What is an anti-causal system


Cause and effect) is the influence by which an event, process, state or object (cause) must become the cause of another event, relationship, influence or effect in which the cause is caused for Effect changed, and the effect is influenced by the cause. In general, a process has many causes, which are also seen as causal decisions for it, and all of them are in the past. An effect can possibly be a cause or a causal factor for many other possible ones, all of which lie in their future. Some authors have thought that causality is metaphysical before ideas of time and space.

is. Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world is evolving, such a fundamental concept that it is more an explanation of other states of progress than something that becomes more fundamental of others. The concept calls for that of the agency and response. Because of this, a leap of intuition can be heard in order to die. Dements has been causality in the logic and structure of traditional languages ​​language.

In English studies of Aristotelian philosophy, the word "cause" is used as a technical term, the translation of Aristotle's term αἰτία, which Aristotle meant "explanation" or "answer to a" why "question. Aristotle categorized the four types of responses as material, formal, sold tea, and controlled "causes". In this case, the "cause" is the explanation for the explainandum, and failure to recognize that there are different kinds of "cause" can lead to a vain debate. Of the four modes of explanation by Aristotle, the main difference is that this article comes closest to "owning".

David Hume stated in the context of his opposition to rationalism that pure reason alone cannot influence the reality of an eff causality; The court of appeal for a new and flawless and flawless festival that all personal knowledge from experience.

belongs. The issue of causality remains a staple in philosophy philosophy.



The art of cause and effect is one element of the subject known as metaphysics. Kant's confusion, time and space are terms for the human approach to progress or the development of the world, and he also leads the relationships of causality. He had no not the feeling that with the knowledge of Minkowski geometry and the special theory of relativity, which the concept of causality as the basis for


A general metaphysical question about cause and effect is what art of entity a cause can be and what art of entity a can be.

One face to this question is that cause and effect are one and different art of entity, differences causality is an asymmetrical relationship between them. That is, grammatically speaking, it is heard to say "A is the cause and B is the effect" or "B is the cause and A is the effect", although only one of these two can be true. From this point of view, an opinion that has been established as a metaphysical principle in process philosophy is that every cause and every effect is a process, an event, a becoming or an event. An example is "his stumbling over the level war the cause and his broken ankle the effect". Another view is that causes and effects are "issues" that are less restrictive of the natures of these entities than in process philosophy.

Another reason for the classic question is that a cause and its effect can be of different types of entities. For example, in Aristotle's true causal explanation, an action can be a cause, its an adverse object is its effect. For example, the generative actions can be parents as the cause, Socrates is the effect and Socrates as a personal object, in the philosophical tradition as "substance", as distinct from an action.


Since causality is a subtle metaphysical term, are empowered to understand intellectually, as the exhibition of heard, understand, understand. According to David Hume, the human mind cannot perceive causal relationships directly. For this reason, the scholar made a distinction between the concept of causality and the counterfactual concept. Different from the counterfactual view, X caused Y if and only if Y does not violate X without. Hume interpreted this as an ontological confirmation, that is, as a description of the nature of causality - temporally connected, and X comes before Y) as an epistemic definition of causality. An epistemic concept of causality is related to belonging between causal and non-causal relationships. The political philosophical literature on causality can be broken down into five major views on causality. This includes the rule of having probabilistic, counterfactual, and mechanistic views. It can be heard that the five approaches are reduced; H. Causality in relation to other types of relationships. According to this reading, it consists of causality in relation to the empirical regulations, those of the causal relationships and the invariance under intervention.

Geometric meaning

Causality has the properties of antecedent and contiguity. These are topological and components of space-time geometry. As developed by Alfred Robb, these properties are differentiated by the derivation of the terms time and space. Max Jammer writes: "The Einstein postulate ... which paves the way to a separate construction of the causal topology ... of the Minkowski spaces." The causal improved does not spread faster than the light.

The concept of causality also precedes the concepts of time and space metaphysically. In practice, this is due to the fact that the assumption of the causal relationship is heard empirically for the interpretation. The interpretation of experiences is necessary in order to establish the physical and geometrical conceptions of time and space.


One of the deterministic worldviews is that the history of the universe is exhaustive as a progression of include as cause and effect. The incompatible version of this is that there is no such thing as "free will". Compatibilism is one of the belief that determinism exists or even exists with free will.

Responsible and root causes

A third art of causation, which concerns one and for itself not yet frugality, is called an effect condition, as "causal cause".

Responsible causes
If x is a possible cause for, what y's heard of is that control of x. That derives from x does not mean that y will will.
Sufficient causes
If x is a major cause of y, that is what is of x. Another cause z may leave another alternative y. That derives from y is also not that heard from x.
Contributing causes
For a possible effect, a factor that causes an involvement is one of co-occurring causes in an individual case. It is implicit that all of them are contributing. For the same effect, there is generally no implication that a contributing cause is caused, although it may. In general, a factor that is a cause of influencing is not settled, as it becomes by definition other causes that are not received as principles when it relates. For the impact Effective impact A factor that is usually one, in the other, in another, in the, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, and

J. L. Mackie has chosen to be caused by "cause" INUS -Conditions (i not sure but n redundant parts of a condition this is itself u not lost, but s enough for what the impact of the effect is enough. An example is a short circuit as the cause of a house burning down: the short circuit, the rights of combustible material and the absence of firefighters a flamethrower in the presence of damage and so on). This this collection, the short circuit is a short one because the fire was not caused without it re, everything else is the same) part of a difference that is itself unnecessary, but lost for that is of the effect. The short circuit is also an INUS condition for proper burning of the house.

In contrast to certain

Conditional persons are not indications of causality. A common difference is that causality belongs to the fact that the predecessor preceded the permanent one in time or is combined with it. Understand how they relate, how many, how they relate, and if they relate, to ..., then ... ", to get an explanation of causality. The two types of stating yourself To take care of.

For example, all of the following rights are true when "If ..., then ..." becomes a material perception:

  1. If Barack Obama will be President of the States in 2011, Germany will be in Europe.
  2. If George Washington is President of the United States in 2011, it will be "arbitrary declaration".

The first is true because both the history and the concern are true. The second is true in sentential logic and in personal language which is the one that preceded it.

The physical indicative condition is somewhat more structured than the material condition. For example, although the first one heard is displayed, neither personal rights nor indicative reading is true. But the sentence:

  • If Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon didn't write Macbeth, someone else did.

intuitively shows to be true, although in this hypothetical situation it is that there is no other causal link between Shakespeare's failure to write Macbeth and someone else says it belongs to.

Another art of condition, the counterfactual condition, has a more contact relationship with causality, but even counterfactual relationships are not all in favor of causality. Do the following two people:

  1. If there was a triangle, it would have three sides.
  2. If the switch loses its right, light bulb B will light up.

In the first case dies dies light up It is incorrect to say that A as a triangle has three sides, since the relationship between triangularity and three-sidedness is that of definition. The identity of having three sides determines the state of A as a triangle. This is the first statement true, even if it becomes counterfactual. An early version of Aristotle's "four-causes" theory is called "cause cause". In this version of the theory it is said that the closed polygon has three sides and the "cause cause" is that it is a triangle. This cause of the word "cause" is of course also far out of date. This is within the scope of personal language to say that it is for a triangle that it has three sides.

An interest in understanding the concept of relationships is important in understanding the literature on causality. In everyday language, people who lose sleep are often made and have to be dealt with.

Question stand cause

Errors of questionable cause, also known as causal errors, non-cause per cause (Latin for "non-cause for cause"), or false cause, are informal errors in which a cause became false.


Counterfactual theories

Counterfactual theories use causality as a counterfactual relationship. These theories can often be seen as "floating" their representation of causality over a representation of the logic of counterfactual conditions. This approach can be traced back to David Hume's definition of causal link as "where, if the first object has not been, the second never heard". An analysis Analysis of the causality in relation to counterfactual interest representation only in the 20th century after the development of the interests world semantics to check counterfactual conditions. In his 1973 work "Causation" David Lewis used the common definition of the concept of causal rights:

An event E is causally true from C if and only if (i) if C is possible, then its E. distinguish, and (ii) if C was not heard, it was not paid.

The cause then appears as a chain of causal advocacy. That is, C causes E if and only if a sequence belongs to C, D 1 , D 2 , ... D k , E like z that every event in the sequence of the conscientious. This chain can be heard as protection.

you heard that the analysis does not provide for checking how we make causal judgments or how we distinguish between causality, although to give a metaphysical representation of what it was that a causal was connected between a pair of events. If this is correct, the analysis of those responsible may be causal. Knowing that causality is a matter of counterfactual view, we can consider the nature of the counterfactual to belong to the nature of causality. For example, Lewis belongs in his work "Counterfactual Relationships and Time Arrow" to include the temporal effects of counterfactual consideration in relation to the semantics of the counterfactual condition. If this is correct, then this theory can belong to belonging to part of our experience, to it consists that we can only causally the future, but not the past.

Probabilistic causality

The interpretation of causality as a deterministic relationship refers to the fact that when A is caused by B, A must always be given by B. In this sense, war does not cause, and smoking does not cause cancer or emphysema. Differing, many turn to the concept of probabilistic causation. Informally, A ("The person is a smoker") likely causes B ("The person is now or will have cancer in the future") if the information that a loss is included includes the likelihood of B's ​​occurrence. Formally, P {B | A} ≥ P {B}, belongs to P {B | A} is the dormant probability that B with the information that A is, and P {B} is the probability that B without knowing whether, whether or whether. This intuitive condition is also not a definition for probabilistic causation taken into account because it is too general and therefore not given our intuitive idea of ​​cause and effect. If a person is an event The person is smoker heard, B heard the event "The person has now or will have cancer in the future" and has the event "The person has now or will have emphysema in the future" then apply the following three relationships: P {B | A} ≥ P {B}, P {C | A} ≥ P {C} and P {B | C} ≥ P {B}. The last relationship was that knowing that the person has emphysema, the likelihood that they will have cancer. The reason is that to know that the person has emphysema, there is a likelihood that the person will be a smoker, and thus, indirectly, the likelihood that the person will have cancer. However, we did not conclude that emphysema caused cancer. We also need, such as the temporal relationship from A to B and a justification, explanation of the protection of effects. It is the same to affirm this last, and to belong, to belong.

Causal calculation

When it comes to not being feasible or illegal, the derivation of the cause-and-effect relationship from observational studies must rest under the qualitative theoretical terms, for example that no probable ones die either in the form of missing arrows in causal diagrams such as Bayesian effects or path diagrams

The theory of "causal calculus" (also known as Do calculus, Judea-pearl causal calculus, calculus of services) makes it possible to give interventional to work in causal Bayesian attitude with incapable variables. A very practical result of this theory is the probable of changing variables, a weighty set of variables which, when obtained, can be corrected for the causal It may be possible to use a certain amount to control the causal effect of on any set of not is - heard by , the -separate of after removing all arrows from . This as a "back door" is called Criterion North a mathematical definition of "confusion" and aids in controlling accessible sets of variables that are measurable.

Structure learning

Relating related derivations in the causal calculation from the structure of the causal diagram, parts of the causal structure can be obtained from statistical data under the assumptions. The basic idea goes back to Sewall Wright's 1921 work on path analysis. An "opposition" algorithm was developed by Rebane and Pearl (1987) based on Wright's alternation between the three year types of causal sub-relatives obtained in a directed acyclic graph (DAG):

Type 1 and Type 2 represent the same statistical powers (i.e. and are under security law ) and are not to be included in purely cross-sectional data. Type 3 can change, become, since and This is also the skeleton of these three triplets that belongs to the direction of the arrows. The same one is gold plated, though and have different have, with the same that this knowledge must be conditional to knowledge. It is changed to change the framework of the Trusted Graph System and then to lose all arrows, change, change.

Alternative methods of structure learning look through the many causal structures among the variables and remove you have that are highly incompatible with the disabilities correlations. In general, a number of possible causal composition rights remain rights which will then become controlled experiments through analysis of time series data or advance access through design. In contrast to Bayesian Networks, path analysis (and its generalization, structural equation modeling) serves better to obtain a known causal effect or to test a causal model than to causal hypotheses.

In the case of non-lost data, the causal direction can be deduced if information about the time is available. This is because (according to many, if not all, theories). This can be determined by the time series models or by a statistical test based on the idea of ​​Granger causality or by the direct manipulation. The correct temporal data can be possible tests of an already existing theory of causal directional guidance. For example, our confidence in the direction and art of causality is much greater when this is done by cross-correlations, ARIMA models, or cross-spectral analysis under that of vector time series data than by cross-sectional data.

Derivative theories

Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon and philosophy Nicholas Rescher die together. A causal relationship is a certain relationship between values ​​of variables, a function one on another. Given a system of equations and a set of variables in these equations, we can introduce an asymmetrical relationship between equality and variables that perfectly belongs to our own common sense of a causal order. The system of equations must have certain properties. Above all, when some values ​​are determined, the same values ​​are determined via a serial discovery path that is causally affected. They postulate that the inherent serialization of the same system of equations determines causality in all empirical findings, in physics and in economics.

Manipulation theories

Some theorists have equated causality with manipulability. According to these theories, only if one can change x, then x causes y to change. This is given with your own ideas about perception, the fact that questions are asked in order to get a feeling of the world. For example, we think we think we know the causes of crime so we can find ways to belong to it.

These theories were addressed for two main concerns. Proven theorists themselves that these reports are circular. Part of trying to hear causal manipulation claims is that manipulation is more fundamental than causal interaction. The description of manipulations in non-causal terms has yet to be heard.

The second criticism has focused on that of anthropocentrism. Many people show that causality is an existing relationship in the world that we can use for our desires. When causality becomes with our manipulation, that intuition is lost. In this sense, humans play a central role in perception in the world.

Some attempts to punish manipulation theories are recent reports that do not expect the causality associated with the manipulation to be heard. These reports say manipulation as a sign or function in causality, without hearing that manipulation is more fundamental than causality.

Process theories

Some theorists have been implicated in falling between causal interests and non-causal interests (Russell 1948; Salmon 1984). These theorists often want between a process and a management. Becomes a ball that is owned by the movement of air (a process), the movement of a shadow (a pseudo process). The former is causal in nature, the latter not.

Lachs (1984) suggested that causal processes through their rights can become rights to belong to a right over space and time. A decision of the ball is decided with itself when the ball goes through the air. If the shadow belongs to another of the shadow (being heard is possible) the shadow does not hear its movement.

These theoretical consequences that the important concept for understanding causality are not causal relationships or causal instructions, but the same causal processes. The former concepts can then be used as causal processes.

A subgroup of process theories is the mechanistic view of causality. It is said that these causal relationships are locked up. The definition of the group of philosophers that is called "New Mechanists" is literature.



For the scientific study of an effective causality, cause and effect are best considered temporally related.

In the conceptual framework of the scientific method, insightful researchers who have the structure of experiments, have and work material on answers that are supposed to die different the causality in their own world. For example, the same people may know if a high intake of carrots is one of the things that people who developed bubonic plague developed. The amount of carrot intake is a process. The result or non-occurrence of one after the bubonic plague will subside. In order to change the causality, the experiment must be changed, of which only an example is given here. Instances of the hypothetical cause must be understood, that they belong to a particular one, to which the hypothetical effect without the hypothetical cause is relative. A certain improbability is right through empirical rights. The actual perception of a correlation is not sufficient to establish causality. Quickly looking alone to the perception of causality on the repetition of experiences and probabilistic thinking. Hardly any causality is fester than knowing more or less. For the perception of causality, it is most convenient if those against the political material facts are taken strictly, with the exception of only one variable factor, the function is given by a real number.


You have to be in the administration of the word cause in physics. These are the hypothetical causes and the hypothetical effects on the time-varying processes. For example, force is a policy statement that explains policy, but force is not a cause. More is being done. For example first being a temporally alternating process by belonging to another force through another force. Certain process can be caused as a cause. Causality is not inherently prevented in equations of motion, but is also postulated as related, which must become (i.e. a cause always precedes its effect). This right has mathematical implications such as the Kramers-Kronig relationships.

. Causality is one of the terms of responsibility and relationship in physics. The causal inability cannot spread faster than light. Regarding compliance with the Lorentz transformation of the special theory of relativity), in which an observer has an effect for the cause of the view. .

Causal terms occur in the context of mass energy flow. Every heard process has a causal challenge that cannot quickly spread as light. In addition, an abstraction has no causal effects. Its mathematical expression does not propagate in the ordinary sense of the word, although it can refer to virtual or nominal "speeds" with magnitudes greater than that of light. For example, wave packets are mathematical objects with a group velocity and a phase velocity. The energy of a wave packet moves with the group speed. Since energy has a causal solution, the group speed cannot be accelerated than the speed of light. The phase of a wave packet moves with the phase velocity; Since the phase is not causal, the phase velocity of a wave packet can be faster than light.

Causal terms are contained in the general theory of relativity, as the existence of an arrow of time is the semi-Riemannian of the universe, which is positively oriented, so that "future" and "past" are globally definable properties.


A causal system is a system with issuing and internal responsibilities. A system that one can expect is called a acausales System noted, and a system that is what is received from one is an anti-causal system. Acausal filters can only be present as post-processing filters, since these filter values ​​can extract values ​​from a memory buffer or a file.

Biology, medicine and epidemiology

find a mediator is a factor in the causal chain (1), a disruptive factor is a false factor that is wrongly set to a causality (2).

Austin Bradford Hill was based on the work of Hume and Popper and was featured in his work "The Environment and Disease: Association or Cause?" that aspects of an association such as strength, authority, authority and temporality become, if controlled, to be heard causal from non-causal associations in the epidemiological situation. (See Bradford Hill Circumstances.) He did not care that temporality is the deposit criterion under these attitudes. In epidemiology, official acyclic graphs (DAGs) are used to clarify causal thinking.


Psychologists have an empirical approach to causality and to understanding how humans and nonhuman animals use to recognize or understand sensory information, prior experience, and innate knowledge.


Attribution theory is the theory of how people states individual causal events. Attribution can be external (assignment of causality and an external force) or internal (assignment of causality and authorization to the person) responsibility or accountability for one's own actions). If we take causality one step further, the art of attributing a person is willing to change their behavior.

The intention behind the cause or the effect can become action through the subject. See also accident; Fault ; Intention; and responsibility.

Causal forces

if David Hume is related to the fact that causes emerge from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant recognizes that humans have become innate. Persons of psychology concern Patricia Cheng, who brings in Humean and Kantian views in include. According to their Power PC theory, humans filter observations from one through an intuition that belongs to it, that belongs to another cause, or to a cause-cause-effect relationship.

Cause and meaning

Our view of the cause, which depends on it, was relevant as well. Another way to use the statement "lightning causes thunder" to belong, to belong, to belong to, to belong to, to belong to, change, change, change, change, change, change, change, change, change, to change.

Naming and causality

David Sobel and Alison Gopnik, of the Psychology Department at UC Berkeley, asked a device known as a Blicket detector that turns on when an object is heard. Her research suggests that "even young children can easily and quickly learn about a new causal force of an object and receive this information spontaneously about knowing and naming the object."

Perception of start events

Some researchers, such as Anjan Chatterjee at the University of Pennsylvania and Jonathan Fugelsang at the University of Waterloo, have neuroscientific knowledge to get the neural and psychological basis of causal starting events where one object causes another object to move. Different temporal as well as spatial possibilities can be manipulated.

For more information, see Causal Thinking (Psychology).

Statistics and economics

Statistics and economics know pre-existing data or information to determine causality through regression methods behavior sides. The statistical control claims in the case of trust the rights of the regression analysis. Type acts is a linear relationship like

is postulated, is located which is the variable variable), for j = 1, ..., k is the i-th observation of the j-th different variables (assuming a causal variable) and is the error term for the i-th perception variables must be changed variables). If there is any reason to the fact that other the s is caused by y, the co-effects will get. If the null hypothesis that , is withdrawn, the alternative hypothesis is that and equivalent to that causes y cannot be withdrawn. On the other hand, if the null hypothesis that cannot be withdrawn, then the hypothesis is that on y cannot be treated. Here the concept of causality is one of the contributing causality, as above rights: if the true value is then a A change from becomes a relation of y, unless another variable (s) to be changed, which is also heard in the regression or is in the error term, change in such a way that its effect is accurately perceived; Therefore, changing from not off to change y. This is a change from not required to change as a change in y may be caused by something that is in the error term (or by some other causal explanatory variable in the model).

The above method of testing causality refers to the fact that there is no reverse causality where y would cause. This belief can be established in a number of ways. First, the variable be a non-economic variable: For example, if the amount of rainfall

Regression analysis controls other relevant variables by including them as regressors (explanatory variables). This helps avoid false conclusions about causality due to the presence of a third underlying variable that affects both the potentially causative variable and the potentially caused variable: its impact on the potentially caused variable is captured by including it directly in the regression This effect is not recorded as an indirect effect through the potentially causative variable of interest. Given the above procedures, a random (as opposed to a causal) correlation is likely to be discarded if the data samples are large and if the regression results pass cross-validation tests that show that the correlations also hold true for data that was not used in the regression. To assert with certainty that a common cause is missing and that regression is the true causal structure is in principle impossible.

Aside from building statistical models from observational and experimental data, economists use axiomatic (mathematical) models to infer and represent causal mechanisms. Highly abstract theoretical models that isolate and idealize a mechanism dominate microeconomics. In macroeconomics, economists use broad mathematical models that are calibrated on historical data. A subset of calibrated models, Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Models (DSGE), are used to represent (in a simplified way) the entire economy and to simulate changes in fiscal and monetary policy.


In management and engineering, an Ishikawa diagram uses the factors that cause the effect. Smaller arrows connect the sub-causes with the main causes.

For quality control in manufacturing in the 1960s, Kaoru Ishikawa developed a cause and effect diagram known as the Ishikawa diagram or the herringbone diagram. The diagram categorizes causes, e.g. B. into the six main categories shown here. These categories are then broken down. Ishikawa's method identifies "causes" in brainstorming sessions conducted between different groups involved in the manufacturing process. These groups can then be marked as categories in the diagrams. The use of these diagrams has now spread beyond quality control and is used in other areas of management as well as in design and engineering. Ishikawa diagrams have been criticized for failing to differentiate between necessary and sufficient conditions. It seems that Ishikawa was not even aware of this distinction.



In the discussion of history, events are sometimes viewed as agents who, in some way, can then bring about other historical events. The combination of poor harvests, the hardships of the peasants, high taxes, poor representation of the people and royal ineptitude are therefore among the causes of the French Revolution. This is a somewhat Platonic and Hegelian view that affirms causes to be ontological entities. In Aristotelian terminology, this usage approximates the case of the efficient cause.

Some historians such as Arthur Danto have argued that "explanations in history and elsewhere" "do not simply describe an event - something that happens - but a change". Like many practicing historians, they treat causes as intersecting acts and acts that, in Danto's words, produce "major changes": deciding "which elements to persist through change" is "fairly easy" when dealing with those of an individual. "Attitude change", but "it is much more complex and metaphysically challenging when we are interested in a change, such as the dissolution of feudalism or the emergence of nationalism".

Much of the historical The causal debate has centered on the relationship between communicative and other actions, between singular and repeated actions, and between actions, structures of action or group and institutional contexts and broader conditions. John Gaddis made a distinction between extraordinary and general causes (according to Marc Bloch) and between "routine" and "distinguishing features" in causal contexts: "When considering the events in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, we attach greater importance to the fact that President Truman ordered the dropping of an atomic bomb as a result of the Army Air Force's decision to carry out his orders. "He has also pointed out the difference between immediate, intermediate, and distant causes. Christopher Lloyd, for his part, puts forward four "general concepts of causality" used in history: the "metaphysical idealistic concept which claims that the phenomena of the universe are the products or emanations of an almighty being or such an ultimate cause"; "the empirical (or humane) concept of regularity based on the idea that causality is a question of constant conjunctions of events"; "the functional / teleological / consistent concept" which is "goal-oriented so that goals are causes"; and the "realistic, structural, and dispositional approach that regards relational structures and internal dispositions as causes of phenomena".


According to law and jurisprudence, Legal ground must be proven to hold a defendant responsible for a crime or tort (i.e. a civil wrong such as negligence or abuse). It must be demonstrated that the causality or "sufficient causal link" links the actions of the accused to the criminal event or harm in question. The cause of the damage is also an essential legal element that is demonstrable for remedial action under international commercial law.


suitable is. Notice the concept of omnicausality in Abrahamic theology of the belief that God set all events in motion at the beginning of time; He is the determiner and the cause of all things. It is, therefore, an attempt to resolve the apparent incompatibility between determinism and the existence of an almighty God.


Hindu philosophy

Correct Vedic Period (c1750–500 BC) literature has the Eastern origin of karma. Karma is the belief of Sanathana Dharma and major religions that a person's actions have certain effects in the present life and / or in the future life, positive or negative. The different schools of philosophy (darsanas) offer different reports on the subject. The doctrine of satkaryavada affirms that the effect is in some way inherent in the cause. The effect is therefore either a real or an obvious change in the cause. The doctrine of asatkaryavada confirms that the effect does not lie in the cause, but arises again. See Nyaya for some details of causal theory in the Nyaya school. In Brahma Samhita, Brahma describes Krishna as the main cause of all causes.

Bhagavad-gītā 18:14 identifies five causes of every action (in the knowledge which can be perfected): the body, the individual soul, the senses, the exertions, and the oversoul.

According to Monier-Williams in the Nyāya causal theory from Sutra I.2.I, 2 in the Vaisheshika philosophy, causal non-existence is effective non-existence; but not effective non-existence of causal non-existence. A cause precedes an effect. There are three causes for threads and fabric metaphors:

  1. Cause for the co-inherence: Due to significant contact, "major causes", the threads for the fabric are significant, which corresponds to the material cause of Aristotle.
  2. Not essential cause: methods of laying threads in fabric, according to Aristotle's formal cause.
  3. Instrumental cause: tools for making the substance, according to Aristotle's efficient cause.

Monier-Williams also suggested that the causality of Aristotle and Nyaya is seen as conditional aggregates necessary for the productive labor of man.

Buddhist philosophy

Karma is the principle of causality that focuses on 1) causes, 2) actions, 3) effects, where it is the phenomena of the mind that guide the actions taken by the actor. Buddhism trains the actor's actions for continued and uncontrolled virtuous results aimed at diminishing suffering. This follows the structure subject-verb-object.

The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent arising" or "dependent arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is as follows: everything arises depending on multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. A traditional example in Buddhist texts is three sticks that stand upright, lean against one another and support one another. If one stick is taken away, the other two will fall to the ground.

Causality in the Chittamatrin Buddhist School Approach, Asanga (c. 400 AD)) Mind-only Buddhist school, claims that objects cause consciousness in the image of the mind. Since causes precede effects, which must be different entities, subject and object are different. For this school there are no objects that are entities outside of a perceiving consciousness. The schools of Chittamatrin and Yogachara Svatantrika accept that there are no objects outside the observer's causality. This largely follows the Nikayas approach.

The Abhidharmakośakārikā approach is Vasubandhu Abhidharma commentary text in the Sarvāstivāda school (c. 500 AD). It has four complicated causal conditioning constructions with: 1) root cause, 2) immediate history, 3) object support, and 4) domination. Then the six causes are: 1) instrumentality (kāraṇahetu), which is seen as the main factor in the production of results; 2) simultaneity or coexistence, which links phenomena occurring at the same time; 3) homogeneity, explanation of the homogeneous flow that gives rise to the continuity of phenomena; 4) association that is only subject to between mental and why consciousness as assemblages belongs to mental factors; 5) Dominance, distinguishing the habitual states and behavioral dispositions of a person; and 6) injuries that affect the feeling that the active healthy or unhealthy outcome is. The four principles and the six principles relating to fact-omenal experience.

The Vaibhashika (c. 500 AD) is an early Buddhist school. This represents the examples of consciousness, the feeling, the feeling and the feelings that behaved from the bars in the tripod. In contrast, cause-and-effect rejecters mean that the effect, if it is already there, cannot be repeated in the same way. How past, present and future become is a basis for the causal viewpoints that Buddhist schools are.

All classical Buddhist schools teach karma. "The law of karma is a special instance of cause and effect, according to which all our actions of body, speech and mind are causes and all our experiences are their effects."


The Baha'i concept of causality was a particular force for this young religion. Belief in personal perception and ideological ancestry enabled the Bahá'ís to recognize Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Unfortunately this is part of the systematic control of the Bahá'ís by many caliphates.

Western philosophy


Aristotle found four kinds of answers or explanatory methods for different "why?" Ask. He directs that all four types of modes of explanation are important for each subject, each one in itself. This traditional specialized philosophical peculiarities of the language with translations between ancient Greek, Latin and English, the word "cause" is used in certain philosophical writings to denote the four kinds of Aristotle. In the other languages ​​there are different meanings of the word cause, which means the rights to the same cause cause, the subject of this article.

  • Material cause, the material cause from which a thing is or which persists as it should be, such as the mother or the bronze of a statue (see also substance theory).
  • Formal Cause Which the shape and static form of a thing determines the properties and functions of the thing when it is a person from a statue of a person or when it is a statue from a lump of bronze.
  • Efficient Cause This is the main topic of this article.
  • Final effect, the criterion of completion or the end; it can react to an action or to an inanimate process. Processes: Socrates goes for health reasons after understanding sp the earth on the same plane because this is their nature.

From Aristotle's four types or modes of explanation: only one, the "cause cause" is a cause as defined in the first paragraph of this article. The other three explanatory mods are about the material composition, structure and dynamics and belong to a completion criterion. The word that Aristotle solutions, war αἰτία. For the content purpose of this Greek word better than "explanation" than "cause". Another translation by Aristotle is that he meant "the four causes" as four ways of answering "why" questions.

Aristotle that come from an effective causality that relate to a certain knowledge of experience that does not relate to the or the Reducible, something more fundamental or fundamental.

In some works of Aristotle, the four causes are considered to be (1) the main cause, (2) the logical reason, (3) the moving cause, and (4) the main cause causes. In this listing, an explanation of the root cause is evidence that a responsible object belongs to a definition of the word that is determined. A reasoning statement is an argument as to why an object statement is true. These are further implications for the idea that a "cause" in the general context of Aristotle's usage is an "explanation".

The word "will" heard here can also be used by Aristotle as "moving" or "moving" to be "initiate".

Efficient causation was associated with Aristotelian physics, the four elements (earth, air, fire, water) die safely and die

Since only air remained on earth and did not escape earth, it became an infinite relationship - an absurdity - Aristotle concluded that the universe is completely large and a visible substance belonging to planet earth and its posture. the sublunary sphere, centered in the universe. And since celestial bodies in unchangeable relationships show a continuous, unbalanced movement around the planet earth, Aristotle concluded that the last element, the remaining space and composed celestial bodies, moves in eternal circles, the new constant movement between two people. (83)

A thing that remains itself shows how one moves but - contrary to Aristotelian metaphysics - it will force itself to move, will die by a reasonable cause. The shape of the plants of the plants the processes of development and reproduction, the shape of the animals that contribute to locomotion and the shape of mankind to reason. A stone shows, like a frame, to be composed of the element earth - but a living being can lift the stone, move it in motion, move the stone from its own place and its movement. As another art of explanation that Aristotle causes the causes and specifies a purpose or a criterion of completion, include what goes with it.

Aristotle himself caused:

Cause means

(a) in a sense, that something is heard by its own - e.g. B. the bronze of a statue and the silver of a cup, and the classes that contain them [ie the Material cause ];

(b) in another sense the shape or pattern; that is, it's called the formula and the classes it contains - e. The ratio 2: 1 and the number in general are the cause of the octave - and the parts of the formula [i.e. H. the formal cause].

(c) The source of the first onset of rule or rest; For example. The man, the plant, is a cause, and the father is the cause of the child, and in general that was the same, the cause of what will become, and what is changed from what is lost [ ie the Causes cause ].

(d) The same as "end"; i.e. the causes cause; B. since the "end" of walking is health. Because why does a man go? "In order to be healthy," we say, and to compensate we say to die, we think that we must have the cause [the final cause ].

(e) All means towards the end who know something at the instigation, such as B. Fat reduction, rights, processes and tools, are causes of health; for they all have the end as their object, although they consider themselves some instruments, other actions.

Metaphysics, Book 5, Section 1013a, administered by Hugh Tredennick

Aristotle continues. Two kinds of causation were given: the right causation and the causation. All causes, whether correct or as a rule, can also be invoked, in everyone or in everyone. The same language can relate to the concerns of causes so that generic relationships get generic causes, relational states, and understanding of operational causes.

Aristotle turned the infinite step backwards and closed the first mover - an immobile mover. The movement of the first mover must also have been caused, but the motionless mover must also have moved towards a specific goal or one of his own wishes.

middle Ages

In a certain way with the Aristotelian cosmology Thomas Aquinas found a hierarchy in which four causes were prioritized by Aristotle: "acting> actions> material> formal". Aquinas heard first cause change cause - now just first cause - since everyone heard Aquinas said to call it God. The value that the first cause of the war of God, the fact, the fact, the fact that the first reason, the war, the status, the status, the status, the status, the status, the status, the status, the status , status, status

After the Middle Ages

The word cause had an important meaning for the Aristotelian philosophy before Aquinas. It is called "answer to a why-question" or "explanation," and Aristotelian scholars recognized four types of answers. With the end of the Middle Ages, the meaning of the word "cause" narrowed in many philosophical customs. It lost of these great meanings and wars in only one of the four ways. For authors like Niccolò Machiavelli in the area of ​​political thought and Francis Bacon in relation to science in general, Aristotle's cause was moving in the field of conscious interest. A far-reaching modern definition of causality in this newly narrowed sense was adopted by David Hume. He undertook an epistemological and metaphysical investigation of the concept of the moving cause. He denied that we can perceive cause and effect, no compensation for an injury or a custom development in which we have two kinds of property or control that are always related and sequential.In Part III, Section XV of his book, a treatise on human nature, the Hume puts this on a list of eight possible in order to assess whether two things are cause and effect. The first three:

1. "Cause and effect are causal and coherent in time."
2. "The cause must be before the effect."
3. "There has to be an important association between cause and effect."

And then there are also three interrelated criteria that come from our experience and "the source of most of them is our philosophical considerations":

4. "The same cause always produces the same effect, and the same effect never arises, but from the same cause. We derive this principle from experience and are the source of most of our philosophical considerations."
5. Based on what has been said above, Hume says: "If several different objects achieve the same effect, this must be done through a quality that we consider to be common."
6. And "founded for the same reason": "The difference in the effect of two similar objects must proceed from the one in which they differ."

And then two more:

7. "When an object increases or decreases with the increase or decrease of its cause, this is to be regarded as a composite effect resulting from the union of the various effects resulting from the different parts of the cause."
8. An "object that exists at all times in its full perfection with no effect is not the only cause of this effect, but must be supported by another principle that can transmit its influence and functioning."

1949, physicist Max Born distinguished between determination and causality. For him, determination meant that actual events are linked by laws of nature in such a way that reliable predictions and feedback can be made with certainty from sufficient available data about them. It describes two types of causes: nomic or generic causes and singular causes. Nomic causality means that cause and effect are linked by more or less specific or probabilistic general laws that cover many possible or potential cases. This can be seen as a probabilized version of Hume's Criterion 3. One reason for a singular causality is the particular occurrence of a certain complex of events that are physically connected by antecedent and contiguity and can be recognized as criteria 1 and 2.

See also


further reading

  • Spirtes, Peter, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines Cause, Prediction, and Search, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-19440-6
  • University of California journal articles, including articles by Judea Pearl between 1984 and 1998 [3].
  • Miguel Espinoza, Théorie du déterminisme causal, L'Harmattan, Paris, 2006. ISBN 2-296-01198-5.

External links