Because!

Another unspoken assumption often used in human thinking is that of cause and effect.

The assumption of causality might be stated as: the universe operates under natural laws such that any event is necessarily followed by some other particular event. The earlier event is the cause, origin, and source of the later event.

For example, I have noticed that whenever I stick my finger in a flame, my finger gets hot. Therefore, there is a natural law that sticking my finger in a flame causes my finger to get hot.

Let's take a look at the hidden assumptions that underlie causality.

First, causality assumes that events can be generalized and abstracted into types. For example, I can never stick the same finger into the same flame twice; there is always some detail that is different. Causality assumes that certain qualities of experience can be abstracted and grouped together as "finger," and other qualities can be abstractly grouped as "flame." No event is exactly repeatable; the idea of repeating an event assumes a generalization, ignoring certain details to focus on others.

Is this assumption valid? Is there a universal ideal "finger" existing in some Platonic paradise, or is "finger" just an approximation, a mental duct-tape-and-grease construction? Either way, causality relies on such a device.

Second, causality assumes that events can be separated from one another. "Finger" can be separated from the rest of the universe, and "flame" can be separated from the rest of the universe. Without drawing these boundaries, it is difficult to say that one thing causes another. The previous section addressed this assumption of separable things, and found it lacking.

Third, causality assumes that time flows in a sequence, that past events are set in stone but future events are determined by what happens now. Modern physics has conclusively demonstrated that this is not the case. "Now" is relative to every observer, and two observers might sequence events in time differently. Can one event "cause" another when their sequence is not absolute? Further, modern physics shows that time and space are fundamentally the same, so it is as meaningful or meaningless to say that one end of a stick causes the other end as it is to say that one event causes a later event. At the smallest, quantum level, physicists find that time disappears altogether, and quantum events can not always be sequenced as "before" or "after."

To put this all together, it seems that our unspoken assumption of causality itself relies on other assumptions that have no basis. Our concept of cause-and-effect may be a useful approximation that helps us cook dinner, but it seems highly unlikely that the universe actually operates according to it.

The assumption of cause-and-effect is such a basic human impulse thatm at first glancem it might seem impossible that it be wrong. Upon reflection, however, other possibilities present themselves to my mind.

These alternatives are not listed as theories, but merely as plausible scenarios that might help shake blind faith in causality.

The first alternative could be called conditioned arising. This one borrows from chaos theory, which says that in a complex system, small changes can have huge results. The classic example of chaos theory is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil might cause a hurricane in the Caribbean. Conditioned arising takes this another step further and says that the entire universe is a complex system, and that every piece of it is affected in some way (conditioned) by every other piece. These words are affected in part by a black hole at the center of the galaxy.

The second alternative could be called joint arising. All events in our space-time world spring from a common source. Events appear connected in both space and time not because one affects the other, but because they come from the same ultimate and fundamental origin. Put in the language of physics' string theory, our four-dimensional events may be different four-dimensional perspectives or projections of a single eleven-dimensional object.

The third alternative could be called infinite arising. In a universe in which particles (vibrating strings, whatever) move randomly about, in an infinite amount of time (or some higher dimension), all conceivable patterns will eventually arise. Our "natural laws" would be a chance alignment that could one day disappear as spontaneously as it arose.

The key point about any of these alternatives is that they are more consistent with both modern physics and philosophy than the simple and naive idea of cause-and-effect. Let's leave that assumption behind and continue our journey with a lighter load.

Next: Where and When?