The fallacy of causation
I am doubting the existence of causality.
As Kant said, everything is because our consciousness and innate instincts make everyone feel the existence of causality. For example, when one iron ball collides with another iron ball, causing the other iron ball to move forward. From our perspective, the movement of the other iron ball is due to the collision of the previous iron ball, which is the so-called causal relationship. But if this is indeed the case, then the question arises: how did the first iron ball move? If causality holds, then the outcomes of all events continuously trace back to their causes. This would lead to an infinite regression of causes unless there is a “first cause” for everything that happens, which is hard to imagine because what would be the cause of the “first cause”? Asking this question leads to an endless search without answers, just as “God” can perfectly explain everything in the world but cannot explain itself.
Moreover, perhaps our logic is flawed because it only applies to the macroscopic world as we know it now. When explaining phenomena like “God” or the “first cause,” fallacies occur.
From my perspective, perhaps causality does not exist at all. The motion of an iron ball is entirely spontaneous, but at the same time, another event also happens, making it feel like causality exists. This may seem like a strong argument, but it’s not entirely impossible upon closer inspection, just as when one iron ball collides with another, causing the second ball to move. We know an iron ball is composed of iron atoms, with electrons on the outer layer and primarily empty space, with mass only in the atomic nucleus. If the collision of two balls were akin to Zeno’s paradox, they would never actually collide, and the notion of collision would be a fallacy produced by human perception. If so, and if causality continues to be used, it could be explained by the gravitational force between them, potentially requiring adjustments in physical laws.
As such, when we delve deeper into the causality of an event, many strange and unrealistic things start to happen, possibly, as Kant suggested, that causality does not exist or only partially exists, influenced by human consciousness making us perceive its existence. Everything in the world results from spontaneous motion among particles, which, through the coordination of many particles, creates the “illusion of causality” before humans.
When causality ceases to exist, we still need to rely on the old concept of “causality” in the real world, as it better describes the motion between particles, including everything happening in society today and the establishment of scientific theories. Humans must rely on causality to explain phenomena until a new theory, or “spontaneity,” is invented, discovered, and developed. Just as before Einstein’s theory of relativity, we were using Newton’s theories, even though they were not perfect or precise enough in explaining astronomical phenomena like the motion of Mercury.
Why can’t we admit that things happen without a reason? Because causality and logic are deeply ingrained in our minds, we must believe that causality and logic are merely methods to explain the phenomena of everything and not the fundamental nature of phenomena.
