Viewing All Articles - Page 1
| 2012 Information. | October 21, 2009, 10:14AM |
 by: Insane |
|
The End of a World Age Established: 2012 AD? Over the recent period there has been a massive resurgence of interest in the Maya of Central America, especially their calendar systems that stretch back to ancient times. Indeed, their Long Count calendar in particular has been the subject of intense scrutiny of late, most notably from those researchers linked to the ‘New Age’ movement of the recent era. That there is such extreme interest in this particular Mayan calendar, and at this present time, is due to the following chain of reasoning: 1) The Maya, as with almost all ancient world cultures, believed that the earth, as part of its natural cycle of being, lives through a series of successive ‘world ages’, each separated by sudden physical planetary upheaval. 2) According to modern day researchers, the Long Count calendar system was established by the Maya in ancient times to forecast or mark out the very transition points between world ages. 3) The primary recurring cycle of the Long Count calendar has been found to consist of precisely 1872000 solar days (approximately equal to 5125.36 years). And this period of time is held to be the very duration of each successive world age. 4) From the study of Long Count inscriptions found at various ancient Mayan settlements, evidence has been uncovered to suggest that the Maya believed the current world age began on 11 August 3114 BC - Gregorian calendar. (Or, under the older Julian calendar, 6 September 3114 BC). 5) If the researchers are correct in their reconstruction of the Long Count start-date, which would represent the end of the last world age and the beginning of the present age, then the addition of 1872000 days to the time of 11 August 3114 BC, will place the end of the current age at precisely: 21 December 2012 AD. As one can imagine therefore, as the time for the completion of this present age is only a few years away, there is a great deal of interest in the Mayan Long Count calendar. With many thus wondering, were the ancient Maya essentially correct in their world age beliefs, and will there indeed be some sort of massive global geophysical event in 2012 AD to mark the transition to the next world age? 2012 AD: The End of the World Written in the Stars? In the previous discussion of world-age doctrine, with the works of Berossos and Plato considered including also the Nag Hammadi texts, it was shown that the ancients were of the firm belief that any shift from one world age to the next would occur only on the occasion of certain very precise celestial configurations manifest in the heavens. The planets and the stars would thus determine the very transition points between successive world ages. Now, with the rise to dominance of the GMT correlation theory setting the Long Count zero-date of 0.0.0.0.0. at 11 August 3114 BC, and thus also the current world age end-date at 21 December 2012 AD, the question inexorably emerged: Is there anything at all special about the celestial pattern of the heavens at the time of the two transition points said to bound the current world age? In the attempt to answer this question, as one might imagine, due to the nearness of the apparent end-date, researchers were far more inclined to study the celestial realm of this present era circa 2012 AD, than that of 3114 BC. With this focus, in the last decade of the millennium, an answer did indeed finally present itself. In the early years of the 1990’s it was noticed by several individuals, apparently independent of one another, that during the next few years ahead, there would occur an intriguing and rather rare astronomical alignment. One that would involve the earth upon a future winter solstice point, the sun, and also the equatorial plane of the Milky Way galaxy – within which the solar system itself is located. Initially being nothing more than merely an unusual astronomical event of some note, the alignment pattern as identified was quickly appropriated as a potential solution to the Mayan Calendar ‘world-age ending’ problem. Consequently, there emerged a serious hypothesis, that the noted configuration in question was deliberately targeted by the Long Count calendar of the ancient Maya. That is to say, that in establishing the Long Count circa 500 BC, the Maya of the time intentionally chose to synchronise the completion of 13 Baktun periods (NB: 1 Baktun = 144000 days. 13 x 144000 = 1872000 days – 1 complete world age cycle) with a singular astronomical event that would take place some 2500 years in the future, upon the precise date of 21 December 2012 AD: An alignment of three principle celestial characters: the earth at winter solstice, the sun, and the equatorial plane of the Milky Way galaxy. This then, is the theory of the so called Mayan 2012 Galactic Alignment. Before proceeding to a full evaluation, a comprehensive description of the noted alignment is necessary, so that one may understand the precise nature of the celestial configuration itself, as is theorised by some to be associated with the Mayan Long Count calendar. The Solar System as Located within the Milky Way Galaxy To understand just what the noted galactic alignment is, one must first have an awareness of the actual position of the sun - and thus also the solar system as a whole - within the Milky Way, including the galaxy’s basic dimensions, and how the orbit of the earth about the sun is orientated towards the galactic plane. The overall diameter of the Milky Way is some 100,000 Light years. To put this into perspective, one may note that the mean distance between the earth and the sun is about 93 million miles; commonly referred to as an Astronomical Unit (AU). One light year is the distance covered by light in the course of one year, being equal to about 5878464 million miles. Therefore, the distance length of 1 light year equates to about 63200 Astronomical Units (AU). For the most part the Milky Way is essentially rather flat throughout. The central concentration of stars, generally referred to as the ‘nuclear bulge’ – the brightest part of the galaxy – extends to a radius of about 20000 light years from the centre (40000 LY being its full diameter), with a ‘north-south axis’ diameter of about 30000 light years. Beyond the extended distance of the nuclear bulge the actual thickness of the galaxy rapidly drops off to only about 1000 light years on average, stretching even thinner towards the outer edge. The sun itself, which is but one of many millions of stars that form the Milky Way, is located some 28000 light years from the centre (8000 LY past the edge of the nuclear bulge), in a part of the galaxy where the actual thickness is only on the order of about 700 light years. Moreover, it should also be noted that the sun, and thus solar system as a whole, is a significant distance from the actual equatorial plane of the Milky Way, being some 20 light years deep within what may be called the ‘southern’ hemisphere. Earth Orbit Orientation Respecting the Galactic Equator Though not located precisely upon the equator of the galaxy, the solar system is sufficiently close such that in looking towards the centre of the Milky Way, one may perceive a relatively uniform and symmetrical distribution of stars that form the main band of the galaxy: With respect to the Milky Way star band, one may note that the orbital path of the earth about the sun, from a visual perspective, appears to ‘cross over the equator of the galaxy’ at about 60 degrees. In the diagram pictured (below), the observer is positioned at the centre of the sun looking towards the centre of the Milky Way. The ecliptic line as marked is of the path taken by the earth in the course of a single year in orbit of the sun. The galactic equator, as also marked, is a line of ‘best fit’ that places half of the stars in one hemisphere and half in the other, as viewed from the centre of the present solar system. It is a line determined purely by statistical methods. The marked point (<) of the Milky Way is the exact centre of the galaxy: Of the basic configuration as detailed, with reference to the crossing point of the earth ecliptic line and the galactic equator, one may note then that visually, there will be an alignment of the earth, the sun, and the galactic equator twice every year. In one instance, the earth will be between the sun and the galactic equator, and in another (exactly 6 months later) the sun will be between the earth and the galactic equator. The 2012 AD alignment as is said to be associated with the Long Count calendar is of exactly this type, being of the latter stated order: Earth > Sun > Galactic Equator, but critically, with one very important additional factor, which indeed makes the entire arrangement far more complex and infrequent: The 2012 AD conjunction is one that involves the earth, sun, and the galactic equator, specifically at a time when the earth is at the winter solstice (northern hemisphere) point of its orbit, at a seasonal extreme. Now, an event of this sort certainly does not occur every year, but rather once only every 25800 years. And this is due to a very subtle celestial motion: precession. In astronomy it is an observable fact that all background stars have an apparent yearly orbit about the earth of some 365.256363 days, known as the sidereal year. This is the length of time they require to accomplish one complete cycle with respect to the earth orbit. This of course is in marked contrast to the time taken for the earth to orbit about the sun with respect to its ‘seasonal markers’ i.e. solstice or equinox points. In this instance, the noted separation time is that of the tropical year of 365.2421840 days. Consequently, due to this time discrepancy between the two different types of earth year, there is a continuous ‘slippage’ of all of the seasonal markers of the earth’s orbit, against the whole background star field outside the solar system – which includes all of the stars that make up the Milky Way band. This phenomenon, called precession of the equinoxes, is critical to understanding the 2012 galactic alignment. Approaching the 2012 AD Galactic Alignment As was noted previously, according to scholars of this present age the Maya in all likelihood established the Long Count some time circa 500 BC, with the position also advanced (by some) that as a result of observations carried out during such ancient times, they deliberately set up their calendar to ‘count down’ to a future conjunction of the earth at winter solstice, the sun, and the galactic equator. It would be well then to examine the sky as would have been evident at this time: As can be seen, with a view from the centre of the earth upon the winter solstice of 500 BC, looking towards the Milky Way (NB: daylight is ‘turned off’ in these images), one can see the sun markedly off to the west of the galactic equator. From this initial configuration, the key thing to realise is that due to precessional ‘slippage’, with every year that passes, with the earth returning to its next successive winter solstice point, the sun will appear to move eastwards against the seemingly fixed background galactic star field. The actual rate as an angular sweep is determined precisely by the difference between the sidereal year of 365.256363 days and the tropical year of 365.242184 days, which translates into approximately 50.29 seconds of arc per year. From the time of 500 BC, the full angular distance as would need to be covered to place the sun on the exact crossing point of the ecliptic and galactic equator, in conjunction with the earth upon a future winter solstice, is approximately 34 degrees and 35 minutes of arc. It is precisely this angular distance that is covered right up to the date of 2012 AD. The further image shown below details the successive positions of the sun as viewed from the earth upon the winter solstice point of its orbit, at approximately 1000 year intervals, building up to the 2012 conjunction: The final configuration as is thus manifest in the sky in 2012 AD details then a most exacting alignment of all 3 principle celestial characters: The earth at winter solstice, the sun, and the galactic equator (and in this stated order): In view then of the above alignment, as is surely manifest in this present era, it would be well to state in summary the critical assumptions that underlie the proposal that the Mayan Calendar Long Count cycle was indeed established specifically to mark the noted celestial configuration in 2012 AD: 1) During the 1st Millennium BC – beginning possibly earlier that this? – the Maya became aware of the phenomenon that is precession. 2) Through continual observation of the sky they derived a fairly refined value for the angular rate of precession i.e. the apparent rate of change or movement of the sun set against the background stars of the Milky Way. 3) The Maya did a forward calculation to determine the time when the sun would conjunct with the galactic equator, when the earth itself was positioned at a future winter solstice point (northern hemisphere) in its orbit. 4) Some time circa the 1st century BC they established the Long Count calendar in stone, using a primary cycle of 1872000 days, with the end date of the cycle (the completion of 13 Baktuns of 144000 days each) synchronised precisely with the galactic conjunction as detailed. The above points thus capture what are the underlying assumptions of what is the theory of the 2012 Mayan Calendar Galactic Alignment. Reference site: "http://www.ancient-world-mysteries.com/2012.html" | |
topic: Life | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| New Goth VS. Old Goth. | June 18, 2007, 2:23PM |
by: Insane |
|
Hello, I feel this needs to be adressed, for people are getting the wrong impression on the "Gothic Culture" and leading it to be something a bit different from what it actually is, Most of this was written by "Adrya Stinbridge" I got it from a text book so alot i had to write myself for it wasn't in these exact words, considering the book was like Romeo and Juliet with there odd way of saying things, so here read, enjoy, and try and understand. Gothic. The word triggers different and sometimes passionate responses from many people, including those within the community and those who look on from the outside. What exactly does gothic mean? Who are Goths, and what do they believe? How long has Goth been around, and what is its future? The word “gothic” was first used to identify a group of European tribes from ancient history. Goths are commonly believed to have originated from the Island of Gottland off the Denmark coast. Over time the tribes grew numerous and powerful enough to sack sacked the great Roman Empire in 410, and they ruled Europe for 250 years before slowly fading into ancient history. It is important to know where the word “gothic” comes from, however there is a notable difference between ancient Gothic culture and the modern gothic phenomenon. Goths of ancient history were a nomadic people who had a reputation for ruthless violence. Ancient Goths were also a religious people; their beliefs were based around worship of pagan deities. Today, “gothic” is used to describe a subculture based largely on a certain style of art, literature, and music. Some forms of gothic art and literature date back to the 12th –15th centuries, however gothic music as we know it today is a relatively new development and is responsible for having the greatest impact on the development of gothic subculture. Modern goths differ from ancient Goths in that they are not part of a dominant culture; they are a part of a subculture. Where ancient Goths had a set religious system, modern gothic subculture is not linked to any particular religion. There are some pagan goths, however many more goths are Christian, Jewish, Catholic, or Aethiest. Modern goths tend to be varied on their social and political views as well. The glue which holds the gothic community together is an affinity for the macabre, a longing for romance, and an appreciation of darker aesthetics. Historians of modern gothic subculture generally agree that its beginnings were in the late nineteen-seventies, developing as an offshoot of the punk rock movement in the UK and USA. Before we look at gothic subculture it is noteworthy to briefly examine what punk is and how it came about. Essentially punk grew out of dissatisfaction with popular music of the 1970’s although many saw it as a viable means of political and/or social rebellion. Mainstream culture of the 70’s was consumed with over-produced, under-motivated rock-n-roll and cheap, uninspired dance music. A war still quietly raged in the steamy (and charred) forests of Vietnam and both America and Britain were in the midst of economic depression. It was from this social and political climate that punk rock grew into angry fruition. While punk wasn’t exactly a new concept (MC5 in the late 60’s are generally recognized as an important and highly regarded “pre-punk” band), it didn’t catch on until the late 70’s. First-wave bands like the Ramones, Stooges and the Sex Pistols spawned new bands formed by awestruck concertgoers who knew something big was happening. Mainstream society took notice of punk’s anti-social and rebellious deeds and became somewhat nervous considering the social upheaval it underwent a decade before. Radio stations wouldn’t play punk, clubs won’t have punk shows, and police targeted punk fans whenever the opportunity presented itself. Punk was raw and full of feeling. People who lived near a scene heard about it through word of mouth or fanzine. Many others never knew about punk until years after the first wave had long passed. Punk gained momentum without the help of the Internet, music videos or mainstream radio exposure. It was underground and punks demanded it stay that way. By the late seventies the second wave of punk began. By then most in the younger generation had at least heard about if not experienced punk first hand. New fans were coming into the scene and new bands were being formed at a rapid rate. With new bands came new sounds and styles, some of which branched off of or built on commonplace 3-chord song structures. Industrial music saw its beginnings in the late seventies with the likes of Throbbing Gristle. Kraftwerk and pre-Dare The Human League paved the way for later a genre, which was broadly referred to as new-wave. A new four piece punk band from Manchester, England called Warsaw appeared in 1977. Like many of their counterparts they didn’t play very well, however there was energy behind the group’s sound, which was powerful and unique. The band’s style subdued over the months and the members soon renamed themselves Joy Division. The name was controversial due to the reference to Nazi Germany forced brothels, however the band members themselves denied any association with national-socialist beliefs, nor did they espouse racism in their lyrics. What were evoked in Ian Curtis’ lyrics were feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and despair. The group’s music shifted from angry 3-chord punk to subdued 3-chord punk, and then to something altogether new and even more somber. It was this new sound which caused Joy Division’s manager at the time, Anthony H. Wilson, to refer to them as gothic. Another band which began as a straightforward punk outfit then gradually changed it’s sound into a darker version of punk was Siouxsie and the Banshees. They, along with Andi Sex of the Sex Gang Children were also referred to as being gothic. UK Decay and Bauhaus were in their development stages and both had a remarkably dark, brooding punk-ish sound. While some early bands were tagged gothic by their peers, bands and fans didn’t universally adhere to this label. In fact early ‘gothic’ music was commonly referred to as deathrock. Deathrock had a decidedly punk-influenced sound as opposed to what became known as gothic many years later. In America, particularly the west coast, deathrock grew independently from the British scene. Early US pioneers were the Misfits, 45 Grave and Christian Death (years after the band broke up the founding member Rozz Williams revealed that this was a play on the popular western culture icon Christian Dior – it wasn’t necessarily a religious statement). In Britain the deathrock scene centered and flourished around a small club called the Batcave. It was here that bands like Bauhaus, Alien Sex Fiend, the Sisters of Mercy, and many more got their start. The Batcave scene is still highly regarded as an integral piece of the modern gothic puzzle. By the mid to late 80’s deathrock had stepped a little further away from its punk roots. While death rockers continued to oppose to mainstream western culture and commercialism, deathrock music and style began to change slightly. Heavier use of keyboards and drum machines ushered in an entire new group of fans. Gradually the scene goers began referring to themselves and the music they enjoyed as gothic. Gothic music, like deathrock, was typically somber and somewhat dark. Songwriters used a wide range of instruments although the most common were guitar, bass, drums (or drum machine), and keyboard. Songs were often written and played in slower tempos, and musically dark modes such as Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydian were commonplace. As opposed to heavy metal and more common forms of rock-n-roll, gothic musicians rarely used extended solos, wah pedals, flangers, or double-kick drums. Lyrically, gothic music has its roots in gothic literature. Themes of death, solitude, and romance were common. Gothic lyricists tended to stay away from overt political messages although many did so subtly. Punk lyrics were characteristically singsong with widespread profanity and heavy social or political themes; lyrics found in gothic music placed much consideration on art and style; profanity and slang were not often used. Styles of gothic music ranged from the light and dreamy to dark and nightmarish. While some bands had limited commercial success (The Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees) most remained hidden from the eye of mainstream culture. For the most part however gothic/deathrock music was not easily accessible to the general public – both in terms of the style and sound of the music and the availability of the music. Gothic fans were ever careful to keep pop culture out of their scene; in fact most would answer “no” if asked whether they were indeed gothic by outsiders. Like punk, gothic subculture retained its distrust and contempt of the mainstream. Goths wished to be left alone, however the unique and interesting qualities of the subculture would soon prove to be too much for the mainstream to ignore. In the early 90’s neo-industrial bands like Ministry and Nine Inch Nails began enjoying popular success on commercial radio and MTV. While many Goths listened to these bands, few considered them gothic. Fewer saw what was beginning to happen: the subculture that they enjoyed so greatly was slowly becoming ridden with in influx of fans raised on neo-industrial and dark metal. As NIN and similar bands had more commercial success, the media began (incorrectly) calling their music and fans “gothic”. Around the same time corporate music labels began a heavy push of what they labeled “alternative” music. NIN fit nicely with this scheme because their music was commercially viable; people who had never heard industrial music could buy Closer and immediately identify as a “gothic industrial” – despite the fact that NIN were hardly a serious industrial band. Younger people were fascinated by goth’s dark look and dark sounds, however few understood the difference between what Goths considered gothic and what music corporations & MTV were calling gothic. NIN was just the beginning of a commercial siege on the subculture. About the same time NIN were striking gold in the charts, a little known and quite plain appearing music editor by the name of Brian Warner saw the shift in pop music and felt the time was right to pursue a career in the industry as a performer. He assembled a few musicians from the Florida area (the Spooky Kids) and adopted a stage name of Marilyn Manson. It would be his best decision ever. Warner’s music was never well received in the gothic community simply because it was not. The Spooky Kids worked in a style that is best-described hard rock or metal, and Warner’s lyrics were sometimes crass, and often based in hatred. His band covered and released a song originally written by Charles Manson, a murderer and man who claimed to be Jesus Christ. Goths did often write about the macabre, however it was somberly done in the vein of Romanticism. Brian Warner’s lyrics were profane and thrived on anger, alienation, conflict and hatred. The driving force behind Marilyn Manson sought to incite and shock, whereas Goths sought to create art and desired to be left alone. Manson’s art was hate; the art behind gothic subculture was beauty and romance. The importance of distinguishing the difference between Warner’s project and a typical gothic band is great. By the mid-nineties Manson fired the Spooky Kids and signed a major label record deal. His name soon appeared in newspapers and on various television and radio talk shows across America. To the dismay of many in the gothic community, he was often incorrectly labeled by his fans and the media as "goth". The irony here is that Goths did not like Manson, and most of the fans that followed Manson were unaware of what gothic music really was. As Manson became ever more popular due to MTV exposure and his obnoxious comments offered in interviews, his fan base grew substantially. Other groups began appearing that imitated Marilyn Manson. An entire new subculture was developing based around Brian Warner, yet the media could not see the difference between it and gothic subculture. It was the same to them either way – despite gothic fans becoming increasingly opposed to Manson’s music and following. Attendance at gothic clubs around the world steadily declined in the mid to late 90’s. Since the popularity of Nine Inch Nails and later false-gothic groups the people who weren’t really into goth jumped on the Industrial or Shock Rock bandwagon. Other active scene goers eventually found jobs and families and were no longer able to remain active in the scene. Those who did stay in the scene noticed a further shift in the direction of gothic music. DJ’s who worked at gothic clubs began incorporating more EBM, neo-industrial, and dark techno into their playlists. While this was desirable to those who continued to go to the clubs to dance, many in the scene quietly stopped going as a result. Fetishism became increasingly linked to the gothic subculture due to “documentaries” written by MTV and other outsiders. After Columbine, many wrongly associated the gothic community with violence. The two teens that committed the atrocities, the “Trenchcoat Mafia” as they were called, were in fact not into gothic music – they enjoyed metal and some industrial bands but neither were part of their local gothic scene. Out of all of the negativity and apathy some very good bands emerged in the mid to late 90’s. Bands such as the Changelings, Faith and the Muse, and the Cruxshadows continued to provide new and quality gothic music for the fans who remained. A new band began to attract the attention of some disinterested music fans in the late 90’s, however this group went out of their way to disassociate themselves from the gothic scene. Cinema Strange saw the writing on the wall for gothic subculture early on and avoided trying to gain acceptance altogether (http://www.angelfire.com/goth/eckearchive/zillo.htm ). CS headed a new movement that has been called “newgrave” but is most commonly known as deathrock to fans who know. Their music harkens back to the Batcave days where ripped fishnets and punk-influenced dark-rock ruled the day. What makes Cinema Strange so unique is that they are bringing new life to a forgotten genre. And fans all across the world are responding. Deathrock scenes have sprouted in California, New York, and Germany. More are sure to emerge in the coming years. The new breed of deathrockers is returning to their roots; no more shiny boots of leather, no whips and chains, no computerized karaoke-industrial, no more scene pretension. From the Ghoul School’s website (a club in West Hollywood): We are sick of going to goth clubs and only being able to hear Trance, Techno, Synthpop, and Repetitive beats. This is not a latex titty fetish club - finally a real refuge for goths and death punks. What is old is new again, and it’s looking even better the second time around. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [37 comments] |
|
| Definition of Cause, based on belief. | May 30, 2007, 4:59PM |
by: Insane |
|
This is a essay, I had to do research on for science, on belief, though not allowed in schools, I was forced apon it anyways, I've taken bits and pieces and written it in my own words, so enjoy. he most famous and influential definition of a cause is Hume's definition; indeed, most contemporary definitions include conditions that are similar in some respect to at least one of the three conditions included in Hume's definition: "Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes...Priority in time is...another requisite circumstance in every case....[A] third circumstance [is] that of constant conjunction betwixt the cause and the effect. Every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect. Beyond these three circumstances of contiguity, priority, and constant conjunction I can discover nothing in this cause."[1] Hume's definition includes three conditions for being a cause: temporal priority, spatio-temporal contiguity, and a nomological relation ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect".) (a) TEMPORAL PRIORITY If time began to exist with the universe, the "temporal priority" condition of Hume's definition implies that the universe cannot be caused to begin to exist since there is no earlier time at which the cause could occur. Even if there is time before the universe, the "temporal priority" condition rules out an originating divine cause if all divine acts are timeless. However, the "temporal priority" condition only shows the universe cannot have an originating divine cause if time began to exist with the universe or if all divine acts are timeless. It is logically possible that time preceded the beginning of the universe, even if there are no known laws of physics according to which the physical variable t can take values earlier than the time at which space and mass-energy began to exist. Further, it is logically possible that God exists in time and that a pre-universe time is occupied by God's mental life, which includes his volitions. Thus, it is logically possible for a divine volition to meet the "temporal priority" condition of Hume's definition. The intractable problems begin with the other two conditions. (b) SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONTIGUITY Hume's and many other definitions of causality require that the causal event is spatially in contact with, or is spatially near to, the effect. God is said to be omnipresent, but this means she is conscious of and stands in a volitional relation to each physical particular. It does not mean that divine volitions, which are non-physical, touch or are in the spatial vicinity of the physical particulars that are the objects of these volitions. God's act of willing that the big bang occurs is not spatio-temporally contiguous with the big bang since this act of willing does not have spatial coordinates. c and e are spatio-temporally contiguous only if the spatial coordinates x, y, z that locate c on a manifold either are identical with the spatial coordinates x', y' ,z' of e, or locate c in the neighborhood of e. (c) NOMOLOGICAL RELATEDNESS The third feature of Hume's definition, the nomological condition ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect"), is also common to many definitions of causality. Hume's definition belongs to the line of reductive definitions that define causes in terms of laws of nature and a set of non-causal relations (such as temporal priority and spatio-temporal contiguity) between two particulars c and e.[2] According to these definitions, c is a cause of e only if there is a law of nature L that enables a statement that e occurs to be deduced from the premises that c occurs and that the law L obtains. For example, Carl Hempel writes[3]: "a 'cause' must be allowed to be a more or less complex set of circumstances or events, which might be described by a set of statements C1, C2, . . . Ck. ....Thus the causal explanation implicitly claims that there are general laws- -let us say, L1, L2, . . . Lk--in virtue of which the occurrence of the causal antecedents mentioned in C1, C2, . . . Ck is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of the explanadum event." A probabilistic law L may be permitted as well, in which case "to be deduced from" would be replaced by "to be inductively supported by". However, the nomological condition for being a cause is logically inconsistent with a divine cause of the big bang, since God by definition is a supernatural being and his or her actions are not governed by laws of nature. Furthermore, the fact that God's willing is omnipotent makes "the big bang occurs" deducible from "God wills that the big bang occur" alone, without the need of any supplementary nomological premise, thus vitiating the condition that a nomological premise is a logically necessary condition for the derivation of the conclusion that the effect exists from premises one of which is that the causal event occurs. At this point, we have already ruled out virtually every extant definition of causality, since most every definition includes either the spatio-temporal contiguity condition or the nomological condition. We are left with non-contiguity and singularist definitions of causality. A non-contiguity definition does not mention spatio-temporal contiguity and does not require the cause to be both temporally and spatially contiguous with the effect; variants of non-contiguity definitions may allow for timeless divine acts and/or temporal divine acts that are not spatially nearby or in contact with the effect. A singularist definition allows an event to cause an effect in a single case, without the cause and effect needing to instantiate some law. However, the extant formulations that are singularist and/or noncontiguity definitions are few and far between and prove problematic for a defender of the logical possibility of an originating divine cause. Also, to add, there's: Ducasse's Singularist definition of cause. The most famous singularist definition of a cause is J. C. Ducasse's. Ducasse's conception "defines the cause of a particular event in terms of but a single occurrence of it, and thus in no way involves the supposition that it, or one like it, ever has occurred before or ever will again. The supposition of recurrence is thus wholly irrelevant to the meaning of cause; that supposition is relevant only to the meaning of law."[4] Since the nomological condition is explicitly rejected, it seems this definition applies to God's willing that the big bang occurs. However, further inspection of Ducasse's definition shows it does not apply, since his definition requires spatio-temporal contiguity. Ducasse claims the cause c is a sufficient condition of the effect e and that c is sufficient for e if (i) c is a change that occurred during a time and throughout a space terminating at an instant i at a surface s of an object; (ii) the change e occurred during a time and through a space beginning at the instant i at the surface s; (iii) no change other than c occurred during the time and through the space of c, and (iv) no change other than e occurred during the time and through the space of e.[5] Thus, Ducasse's account meets the singularist criterion, but not the non-contiguity criterion. (Although Ducasse calls his account a "definition" of a cause, it is only a partial definition, since he begins his definition with "if", not "if and only if".) | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [7 comments] |
|
| pages: 1
|
|