The concept of elementary causality (from the intuition of the concept of causality) assumes the possibility of a general formal-logical expression (A, B)→C, where (A,B) is the antecedent, C is the consequent.
This concept of causality does not mean either conditionalism or monocausalism, but is, so to speak, the reverse side of both, based on the broader application of the meaning of the words "causality", "causation", etc.
Let "A" – causative (condition), "C" – perceiving causation (condition), then what is "B"? This is what A acts on to cause C. It seems to me that many of the problems of logic with the interpretation of causality are connected precisely with a misunderstanding of this circumstance. "B" is the object or subject of causation, the place or ground of causation, or the impressionable, or the medium of causation (although the latter expression is too broad and refers rather to the context of causation). But what is the most adequate name for "B" in one word?
Quite conventionally, they can be called: "A" - an influencing antecedent, "B" - a perceiving antecedent, "C" - a single consequent. The news is that the difference between the influencing and the perceiving is not equal to the difference between active and passive, because one can be influencing passively (as social attractor do this) and other could perceiving actively (Berkeley tells us about the latter).
The expression D→C is justified only if it is the result of the substitution of D instead of (A,B). Thus, we can formulate the concept of elementary monocausality: this is the causation of a certain C as a result of D, which is the causative action of one A in relation to one B. There is no causality if the effect of A on B does not generate C. Hence, another conclusion follows, which is extremely important for understanding the essence causality: the antecedent is always a process (even if it is reduced in our consciousness), while the consequent is the result of this process, which has become, in one way or another, understood as resting. My understanding of causality leads to one of the three fundamental problems of philosophy – the problem of motion.
As for (A,B)→C, then for “→” in it the temporal and semantic aspects of causality will come to the fore, it will have a greater predictive value, and the expression will be read “when A and B are combined, C is expected”. Expression (A,B) in this case should be considered "quasiconjunctive", in which each "conjunct" has a different, ontologically unequal status relative to the other than it is in the Language of Classical Logic of Statements.
Добавить комментарий