The Argument from Causality by N. Fakhr - HTML preview
Download the book in PDF, ePub for a complete version.
Week Four: Continuing the Argument from Causality — The Concept of a Phenomenon
The Believer looked at the Skeptic, who was drinking his beverage, and said, “You don’t look the way you did last week.”
“What did I look like last week?”
“When we got to the concept of nonexistence, you looked deep in thought. I think it really got your mind working. Now it seems either you’ve figured it out, or you’ve thrown the whole issue aside.”
“Or maybe I’ve just forgotten about it for a few minutes so I can finish my drink.”
The Believer laughed. “Yes, logically, that isn’t impossible either. So tell me, what did you finally make of the concept of nonexistence?”
“I think I’ve worked it out. At first, I imagined a space, like the space in front of us. Then I removed all the objects from it. After that, I removed the light. Then I removed the dimensions as well. At that point I thought I had finally reached the concept of nonexistence. But then I realized that I was still imagining something: a spaceless state in which time still existed. There was no object, no light, and no dimension, yet time was still passing over this ‘apparent nothingness.’ It was as though this ‘apparent nothingness’ could last long enough for dimensions perhaps to appear again at some point, and for an object to occupy them.”
“That was when I realized I still hadn’t understood what nonexistence means. A nonexistence in which time exists and passes is still not nonexistence. It is still something.
“Only then did I understand why any picture we form of ‘nonexistence’ must be mistaken. I also understood why nonexistence cannot lead to existence. Nonexistence is not a mystery, nor does it have the potential to lead to something, because it does not exist in the first place. There is nothing there that could either have or lack the potential to produce existence.
“I’m now convinced that we can speak only about existence, and that any attempt to speak about nonexistence leads us into a misunderstanding of what nonexistence means. We cannot really even talk about nonexistence. We cannot say, ‘Perhaps at some point nonexistence will lead to existence.’ The moment we refer to nonexistence and attribute something to it, we are no longer treating it as nonexistence and have misunderstood the meaning of the word. We can speak only about existence.”
“Very good. Then we can continue the argument.
“From now on, let’s call anything that did not exist before but then came into existence a ‘phenomenon1.’ In other words, a phenomenon is something that is not beginningless or eternal. It is something that did not always exist.
“Take this spoon, for example. This spoon did not once exist, but at some point it came into existence. So we call the spoon a phenomenon.
“Now consider this spoon as I put it inside the plate. A moment ago, the spoon was not inside the plate. The spoon existed, but it was not there. The ‘spoon in the plate’ is something that did not exist a minute ago but exists now. The spoon, in this particular state of being inside the plate, is a phenomenon that did not exist before. The ‘spoon in the plate’ is a phenomenon that was not there before but exists now.
“Now consider the spoon sitting in this plate. Its position in space appears not to change, but its position in time is changing. The ‘spoon in the plate’ at time t₁ is one phenomenon; let’s call it phenomenon A. The ‘spoon in the plate’ at time t₂ is a new phenomenon with new coordinates; let’s call it phenomenon B. The spatial coordinates of phenomenon B may appear to be the same as those of phenomenon A, but its time coordinate has changed. It is therefore a different phenomenon—one that did not exist at t₁ and came into existence at t₂.
“The spoon may still exist three minutes from now, with its spatial position unchanged, still lying in the plate in front of me, while only its time coordinate has changed. Or perhaps something will happen to it before then, and three minutes from now there will no longer be a spoon with these spatial coordinates and this particular form and appearance.
“In any case, even if one phenomenon or event looks exactly like another and gives us the impression that it already existed before, each phenomenon has its own unique coordinates in space and time. It is a unique instance of existence that did not exist before that moment and will not exist after it. This is true of everything that exists in time.”
The Skeptic asked, “Are you going to discuss the concept of time?”
“Not at all. I only want to explain what I mean by a phenomenon. My point is that every moment of your existence, my existence, and the existence of everything we see and know can be regarded as a phenomenon that did not exist before and comes into existence at that moment.”
“But why should I regard the spoon at t₁ and the spoon at t₂ as two different phenomena? Perhaps it is simply the same spoon continuing to exist from t₁ to t₂.”
“I am not saying that you should regard them as two different spoons. The issue here is not the identity of the spoon. You may say that it is the same spoon. I am talking about its existence. The spoon that exists at t₂, with all its particular conditions, did not exist at t₁, because if it had, its existence would not have belonged specifically to t₂.
In our minds, we separate something called ‘the spoon’ from its time and its state, and then say that the same thing has continued to exist. But outside our minds, there is no spoon without a state and without a time. What actually exists at each moment is the spoon at that particular moment, with all the particular conditions it has at that moment.
“I’m not insisting anymore that you accept that this spoon literally comes into existence anew at every moment. You are free to reject that idea. I only want you to keep in mind that if the spoon really does have a new existence at every moment, then we could say that at every moment a new phenomenon comes into existence.
“So, in short: anything that did not exist before and then came into existence is a phenomenon. You can think of countless examples.”
“All right... I have no problem with that definition of a phenomenon. I understand a phenomenon to mean something that did not exist before but then came into existence. For example, right now I’m looking at you. This very act of looking, and the image of you that I’m experiencing, is a phenomenon. It did not exist a moment ago, but it exists now.
“The words forming in my mind are each phenomena. My thoughts are phenomena too. The sound of each word reaching my ears is also a phenomenon. The concept that forms in my mind after hearing your words, and the meaning I understand from what you say, are phenomena as well. Even that momentary sense of understanding that arises in me is a phenomenon, because it did not exist before and has now come into existence. The moment in which a memory comes back to mind is also a phenomenon.”
“Exactly. So we agree on what I mean by the word ‘phenomenon.’ From this point on, whenever we use that word in our discussion, we will use it only in this sense and will not concern ourselves with its other meanings.”
The Skeptic asked, “So what rules are you going to say apply to this ‘phenomenon’?”
How Does a Phenomenon Come into Existence?
Believer: “Since a phenomenon has not existed eternally but has come into existence, there are, in theory, only three possibilities:
Either the phenomenon came into existence from nothing—that is, it was produced by nothing;
or it brought itself into existence;
or some other existent brought it into existence.
Now, keeping in mind what we mean by existence and nonexistence, let us examine these three possibilities and see which are logically possible and which are impossible.
The first possibility is that the phenomenon came into existence from nothing. As we said, nonexistence is not something that can bring a phenomenon into existence, or even have the potential to do so. We can say with certainty that nonexistence can never have the potential or ability to create anything, because nonexistence is not something that could have an ability—or lack one.
In other words, the statement ‘a phenomenon came into existence from nothing’ is false, because no ability, possibility, or action can be attributed to nonexistence. In fact, ‘nonexistence’ or ‘nothingness’ is nothing more than a word, and this word refers to nothing real. Therefore, the statement ‘that phenomenon came into existence from nothing’ describes something that has never happened in reality and never can.
The idea that nonexistence somehow passes, and then suddenly a phenomenon appears and enters into existence, also comes from misunderstanding the concept of nonexistence. Nonexistence is not something that can pass or not pass. It cannot come to an end, with existence suddenly beginning afterward. Nonexistence is not something that can end.”
Skeptic: “I can’t disagree with this part. I think it is entirely correct.”
Believer: “The second possibility is that the phenomenon brought itself into existence.
A phenomenon that does not yet exist is nonexistent—that is, it simply is not. Therefore, once again, it has no potential for anything, including bringing itself into existence. As long as the phenomenon does not exist, it cannot create itself; and once it does exist, it no longer makes sense to say that it brings itself into existence.
So the statement ‘that phenomenon brought itself into existence’ amounts to the same thing as saying ‘that phenomenon came into existence from nothing.’ Both are meaningless in reality and logically impossible.
This leaves the third possibility: that some other existent brings the phenomenon into existence.
There is no logical problem with this possibility. In fact, it is the only theoretically possible option. Therefore, no phenomenon can exist unless some other existent has brought it into existence.”
The Believer fell silent and waited for the Skeptic’s reaction. The Skeptic sat thinking with his eyes closed. After a few minutes, he opened them and said:
Skeptic: “I considered several possibilities, trying to find an objection to the third option. But each time, I found that rejecting it pushed me toward accepting either the first or the second, both of which are impossible. And they are impossible for just one reason: the very meaning of nonexistence makes the first two options logically impossible.
The impossibility of the first two has nothing to do with the limits of our knowledge. It is not as though science might one day show us that nonexistence can bring a phenomenon into existence, because our knowledge and experiments always examine existence—things that exist. Even if we encountered the apparently uncaused appearance of a phenomenon, we still could not say that ‘nothing’ had produced it. ‘Nothing’ means no matter and no nonmaterial thing, no space, no passage of time, and nothing else whatsoever.
We can never observe nonexistence to see whether it can produce a phenomenon. Even if we saw a particle come into existence without the involvement of other particles, we still could not attribute its appearance to nonexistence. What we would actually have been observing to see whether it could produce a particle would be empty space and the passage of time—and neither of those can be called nothing. Perhaps even empty space and the passage of time could somehow give rise to something, but even then we could not say that the thing came into existence from nonexistence.
‘Nothing’ simply cannot be monitored or examined. And trying to understand it as though it were something that could be examined is itself the result of misunderstanding what ‘nothing’ or ‘nonexistence’ means.
I would say that the very concept of nonexistence has made our discussion independent of experiment and observation, just as mathematical truths do not necessarily need to be established through experiment and observation. We do not need to test 2 + 2 = 4 experimentally before we can say with certainty that 2 + 2 = 4.
“Still, let me think about these three possibilities a little more, and we can continue our discussion next week.”
Believer: “But once again, we had only just begun!”
Skeptic: “True. But examining these three possibilities carefully is more important than rushing past them. I know that the third possibility is going to form the main foundation of the causal argument. I don’t want us to take the next step before making sure this one is solid—although I will always reserve the right, for the rest of my life, to return to any previous step as many times as I want and examine it all over again.”
Believer: “However you like.”