the main beam of the swing set breaks, and your child goes flying through the air. Luckily, your spouse catches your child, and all is well! However, the child is upset at the event and is crying. When you come outside to investigate, your first question is, "What happened?" This gets into some material that we will cover later regarding language usage and such. For now, it is critical to understand that the "what happened?" question is actually a question seeking causation. In this instance, the child is fine, and all is well, but there is a danger still present, so you go investigate, and you see that the top link in the chain, exactly where it connects to the main beam, has broken. This explains the proximal cause, and you can rest on the fact that you can see the issue. 

Next, you have to deal with the "Can I trust this swing set again after a link in the chain just snapped?" thought. That thought would ultimately attend the distal cause going back to the makers of the swing set, their suppliers, the suppliers of those suppliers all the way back to the company that designed the chemical makeup of the metal used to make the swing set, which would then continue back in the causal chain to the region certain metals were sourced from then continuing back still further to the reason that region had such good deposits of x or y minerals. This fact would then go back to the geography of the region, and that would go back on and on and on until we are in outer space watching gigantic space rocks colliding and generating fields of molten materials of all types, eventually coalescing a planet we call earth, but that just moved forward, so let’s keep going backward, oh, yes, giant space rocks (not scientific language, lol) that were newly generated by an unimaginable event that spewed forth materials in all 360 degrees of a sphere, and then what was behind that event, and then what was behind what was behind that event? This is causality and its study. It is astonishing how far we can go by just thinking about the cause-and-effect chain. Note that each proximal cause yields the next closest or proximal cause, which continues on and on, and when we have traveled along that path for a while, we end up at the distal cause. 

The following is Shakespeare on causation:

We can experience the sense of going in, back, outward, and forward when trying to find or describe a causative agent of causation. In the above story of the swing set, we went backward in time, seeking the prior proximal cause over and over until we got back to the origin of the universe. That certainly has the sense of going back linguistically and physically. We also have the sense of going in or down into finer and finer levels of our material reality, as represented by delving into the chain’s link and its composition, etc., though to a lesser degree in that story than in others to come in this series. We went into the link of the chain, its composition, and the constituents of each constituent’s composition, on and on. This attends the “into” sense and can be explained and summarized by starting with a chain and ending with an arrangement of quarks, gluons, muons, etc., thus arriving at the quantum realm. That has a real sense of traveling into the quantum from the less fine material realm at which we seem to consciously operate, i.e., the realm of the swing set. We also had the sense of going forward at the moment I mentioned the space rocks were colliding and creating what would eventually become the Earth. There is also the sense of traveling outward in an interesting way. When we were traveling into the deeper substructural reality of the quantum moving into the infinitesimal realm of material composition, we found ourselves moving out into space by moving back through time while investigating the causes of the various geographical deposits around the earth. 

Why am I pointing all of this out? Two simple facts: first, we have to use language to describe things. That language can carry with or within it various issues that can be misleading to us and that we can use to accidentally generate misunderstandings regarding what we are trying to describe. This, in part, leads to the profound issues that underpin my current writing. This issue is at the heart of The Plague of Misidentification. Second, the functioning of questioning and causation are deeply linked. When we question, many of those questions attend causation in one form or another, whether or not we are aware of it at the moment. So, it then stands to reason that we should learn to question well and that this skill set would be highly significant in learning to see reality with clarity. In fact, one of the most powerful things a person can do is to question well. With this in mind, we can see that getting a good grasp of asking questions and the process of questioning is a must. The following will help us to grasp part of the process along with the reasons and uses that will deepen our understanding and search for meaning. Questions as sought out through the questions:

• What would this look like? It would look like a systematic effort to understand everything possible about everything possible and some things impossible.

• Why would we question? To find the answers, to discover amazing and profound things that we may have never imagined existed, to help, to solve, to investigate.

• How should we question? Whimsically, systematically, intently, randomly, and constantly, being careful not to just stop at the question but to continue onward into the thought space of the answer.

• When should we question? At any time and at all times, give or take a slight margin to avoid a paradox or two!

• What should we question? Anything that you like. Anything that is existent. Anything that you can dream up or imagine. If it is here, question it and see where you go, I can tell you this practice will bring you into creating many fascinating observations, insights, and discoveries. If it is at all, question it.

• Who should we question? We should question all who are and all who are dreamed of being. Leave no “who” unquestioned, and you will be the better for it! E.g., you could question Shakespeare, his characters, and him through his characters. Who was Shakespeare? What was he saying through the character of Hamlet? Who was Hamlet? What was Hamlet saying when he was analyzing Ophelia? Who was Ophelia? What was Shakespeare saying through Ophelia? Then how does this change our original answer to the question of who is Shakespeare? Then how does that inform our answer as to what Shakespeare was saying through Hamlet and Ophelia?

• Where should we question? Everywhere. There is no “where” that should not be questioned, and no question that should not be noted as having no “where” from whence it came. Question space, the space within space, the apple, the space around the apple, the space within the apple, and where we stand both in thought and physical space in regard to the apple.

In learning to question at a high level, we must first gain a special ability; this ability will help us tremendously, though it is not easy to obtain. We must become unembarrassable. Why, you ask? It is the fear of asking a stupid question that has stifled many a discovery throughout time. We must be brave and ask the types of questions that sometimes get a whole room full of people to turn their heads in shock. These questions are often thought of as being ignorant, stupid, thoughtless, pedantic, and too fundamental to yield fruit. Over time as I have lived this way, I have found that people came to respect me and my process of questioning and the somewhat unorthodox thoughts and discoveries that they have occasionally yielded. If fear is stopping you from asking something, that is not a good enough reason to not ask. If you know the question needs to be asked, then ask it and deal with the consequences. Note, this is not advice to be taken legalistically. If you are involved in a robbery, it may be best to not question the robber! That said, all of what I write should be filtered through the lens of context. I don’t advocate for the harming of yourself or others through cleverness and the weaponization of these things. We must move from love and kindness when questioning in all applicable environments.

All of that being said, let’s put the theory into practice and see what all of this looks like when done outside one’s head in the real world. The following list is one that will help you consider some serious questions that, at first glance, might seem completely needless or, worse yet, completely stupid. Nonetheless, it is essential that we move forward in asking these questions. You may be surprised to know that all of these questions have an answer, and it is a matter of fact as to whether or not the answer is correct, incorrect, partially correct, complete, incomplete, or partially complete. This should get us off to a good start, and hopefully a fun one at that, my friends. The questions are as follows:

• Can a cause also be an effect? 

• Can an effect also be a cause?

• Is there anything that exists without a cause?

• How do words get their meanings?

• If everything we see came from something, then what was that something? 

• What was the cause of that something?

• From where did that something come?

• If the big bang, then what caused the bang?

• If God, then what caused God?

• Suppose another universe was gravitationally condensed such that it poked a hole into this space-time and erupted all of that condensed matter, creating the Big Bang for this universe. Where did the other universe come from, ask ad infinitum? 

• How many disciplines do we have to understand to explain causation sufficiently or properly? 

• Does language play a role in the formation of the universe?

• What about the human perceptive mechanisms? How do we deal with the reality in which we live, but through those mechanisms and the machines we create to aid us in the observations?

• Are sight, sound, smell, touch, and the like necessary in gaining a proper understanding?

• Wouldn't we need to understand how a brain perceives reality?

• Wouldn't we need to understand how a brain processes reality?

• Do we need to know all that science can tell us about reality?

• How does time enter into the equation of understanding reality?

• Can light teach us anything about reality?

• Isn't everything, in reality, vital in helping us understand reality?

• Can we even use language to describe reality?

• What does it mean to ask what something is? Does this attend to causation?

• What can illusions teach us about how we perceive reality?

• Optical illusions?

• Auditory illusions?

• All types of sensory input illusions should be meaningful, right?

• Can we really go into something?

• Can we really go out of something?

• Can we really go backward?

• Can we really go forward?

• What is motion at its core?

• At what point does a thing cease to be what it is? 

• How far can we zoom into a chair before it is no longer a chair?

• How far can we zoom out of a chair before it is no longer a chair?

• What is the difference between something living and something inert or non-living?

• What is the difference between something dead and living?

• Can we understand the universe from a philosophical standpoint without grasping the core mathematical structures?

• Can we understand the universe from a mathematical standpoint without grasping the core philosophical structures?

• How can we know what discipline is the best choice to answer a particular question?

• What can sound teach us about reality?

• What can the structures of the quantum world teach us about reality?

• How can we understand how to be sure about anything we study?

• Can we be sure about anything we study?

• What does it mean to define things by their opposites?

• What good are definitions?

• How can we know that we have a good definition of what we are defining?

• Can definitions mislead us?

• Can language cause us to mislead ourselves while defining a thing?

• How can we discern the essence of a thing?

• What does it mean to be alive?

• What is the purpose of life?

• Why do we ask questions?

• Is there any provably correct 1 to 1 correlation between actual reality at the core or base level and perceived reality at the human level?

• Can we prove there is an actual reality at a core level, otherwise known as base reality?

• What is color exactly?

• Does sound propagate?

• What is a wave?

• What is a field in QM?

• What are we saying when we say ethics?

• What are we saying when we say morality?

• What are we saying when we say truth?

• Can anything be truly known? If so, how? If not, why?

• What is time?

• What is gravity?

• What is electricity?

• What is water? 

• What is the difference between asking what something is and what something does? Why do we need to understand the distinction between is and does?

• What is light?

• What is mass?

• What is weight?

• What is volume?

• How is light massless?

• What is the weight of a photon?

• Is reality a simulation?

• Are we living in a simulacra? 

• Are we living in the real?

• What does it mean to live in a mixed reality?

• Can a person live in multiple realities at once?

• Can a person live in only one reality at a time but shift between them in real time?

• Does time generate gravity?

• Does gravity generate time?

• What is distance?

• How can distance be important in better understanding the universe?

• How can distance better help us understand reality?

• What does it mean to understand a thing?

• What is intuition?

• What is the domain of science?

• Can science answer the major questions of life?

• Can science answer the non-scientific questions, i.e., ones regarding the essences of beings and beingness, etc.?

• How can we know the domain of a field of study and whether or not it can answer the types of questions we have to ask?

• Can a thing be defined by its function?

• Can a thing be defined by its form?

• Can a thing be correctly defined, and if so, how?

• If any two points in our reality can be connected by straight, curved, or any other type of line, then does this imply that all points in the universe are connected? If so, why? If not, why?

• If time at the universal level can be sliced and the different angles of the slice effectuate a type of time travel along the angularity of the slice line, then would it follow that given a sphere with delineated points at the atomic or potentially quantum levels, thus projected in all directions would then connect one to all times? If so, why? If not, why?

• Doesn't light propagate in 360 degrees like a sphere? 

• Can light carry information?

• If yes, then does it change its mass, and would that change thereby create a slight deviation from its original course and speed?

• What is information?

• What is a point?

• What is space?

• What is phase-space?

• Do we know anything at all regarding the causation matrix behind electricity? If so, what? If not, why not?

• What are the core drivers underpinning human behavior?

• Do these drivers change given each person?

• How can people make choices?

• Is choice an option? 

• Do we have a will?

• Do we have free will?

• Do we have any form of autonomy?

• Can you make decisions based outside of your context?

• If our context is our boundary condition state, can we decide past that state or beyond that state? 

• If our context is our boundary condition state, can we make decisions that could expand that state past the boundary? If so, how would that look? If not, why not? 

• How does the universe appear to have laws by which it operates?

• What is a construct?

• What is a matrix?

• Is space a thing?

• How can we know if we describe a thing that exists in physical space or the absence of a thing in physical space though it appears to have a physical presence?

• If a projective timeline slices through 12AD, 780AD, & 1980AD, would it then be true that the projective timeline from 1980AD would retrogressively be connected to the 12AD timeline? If yes, would it then be true that along that line, one would theoretically be able to travel based on that geometric projection? 

• If the above is true, and all points in the universe are connected, then would it be possible to observe all of space-time from any vantage within space-time?

• What is movement?

• Are there types or modes of time?

• How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

• What are the limits of human capacity?

• What are the limits of human capacity with technological enhancement? Are the last two the same question? If so, why? If not, why?

• Will a human try to destroy themself if taught they have no worth? If yes, through what means? If not, why not?

• Is there a difference between a thing that exists and a thing thought to exist? If yes, explain. If not, why?

• Are human emotions core drivers, or are they secondary motivators that are one step out from the driver? Is there a better way to ask this question? If so, demonstrate. 

• Are human emotions at the base level, or are they at another level?

• What does it mean for one to be happy?

• What does it mean for one to be sad?

• What does it mean for one to feel lost?

• What does it mean for one to be agitated? 

• What does it mean for one to experience love?

• What does it mean for one to love?

• How can we approach human emotions from a scientific standpoint?

• How can we approach human emotions from a philosophical standpoint?

• Which came first, the emotion or the stimulus? This one sounds simple but really give it a good think.

• Is there any state in which a human can enter that their emotion is clearly not causative? Meaning is there a state where a human can experience an emotion, and that emotion has no cause and/or effect?

• How is it possible for a person to not understand their own emotions?

• How can we learn to identify our emotions?

• Can we misidentify our emotions? If so, how? If not, why?

• How can a snake circus possibly earn a truly supportive income?

Almost every single question in the above list deals with causation. Not only are many of these extremely important questions, but their answers tend to bring one closer to causative agents, though not exclusively. It is important to note that some of the seemingly ridiculous questions end up being some of the most profound, with answers taking us places we did not expect. In many respects, we can see that questions, in general, tend toward finding one or another form of causation, as mentioned earlier. Whether it be how to identify emotions or what electricity is, it is very difficult to address them without delving into causation. 

A major factor in this being the case is the interconnectivity of reality. If you want to grasp the full extent of what a diamond is or why the sun and earth are at the distance they are from each other, you will have to dig into distal causes. When you think of it for more than a few seconds, it becomes pretty clear the causation deals with origins and vice versa. An important question arises since everything would technically go back to the beginning of our universe, at the least: do we have to know the origin of the universe to understand why we like a thing? Do we have to understand the universe's origin to appreciate a good film? Well, that depends on the film; I am thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, to be fair. The answer is no, but then again, there is a massive difference between appreciating something and knowing something in detail. Can we know an orange in detail without knowing how the universe came about? Yes, but it is a matter of how much detail. It is also a matter of what it means to be a thing and when or at what level of observation of the thing's constituents does it, or does it not cease to be the thing you were originally observing? These questions and many more will be addressed in detail in later essays. 

Coming Next

We will be delving deeper into causality, along with a few of the questions from the questions list above. A hint: that list, though nowhere near complete, contains extraordinarily important questions that, if looked into, will bring about a much clearer understanding of reality. The further and deeper we go, the more fascinating things will become; at least, that is how it was for me. I hope you find this all rewarding and ultimately enhancing of your life on this boundlessly interesting planet. Thank you for reading, and may our joint interest in how things come to be the way they are in this universe yield fruit for us all.

We will continue.

B.S.R.