Causality, Chance, and Order in the Universe
Difference Between Operational Randomness and Chance
Monod’s concept of *incausality* can be confusing when discussing technical unpredictability. For example, genetic mutations are totally unpredictable today, but we cannot say they are without cause.
In the example of randomness, Monod argues that the fall of a hammer is unpredictable. However, one can verify that it has a cause: the carelessness of a person and the law of gravity. This is operational randomness. So, both have a cause, whether known or unknown.
Summary of the Test of Order
A group of youths climbs a difficult mountain, never before summited by any hiker. They do this against the advice of friends and relatives, who consider the attempt reckless and crazy.
Newspapers, radio, and television echo the feat, raising great expectations.
After a few days, the youths reach the summit, excited after a hard climb. At that moment of awe, they find a mailbox anchored with cement on a rock, along with a recording from a mountaineering club and a letter inside. They decide to keep the secret.
Once down, after the congratulations, they are invited to a television interview. After several questions, they are asked with some irony about the mailbox. They respond with a series of absurd explanations:
- Many planes pass over; one of them could have lost a metal door, which, by accident, took the form of a mailbox, along with cement, a recording, and a letter.
The interview ends with the cold anger of the people around them and their own shame.
If we cannot admit that the mailbox could be there by chance, neither can we admit that the wonderful order of this world was established by chance.
J. Simon’s Fields to Express the Order of the Universe
The Sky
There is a perfect mathematical order presiding over the whole planetary cosmos. This allows for the accurate forecasting of eclipses and other much more complex phenomena that occur in space (distances and sizes of planets, etc.).
In Plants
There is a perfect mathematical order, such as maintaining the position of leaves along a branch in a given cycle, so as to cover as little as possible. The sorting of cells allows plants to receive the maximum amount of light, along with many other factors, to promote chlorophyll synthesis in the best possible way.
In the Animal Kingdom
In an egg, embryological development is carried out blindly, conspiring to form a complex and complicated body, under a preconceived plan. The skeleton, legs, wings, eyes, mouth, and ears are made. These are not used at all then, but they are needed later, and by then, they are made. This establishes a complex organization in anticipation of future plans.
Conclusions Drawn from the Test of Order
Although we cannot explain why there is order instead of chaos, scientists admit that order is due to an intelligent being, to an orderly mind. The order that exists in this world can only be explained by God (5th way of St. Thomas Aquinas). A mathematical and objective order (which involves making a design) so perfect could not be due to chance or coincidence. We could only speak of chance when it comes to a conventional order (alphabet, etc.).
Summary of the Test of Contingency
It is clear that everything that comes into existence is contingent. Everything becomes what it is because someone has given it being (from nothing comes nothing). It is also clear that everything ends, because if it were the reason for its own being, it would not cease to be. This includes plants, animals, and humans.
Since this world is formed with finite elements, all of it as a whole is finite. To be finite is to be contingent.
Due to the inability of contingent beings in a row, this can only be explained by the existence of an infinite being (necessary), which we call God (3rd way of St. Thomas Aquinas). The essence of all that exists in this world is because God created it, giving living things their own substance, independent of our knowledge, by virtue of which they survive and differentiate themselves from nothingness.
Denial of the Principle of Causation Leads to Absurdity
The principle of causality is a first principle, and as such, it is obvious and therefore unprovable. To grasp its meaning, just consider its terms. If the principle of sufficient reason (every being has within itself or outside itself the reason for its being) is not true, being and nothingness would be in the same conditions: both the blue and being would have no reason to be, which is absurd.
Explaining Why Chance as Such is Without Reason
Nothingness has no reason to be, but being has. Also, denying the principle of causality, one could argue that the contingent entity is not, whether the reason for its existence is uncaused. But this is tantamount to saying that as a contingent being, it has in itself the ultimate reason for being, and at the same time, as groundless, it would not have it beside itself. Therefore, it would not be in any way, which is the same as saying it is not. With this reflection, we conclude that chance, as the absence of cause, is only the name we give to our ignorance.
Metaphysical or Creative Causality and Physical Causality
Physical or configurational causation states, “Any physical phenomenon that does not have the reason for its specific properties as such a phenomenon has a different cause.” Causality or creative metaphysics can be stated as, “Any entity, which in terms of entity does not explain itself, is due to another reason for its existence.” Both are based on the same principle, but while physical causality provides a proximate cause of a physical phenomenon, metaphysics provides the ultimate cause of a reality in terms of reality.
David Hume’s Argument to Deny the Existence of Causation
Hume’s empiricist interpretation of the principle of causality denies any distinction between sensible and intellectual knowledge. It does not recognize the human mind’s ability to provide absolute realities and awareness of objective laws. He argues that human experience does not give us more than specific objects, things without a succession of causal links and necessary links. If our mind intertwines things causally, this is due to the illusion of our mind, the habit of seeing certain sequences of events repeat (it is a fantasy). Experience does not provide a necessary link of causality, but merely a succession of particular phenomena.
Refutation of David Hume’s Argument on Causation
Hume uses causality to show that causality does not exist, which cancels itself when it states a cause for our causal intertwining of things.
The denial of the principle of causality is opposed to common sense. If there is no cause, if there is no influence between cause and effect, it is totally illogical to have accountability for actions. All moral and social order would collapse. In everyday life, if there is no cause for my illness, I would not seek a cure with the right medicine. So, we do not produce any consistent relationship with the illusory sense of causality, and common sense, in turn, makes us see the difference between the types of relationship (e.g., there is a constant relationship between day and night, but no one claims that one is the cause of the other).
Turning to science, it is made by discovering causal relationships, analyzing each of the physical, chemical, and organic processes. We are not talking about a mere secession of phenomena, but energy and information communication between bodies. What’s more, it tells us that we can foresee the outcome of certain phenomena by discovering the essential properties of things.
The Principle of Causation is Not Contrary to Indetermination
A scientist may say that according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the exact measurement of the spatial position and wavelength of an electron at a time is impossible because it projects a beam of photons that alters the observation of it. However, one cannot claim that things are unsettled. This principle refers to the technique: for the technique, it is impossible, but you cannot say more. Thus, this principle does not contradict the principle of causality.
Monod: Difference Between Operational and Essential Randomness
Operational randomness is a deep ignorance of the factors involved in the succession of certain causes (a tile falls on a man on the street; it does not fall by chance but by a physical law we do not know). In essential randomness, there is a lack of predictability and no cause (imagine that A works on repairing a roof, B goes down the street, and A inadvertently releases the hammer, which falls on B’s head and kills him. It is unpredictable).