Causation: Between Philosophy and Experimental Science

Causation: Between Philosophy and Experimental Science Causality Between Philosophy and Experimental Science The Qur’an deals with the issue of the existence of God with evidence, including the evidence of causality. It says: “Or did they create from nothing or are they the creators?” (1) Because causality is the most famous evidence, almost all books of philosophy were dealt with by Aristotle, but it was not attacked in a strong way except by Hume, who is considered a transmitter of the words of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. Hume says: "Seeing any two things or actions, whatever the relation between them, cannot necessarily give us any idea of a force, or a connection between them, and that this idea arises from the repetition of their existence together, and that repetition does not reveal and does not happen anything in the subjects, but only affects the mind by that habitual transition that it makes, and that the usual transition from cause to effect is: force and necessity. " - Hume's speech is based on two points: repetition of experiments, psychological necessity and not objectivity. Repetition is a strange thing to be inferred by repeating the succession of night and day in front of the mind is claimed to create the meaning of causality in the mind and the belief that one of them is a cause for the other, and the interpretation of the cause by successive perception is wrong, i.e. you realize the thing (a) and then you realize the thing (b) . - Roy Bhaskar decided that the senses need a stimulus or excitement from outside this same stimulus arises from the causality of the occurrence of an influence on the senses and the senses would not have been stimulated except by a stimulus, is this stimulus from the senses themselves? This is, of course, invalid, is the catalyst independent of the senses? Absolutely: Yes! But what realizes this process of exchange between the senses and what stimulates it? What realizes this is consciousness, the world reveals that there is causality through this process. Ibn Hazm said: (The inference of the thing is not only in time and must know the first knowledge of the mind because he knew the necessity of the mind that there is nothing in the world only at a time and not between the first times distinguish the soul in this world and the realization of all that we have mentioned a deadline at all, but there is no minute and there is no way to disclose that they are the necessities caused by God in the soul and there is no way to infer) - The cognitive space that the mind realizes from the beginning is much wider than the experience, although it is it that provoked it, and then through the molecules of a society in which the mind generalizes to establish causality and the harmony of the universe within it, and from that great field of knowledge of mathematics, which is achieved experimentally only a small part of it despite deep faith in it! - Here we enter another suspicion about causality: Is causality related only to our world or to any existence? And how do you generalize it even though it is only from our universe? And does it apply to God? We say: you deduce based on causality the assumption of other worlds and then say whether causality applies to them or not?! Causality is not an accident, but a law related to existence as it is, the eternal relationship to all that exists, which the mind first realizes is not this, but recognizes causality between accidents and then circulates it to all that exists, the eternal law is a law related to all old and accident and the universal law between accidents only and the second connected to the other, but not he and what the atheist does is to confuse the universe and the eternal then comes and says to us: Who created God then?! Is not eternal causality to prevent the sequence?! How do you impregnate the cosmic incident?! (close to mixing poems) As well as the assets imagine existence from particles, but the perception of absolute existence exceeded them, do we apply what is partial to the whole? And does he imagine a new universe with something does not exist or non-existent? - It is a trivial problem to claim that quantum mechanics abolished the causal system, and this is a strange confusion between causality and determinism and the attempt to subject a new world to classical laws! Otherwise, the phenomenon of attachment depends on causality in appearance. * Obligation for anyone who considers causality or any of the mental firsts experimental and not necessary; close to our saying in the distinction between cosmic causality and eternal existential is the usual impossibility and absolute impossibility, the mind realizes that the flight of a human being is physically impossible ordinary, but not impossible mind, it is possible that there is a human with flexible muscles enable him to do so! Unlike the meeting of the two extremes on the same place at the same time, it is impossible mental idle, as the meeting of existence and non-being Or admit the difference and ask him then where to mind distinction and both are experimental on your words? So proved that the field of knowledge that the mind perceives is much wider than the physical space that deals with it, but that the mental firsts exist before dealing with the existence of force and is only induced by it. Conclusion: Denying causality to escape God’s existence destroys the structure of natural and mathematical science that every atheist clings to in reaching for facts. (1) (Surf Phase: 35) 2 Abd al-Rahman Badawi, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, A Treatise on Human Nature, 2/615. His book is Realist Theory of Science. 4 Our philosophy - Mohammad Baqir Sadr. - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2020-02-24 (archived at the Internet Archive) http://braheen.com:80/mag/0th/29-the-causality