Compassionist wrote:How do you know that the causal universe is all there is? I am a strong agnostic regarding the ultimate nature of reality. It is entirely possible that there are an infinite number of universes in the omniverse and all possibilities are actualised in these infinite number of universes.
In that case, you're not a prisoner of causality, you're a prisoner of the laws of the omniverse! Besides, there's no reason to assume that one would be freer in an acausal universe. I find it hard to imagine such a thing, but I certainly cannot imagine living in it for any length of time. Nothing would be predictable. One might spontaneously combust at any time. Or spontaneously liquefy, or gasify, or petrify, or shrink to microscopic proportions, or grow enormous. And even if one managed to stay in the same shape for a while, one would probably find it very difficult to sustain meaningful relationships with any other beings. That's assuming that a product of causality like you or me could exist for even an instant in an acausal universe. Which seems unlikely.
Compassionist wrote:I agree that there is a relative freedom e.g. I am more free outside a jail than I would be inside a jail. However, both circumstances are products of causality.
Yes. So what? What if you were orbiting round Jupiter for an eternity
without any cause at all. Would you be freer?
Compassionist wrote:What I find frustrating is that the relative freedom we have doesn't allow us to prevent all suffering.
And we have absolutely no reason to think that if we had the kind of acausal free will that some people believe in we would be able to prevent all suffering. You're talking about two entirely different things, as animist has already pointed out. Free will does not imply omnipotence.
Compassionist wrote:Of course, we can prevent some negatives. That too is according to causality. What we do and do not do are entirely the products of causality.
Yes, I know. And again, so what? In an acausal universe, we'd struggle to prevent any negatives. We wouldn't know why they were happening. Well, there wouldn't be a "why". They'd have no cause. And we couldn't expect that anything we might do to try to prevent them would have the desired effect anyway. We'd be unable to cause anything.
Compassionist wrote:My point is that each of our choices could not have been any different given the same variables. That is why it is unjustifiable to hold living things morally culpable. Living things are no more culpable than lightning or earthquake or tornedo. If we could imprison or terminate earthquakes, we would - not because an earthquake is morally culpable but because it causes destruction, suffering and death.
Compassionist, I get that point. You've made it repeatedly. I've made similar points. I wasn't disagreeing with that point. What I was disagreeing with was the idea that we are prisoners of causality. That's something you've said so many times, and sometimes I get the impression that it's become a kind of mantra for you. But I think it's one-sided, and destructive. You seem to have focused on the cons of causality, and are ignoring its pros! I like causality. I like the way it enables me to feel pretty confident that I'm going to wake up in the morning, that there's actually going to be a morning, that the birds will sing, that the sun will shine, if not today, then sometime soon. I don't find that restricting; I find it liberating. It frees me from having to worry about every second of unpredictable existence, and allows me to ... um ... worry about a usually manageable number of ... er ... specific worrying things.
Compassionist wrote:We are both products and prisoners of causality. The fact that we cannot set ourselves free from the causal constraints of our existence shows that we are prisoners of causality. The fact that we didn't even choose to come into existence also shows that we are prisoners of causality.
For a start, we
can escape the causal constraints of our existence. Suicide is an option available to almost all of us. Second, do you believe that everyone and everything that existed in a hypothetical acausal universe would have chosen to come into existence? If so, why should that be the case? If we did choose to come into existence in such a universe, it would not follow that we would actually do so. In an acausal universe, choosing would count for nothing. The concept of choice would be meaningless. None of our actions would necessarily lead to the consequences we'd expect in a causal universe. If we had feet, then putting one of them in front of the other alternatingly might just as easily take us backwards or downwards or upwards as forwards. At least in a causal universe, you know where you stand, literally as well as figuratively. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I think we've had a lucky escape. Think about it, Compassionist. The acausal universe might easily be a much more terrifying place. More terrifying than your average prison. Causality, in comparison, is a place of refuge, a safe harbour, a sanctuary.
Compassionist wrote:Whether we are masters of delayed gratification or an impulsive instant gratifier, we are still prisoners of causality. It is possible to train people, just as it is possible to train puppies. The degree of trainabilility depends on causality. There are people who are genetically suited to be sprinters. Training such people would produce much better sprinters than training average people. I agree with what you said about 'feeling free' and 'feeling less free' regarding our conscious desires. That doesn't make us morally culpable. Some of us might be quick to anger while others are slow to anger. Some of us might be better at delaying gratification. The fact that some are better at self-control is entirely according to causality. Given the same variables, the same choices would occur. That is why people and other living things should not be labelled morally culpable.
Again, I'm not arguing with you about moral culpability. What I've been trying to say is that some of these variables you refer to are part of
us. There is such a thing as
self-control, as you acknowledge. The fact that it is caused is relevant only in so far as it reminds us that we want to improve self-control, say, in ourselves or in others, we have to do something about it. We have to seek or give help. As thundril has said elsewhere, we can work together on this. We can be each other's causes and effects. We can create virtuous circles. You must know this; you are a compassionate man. You must sometimes feel that you have made a positive difference to other people's lives. And you must have felt a bit of a lift when others have acted kindly towards you. It's true we can't alleviate all suffering, but we can alleviate some. What does it matter if our ability to do that is caused. What is exciting is that we are capable of causing. We're not just the passive recipients of causation. We are not the prisoners of causality. We are not just
in the causal universe. We are part of it. We aren't just products of it; we're producers. Simultaneously caused and causing. We are causal by definition. It isn't a prison sentence; it's a gift.
Compassionist wrote:I agree that we can learn ways to improve the chance of living good, long and happy lives. This occurs according to causality. Some are better at learning than others. Our experience of 'freedom' is limited. For example, no one is holding a gun to my head and saying that I must reply to your post. Yet, I feel the urge to reply. I feel compelled to argue my point that it is impossible for someone to have acted differently given that same variables.
And I find that quite bizarre considering I'm not disagreeing with you on that particular point!
Compassionist, let me be the cause of you losing the urge to make that point again. Please!
Compassionist wrote:It is impossible for me to teleport from one place to another at will. It doesn't mean there is no point in comparing walking with teleporting just because I can't teleport.
It does mean that there's no point in comparing walking with teleporting
and finding it wanting. And going on about it, every time you have to walk from A to B. "Well, all right; I'll walk over to the fridge, but it would be so much easier if I could just press a button on my iPhone for an app that makes me dematerialise over here in front of the TV and then rematerialise in front of the fridge."
Compassionist wrote:I wrote a short story called "Omniverse Forever" where the protagonist is omnipotent and is able to prevent all suffering and unfairness throughout the omniverse which consists of an infinite number of universes. The scenario is impossible for me in this life but I had fun fantasising. Just because extra-causal freedom is impossible for us, it doesn't mean it is pointless to imagine such extra-causal freedom.
Not pointless to imagine, no. And good to have fun. But pointless to use such an imagined freedom as a reason to bemoan the shortcomings of causality. Actually, I think your omnipotent protagonist might well be impotent in an acausal universe. Unless, somehow, he or she could be the one exception, the one being in the universe with the power to cause. And it is a wonderful thing, you know, the power to cause. Something to be appreciated.
Emma