Causality of the Atom Bomb Invalidates Epiphenomenalism

by Not Hegel

Epiphenomenalism

This point of view is commonly called epiphenomenalism. I’m aware that Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder does not want to attach an -ism to her understanding that physics is the sole cause (or primary cause) of our actions. I will explain how this is not necessarily true. So, allow me to provide you with the definition of Epiphenomenalism:

With this definition, you can see that Dr. Hossenfelder is referring to a physical event, namely physics, as the sole cause of mental events.

For the longest time, I would hear this very effective argument and have no response. It’s not that I just wanted to disagree with the idea, it’s because intuitively, the idea just didn’t sit right with me – it didn’t feel logically sound. As I was developing the Planes of Discourse, I started to put the pieces in place that would have a proper response to this argument. I have come to understand that the universe is far too complex to structure, or in this case, restructure. I cannot possibly definitively destroy Dr. Hossenfelder’s argument in a few hundred words. However, as I build this model which I call The Planes of Discourse, the collection of arguments will become clear.

I will use the mind experiment “Causality of the Atomic Bomb” which I designed a few years ago. Keep in mind that this is an early post and I have not accumulated a philosophical foundation for this argument, but it will make intuitive sense.

Causality of the Atomic Bomb

In thinking about causes, let’s think about the elements required for an atomic bomb. You will need the following:

1. A physical universe is required for the bomb and its environment.
2. Biological life is capable of voluntary movement for its construction (as opposed to happenstance in which effects occur chaotically).
3. Subjectivity is required to devise the idea of such a weapon.
4. Intersubjectivity is required to enable the subject to tap into collective learning to be able to devise something so complex.

This is clearly not an exhaustive list of requirements, but without any of the elements, the atom bomb would not be possible (sine qua non – without which not). To be clear, the four above are required for the effect of an atom bomb to exist. It is true that part of Dr. Hossenfelder’s argument is a determinist argument about sole causes. But, I will extend this argument, more sensibly, for primary causes. I will discuss more regarding primary causation and layered causality in future articles.

Counterargument 1:You might think that robots can replace the Biological (2). However, I would argue that the Biological is required in the first place to design the robot since robots do not create themselves (or procreate). Biology is one of the proto-causes of robots.

Counterargument 2: You might argue that Subjectivity (3) is not required. Subjectivity was created by nature to analyze and evaluate the world in order for biology to survive. Without analysis and evaluation, the eyes would not be able to process the complex information it receives for the teleologies of the survival process (this will be explained later in an upcoming post). Therefore analysis and evaluation are necessary to develop an atomic bomb. It isn’t able to construct itself.

You may ask the following questions: Are each of these planes really causes? How can you have multiple causes? Logicians have two words they use that are useful here: necessary and sufficient. A necessary condition is one that must be present in order for another condition to occur, while a sufficient condition is one that produces the said condition. To be clear, the physical is necessary for the biological effect to occur, the biological is necessary for the subjective to occur, and the intersubjective knowledge is necessary for this effect to occur. Therefore, all four discourses are necessary and sufficient for the atomic bomb to occur. If any were missing, it wouldn’t happen.

When we analyze things, we tend to see them from one methodology, one perspective. People in their respective fields stick to their methodologies (like the physicist in the video uses physics). This is actually a good thing when someone doesn’t have a proper framework, switching methodologies (and the perspectives entailed) creates logical inconsistencies. You can lead to a paradox if you’re not careful. Therefore, most experts stick to their discourse.

Moreover, there is the possibility that the Physical is the cause of everything else, and therefore, other discourses are not required. This would be an oversimplification. This would be like saying ‘The galaxy was formed therefore cars exist.’ Things such as creating the atomic bomb require other planes, without which it would not be possible.

There are those that think this leads to epistemological pluralism. In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there are not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world. It is my understanding, pluralism is a way of giving up logical consistency and accepting the fate of paradox. I promise you, the Planes of Discourse is not pluralism, nor will it lead to it. In my opinion, pluralism happens when philosophers have monist ideas that don’t mesh with other sensible ideologies.

In each of the four elements, there are real causes and real effects. In this example, all four are necessary, or the effect would not be possible. A scientist must devise the idea for it to manifest. Without these thoughts, the device wouldn’t exist.

If we break down all complexity to explain it in physics terms (as in epiphenomenalism), we would say that nuclear fission happened because of the combination, forces, and placement of the molecules. In this materialist perspective, the other causes in the example do not make sense. This reminds me of the computer code which at its base are 0s and 1s. At the lowest levels, all these bits do not make sense. It is the structures formed by these bits that make sense. Higher languages like C++, Java, and even BASIC use knowledge to understand and process something useful and meaningful. Think of the biological using genetics to record and process the information of the world in order to apply that knowledge to survival heuristics. The physical universe (eg. quanta and chemistry) doesn’t process with knowledge whereas the Biological, the Subjective, and the Inter-subjective are all data and knowledge-driven discourses that do things for a purpose. Without the volition of purpose (free will from physical reality), all would be chaotic and senseless. There may be order in this type of universe (like the physical/epiphenomenalism universe), however, life wouldn’t be possible since knowledge-based heuristics like survival or reproduction would have no cause or effect. Knowledge-based discourses require saved data and while it is correct that this saved data is composed of molecules, these molecules have a knowledge-based effect on the world. Without these molecules used as data, the heuristic effect would not be possible.

I hope that by this point I have made some sense and begun tearing down the Epiphenominalist wall. In future articles, I will cover other topics such as layered causality – a detail on each discourse and how they work together, free will, consciousness, problems with determinism, and many more. If you are still not convinced, I also wrote a more mathematical analysis regarding causal determinism. This is a long journey, a lifelong race. I am confident however that I can lead you to a more solid foundation from which to understand the universe.