Natural Connection Between The Two

It is my intention, in the course of this essay, to take the work of David Hume and reapply it to causality using quantum mechanical theory.

What Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? David Hume moves through a logical progression of the ideas behind cause and effect. He critically analyzes the reasons behind those generally accepted ideas. Though the relation of cause and effect seems to be completely logical and based on common sense, he discusses our impressions and ideas and why they are believed. Hume’s progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by

     Hume analyzed the idea of causality by emphasizing the three demands that can be verified through observation. First he argued the aspect of constant conjunction. In this aspect, the cause and effect must be spatially and constantly existent. Secondly, he

Second, Hume has shown previously that it is the experience of a constant conjunction of impressions which leads us to infer causation. Here, Hume adds that it is constant inference of cause and effect (of “objects” on “our” senses, and “our” prior impressions on “our” future ones) which lead us to infer identity.

In his fifth inquiry, Hume explains how as people, we will always tend to believe in cause and effect even though it isn’t necessarily proven that two actions cause one another. He explains that if someone was thrown into life with no experiences of knowledge of anything, it would be completely impossible for them to allude to cause and effect because they would just see everything as a string of events that are unconnected. Hume later goes on to explaining that we tend to rely on custom and habits in our daily lives and believe in them even though they aren’t a logical way of reasoning. “We are inclined to behave or think in some

David Hume’s two definitions of cause found in both A Treatise of Human Nature, and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consistency between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the account presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the Author’s Advertisement that the Treatise was a “work which the Author [Hume] had projected before he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it successful, he was

Hume argues that cause and effect or presumed connections between two events are false because according to the empiricist principle, we cannot tell where our impressions of the idea of cause come from. He says that there is no way we can prove that an effect is as a result of a particular cause, nor can we predict a future event based on past experiences or laws of nature. Hume further argues that our assumptions about causation are based on habits of our minds and experience; that our experience of observing two events occur repeatedly has led us to assume in our minds that those events are connected. This, he refers to as ‘constant conjunction’. Whereas, those events are actually based on probability. His argument is that causation has no

Hume’s (1739) regularity theory of causation began the debate of physical events and mental inferences. Hume reasoned that if we perceive a causal relationship between two events, then one will be a cause which in turn will lead the other; the event. These connections are known as prioritistic rationalism, as Hume quoted “By experience only that we can infer the existence of one object from that of another”. Causal relationships are based on three factors; resemblance, contiguity and causality. The cause and effect of an event is governed by physics, for example; a ball striking into

David Hume asserts that the grounds upon which connections between causes and effects are established are not rooted in reason. Hume argues that while reason does play a large role in understanding rational relations of ideas, the same principles cannot apply to matters of fact. He justifies this claim with the fact that the associations we make between cause and effect are the result of constant conjunction and habituation. He also stresses the irrationality of the principle of uniformity of nature, which is a key principle of making connections between causes and effects. Although the observations of the nature of ideas surrounding cause and effect are sound, the conclusions of irrationality seem far stretched. He hastily throws around the label of “irrational”, and does not consider that perhaps lacking rationality in the classical sense is not necessarily conducive to being driven without reason.

This is based on the fact that the future will be like the past. According to Hume, relationships between objects are known simply by observing their interactions. Hypotheses are developed based on common experience and cause is established by observation only. Although there were future philosophers who disagreed with several aspects of Hume’s philosophy of science, Hume was really the first philosopher to start thinking along the line of how science has progressed in our current day. He talked about how most knowledge cannot be known with certainty and began to discuss the idea of probability. Although controversial during his time, Hume did take a bold stand, which was instrumental in moving science forward. Hume can be summarized with the following

Hume does not believe in a necessary connection between cause and effect, and he believes it is consequential (31). He says that resemblance, contiguity, and causation are what connect our thoughts together (24). Hume adds, that experience only shows that it is one thing happening after another, but not that there is a connection (32). If this is the case, then Locke would have to argue that we are a combination of different identities and not one identity since we cannot make a direct connection to consciousness. We make connections because it is habitual to observe an event and then expect another to follow

Hume concludes at the end of Section VII of the Enquiry that the concept of causation may be preserved if we understand its definition as this: to say that a causes b is to say that the appearance of a is always succeeded by the appearance of b. 2[2]

Shifting from Descartes’ rationalist approach to things lies Hume and his empiricist approach to understanding our world. As expected of an empirical ideology, Hume believes that all ideas are generated from impressions. According to Hume’s philosophy, impressions are defined as lively and forceful sensations. Hume relied heavily on the idea of cause and effect throughout his work. According to Hume, cause and effect can be easily understood as one thing not being possible without the other. With that in mind, when it comes to ideas about God, Hume suggests that it is the

The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that

Therefore Hume claims that there is no necessary connection, it is just that we infer the idea of necessary connection but in actual fact we never actually observe it directly in nature. Hume goes on to convince us that we cannot observe the act of causation, for example he points out that we are aware of our ability to move our body i.e. fingers, hands etc. but this does not make us aware of the connection between the act volition and the movement of our body. He points out that we are capable of moving our fingers at will but we have no control over our internal organs. Why is this? Hume believes that we are incapable of rationalising a causal connection and things happen according to some sort of law, however these laws and necessities are beyond our understanding.