James Zhang


This conversation is closed.

Causality is the theory of everything

1) Everything has a cause and an effect.
2) Everything is a cause and/or effect of some sort.
3) One cause can be the effect of another thing. One effect can be the cause of another thing.

There are two kinds of worlds:
1) a logical world, which follows the rules of Cause and Effect
2) an illogical world, which means there is no Cause and Effect.

So let's say there is a hypothetical world where there is a ball moving at the speed of light in a direction. If this was an illogical world, then that would mean there is no cause for the ball to do this. If there is no cause, and that the ball is moving, then why is it doing it? Why is there a ball anyways? Why is there even a world where there's a ball moving at speed of light? If there's no cause, then why's it doing it? That means, that in an illogical world, nothing would exist, because simply because there is no cause or reason for anything to exist.

Thus, an illogical world cannot exist. And if an illogical world cannot exist, then by process of elimination, there can only be a logical world. A world where there is cause and effect. Thus, that would mean that everything we know, everything that has happened, everything that we do, must have a cause and effect.

  • Jul 25 2012: The fabric of the universe is not characterized by a if this than that principle. Probability which is the vehicle of entropy does not dictate fixed outcomes only probable ones. Just because the sun has come out every day so far does not in ALL probability mean that it will tomorrow, or frankly that it did at all.
  • Jul 28 2012: Paradoxes give me faith in the beyondness of perception because a reality with contradictions that should not be possible seems like proof that more is possible than we can imagine.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2012: So then perhaps there may never be a theory of everything, just so there will always be a mystery to keep us from boredom...

      I also heard that Deep Depression is also caused by a strong level of boredom.
  • Jul 27 2012: we know the frequency of sun spots occuring in our sun. We know the frequency of the sun spots occuring on neighbouring suns. What we don't know is are they simultaneous? IF they are simultaneous activities THIS will prove that information is acting between them. This can only mean the expansion of the universe providing the primary dimension which just so happens to be opening at the velocity of 300,000Kms. Not the speed of light - but the speed of the creation of new space being created second for second.
  • Jul 27 2012: in a new book which provides a new insight the hypothesis is that the universe expansion just so happens to be 300,000kms locally ( Hubble Zone ). This is providing the new space and Primary spatial dimension into which you can locate the 3 other spatial dimensions. Should the expansion velocty vary by even a small degree either upwards or downwards the atomic cohesion will be modified - demonstrable with Max Planks theory. If this should happen - which it will do all the atoms will dissociate. Resulting in an exciting explosion throughout the universe. This is a natural form of universal fission. We see evidence of natural fusion everyday by means of the sun. The local universe just so happens to be expanding at the rate of 300,000kms which privides the primary dimension and new space second for second since the last big bang. Light cannot move faster than this simply because it needs a dimension to move into. Hence light or a proton will simply convert any excess energy into mass as it simply cannot MOVE any faster and has to await for New Space to be created!! Light is nothing more than a detector of New Space and the Primary dimension being produced. The primary dimension just so happens to have experienced a constant opening velocity for the last 14 billion years. Should this vary then then all the matter in the universe will undergo a phase change and the mechanism will be a simultaneous fission. In a book 'Absolute relativity theory of everything'.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: hmm that sounds really interesting. So light needs a medium to travel on, which we call space. I'll have to check that book out some time
      • Jul 27 2012: Thanks James, Newton believed in the concept of an absolute 'spacetime' - Michelson & Morley constantly argued with Einstein on the importance of the Aether. Einstein then later stated that if an Absolute Spacetime does exist it has only an academic hypothetical importance and absolutel no relevance to his STR & GTR !!!! Then since 1918 we live in a universe of 3 spatial dimensions + temporal time. Which in effect has completely ruled out and ignored the Primay dimension which provides the space which one may define as having 3 spatial dimensions ! Not so important !!! What we have done since 1916 is make everything fit with Einstein's STR and GFT! Then he promoted the notion ( which is correct ) that temporal time dilates with velocity. But had absolutely no explanation for this or what caused it, or the mechanism. Because he denied the existence of the 1st dimension which is causing this phenomena in the first place !! One day the science community will catch up with this idea - its only a matter of temporal time !
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: Woah man, slow down, too many terms and concepts I do not really know lol
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: @Fritzie Reisner

    "Quantum mechanics says, I believe, that randomness is real at a fundamental physical level."

    it is kinda tricky. in quantum mechanics, the actual wave function and its time evolution is fully deterministic and reversible, just like in any other models in physics. the only random is the result of measuring some characteristic of a particle that it is not "tuned in" for. the details of this randomness is largely a mystery, and its nature is debated. but indeed, it is a candidate for real randomness in the world.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: If you reduce all effects through their causes using logic, and why not, you come to the conclusion that the first cause was its own cause. I am because I am. It is because it is. If that is what you mean, than this could indeed be the first piece in the theory of everything.

    That has always been my own conclusion and until such day that physicists and philosopher's come up with a mechanism that has such an existential bootstrap at its core, their work won't be done (because otherwise there would always be another cause to explain)
    • Jul 26 2012: The theory of Everything can be called the theory of Nothing, no -thing. All things, matter is secondary to something we don't have a name for, but we know that it doesn't obey the laws of physics, as we know them and can't be perceived by logic.
      " I am because I am. It is because it is." beyond is event horizon.
      In short, i agree with you :)
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: What's interesting is that the Indian Vedics as well as Chinese Lao Tsu worked all this out many millenniums ago but somehow western tradition has deliberately left this notion behind (probably for religious purposes). However, many physicists have turned back to both the Veda's and the Tao and found remarkable similarities with current physics thinking. Both the Vedas and the Tao are Theories Of Everything and both would indeed be better named Theories Of No-things.
        • Jul 27 2012: I don't think something was done deliberately or could be done on purpose on this scale. It simply went/goes this way. Maybe West/East seemingly divergent ways are the complementary in the process of knowing ? I think that they could be described in the context of a wave/particle duality as a natural process.
          Eastern Mysticism ( there is nothing mystic about it, apart that we call it this way ) 'observed' the Whole not cutting it into parts. Ancient philosophers/teachers 'experienced ' the Whole , they didn't study 'parts' and viewed a part as a reflection of the Whole with little if any significance outside the Whole. Chinese/Indian ancient meditative or contemplative techniques allowed to tap directly into the wave of information, into non algorithmic depth of knowing. It's how knowing
          ( wave ) differs from scientific knowledge or knowing about.
          Sacred teachings/science is not less accurate than western science, but it doesn't have a 'voice' and brings the 'knowing' here to us in a vague metaphoric language of stories, myths, parables, deep in meaning ( primitive for some ) theories on the nature of reality. .And i think, it's the spirit of our time, our Zeitgeist - we start to recognize science in old age teachings. Re- cognize means ' to know again ".
          Maybe it was meant to be this way ?
          I don't know :)

          Thanks for responding !
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: "The first cause was its own cause"

      ...dang... lol
  • Jul 25 2012: Some mind blowing stuff for you viewing and reading pleasure:

    BBC 4 - Dangerous knowledge
    The Atom
    M- theory
    PBS Nova (on you tube)
    -Hunting the Hidden Dimension (fractals)
    -The Elegant Universe (series of 3 or four shows related to the bbc material but older-optional but simply explanitory)

     (hokey but thought provoking)
    Holographic Universe (Part 1) 

    Introduction and Illustration on the Holographic Principle
    -explains the role of black holes and potential information storage

    Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Mind STUART HAMEROFF (P.1)
    (also check out his website by the same title for a little light reading)

    Check out on Ted.com -
    Lucianne Walkowicz: Finding planets around other stars

    Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object

    Andrea Ghez: The hunt for a supermassive black hole
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: I'll have to watch that stuff later, thanks for sharing!
  • Jul 25 2012: Our future has been written in every possible way.  Contemporary experiments have demonstrated that consious perception of an event lags behind the actual event.  Really.  This lends creadence to a deterministic view and is in line with the theory of relativity.  Perhaps this is true, maybe we just experience what is to have been all along and consciously assimilate the input experience into a deception of effecting an output thereby collectively we perceive choice as effecting future when it may not.  Perception is a funny thing, for no measurement of the physical world can be made outside this closed microcosm but indeed evidence for entanglement and infinite expansion have hinted at a much greater "reality" then that which we perceive and can measure.  Or perhaps perception constitutes the whole of reality.  However, as a function of a macrocosm, if the cosmologists and quantum physicists are on to anything, it appears that our universe is one of many in which all possibilities have likely occurred.  What if the perception of free will and the passing of time is an outcome of us changing between possible universes and not experiencing just one.  Perhaps perception of  a constant universe is not actual constancy.  Maybe all  possible outcomes have happened in the multiverse and are predetermined, but consciousness straddles the arrow of time choosing from fixed possibilities sliding laterally  between substrate determined universes.  What if instead of moving through a constant perceived reality the action of  consciousness is to move between realities thus perpetuating a sense of past an future within the predetermined greater macrocosmic multiverse.  As a function of a closed system where everything that can happen will happen and has happened, free will exists as the necessary perception of the happening.  Could all of us be perpetually jumping from universe to universe from moment to moment and perceiving this as the passing of time within one closed system.
  • Jul 25 2012: I think we miss something in our concept of logic. We assume that logic is an endless chain, but we could not prove this yet, only in short fragments.

    An unlogical world is possible, when we consider that our mind is not able to understand everything. See, our "logic" is based on what we know and where we live. On planet earth logic works like you explained it, but that must not mean that this is like that anywhere and at any place. And it could not be explained by our system of logic, while our logic at least points at the possibility, because it is logical right that we are limited in our ability to understand things.

    We are limited by the place we live and by the form in which we exist. If 0=0 and 0=1 would be logic at the same time and place, it would all collapse. But it could exist beside each other and create a frame. Then it would be logical again, and also unlogical, because in our minds everything must begin and end somewhere. And something cannot evolve from nothing-maybe we simply cannot answer this, because it would literally make us go mad.

    Maybe it is the other way around, that our logic universe is inside unlogical universes, what could explain why it exists. Other way round you could not explain it, a logic universe would not create unlogic universes. Maybe we are just a random mistake?
  • thumb

    Sym !

    • 0
    Jul 27 2012: Nice Idea! Generally I thought it is hard to find a THEORY OF EVERYTHING, because these events happening around us are much more to collect it under one common base. But I think I started to think seriously about your idea. This needs long time to focus, you know.. when something is not included to this theory. This idea wouldn't be THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING anymore. So in principle, I agree but I have to meditate more about it.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: Apparently, this is pretty much same thing as determinism, which isn't such a new idea, but I think causality is a good theory that can explain a lot of things. So I maybe have been wrong to say that this is a theory of EVERYTHING, but it's a theory that I've been using in just about everything I'm thinking about...
      • thumb

        Sym !

        • 0
        Jul 27 2012: So you found some expectations?
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: Well there's the whole Quantum Theory, and there's a lot of theories out there that have Paradoxes or contradictions (Russel's Paradox for one) in them, and yet they somehow explain a lot of other things out there. So human intelligence is still too limited atm which could be why we're stuck and why we have paradoxes. Maybe there needs to be a Theory on Paradoxes itself lol, which maybe scary or just weird to think about in general. Because it's like trying to make logic on something illogical, and that in itself is a contradiction. Well that's my stopping point for now, I don't have that good of an explanation for (each) Paradoxes themselves, and maybe another bigger genius out there can figure this out eventually.
  • Jul 27 2012: yes sorry! just a area of interest. It frustrates me that we live in a post Einstein dark ages because his Special and General theory. And he denied Newtons concept that spacetime is an absolute and possibly a dimension it its own right. Einstein built his incredible work on Newtons earlier work - but denied the idea that spacetime is an absolute. Then Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to find the Theory of Everything and failed!! Simply because he denied the idea of Newton that spacetime does in fact provide a background absolute. Into which is a home for our ( Euclidian ) 3 spatial dimension. Lots in the book - and some new ideas relating to the concept of conservation of temporal time. Which means that every atom which came into existence after the so called big bang ( the same atoms exist today - so they are quite old ) ! Their history has been recorded by the opening velocity of space. Just as if it were a video recorder !! All preserved by the expanding framework of the Absolute Primary dimension second for second since the big bang. For example what you great great greatmother had for breakfast in 12th December ( our temporal time ) in the year 1540 .....etc - Everthing! Every atom has been recorded.
  • thumb
    Jul 27 2012: I'm no physicist but i tend to look at it like this "What caused the first vibration?"

    and since we don't know if all things are cyclic and the evidence is based on comp models of the CMB,we still won't know unless we actually get to witness an event but regardless it comes back to what i said.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: So you're basically saying, we need an experiment that can give us the proof to a lot of these crazy theories.
  • Jul 27 2012: In Phylosophy there is a rule (basically a law on that dicipline) that the creator has to be superior to the creation. For exampe, humans can contruct cars but cars can not construct humans.

    In this world nothing is wasted and looks that the logic rules it.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: in what philosophy? theology i assume. in serious branches, such rule does not exist. just look at evolution: simplest rules create huge complexity. or weather: some basic inputs like sunshine and surface features, we have a hugely complex weather pattern. many algorithms has this property, they are simple but can create patterns of infinite complexity.
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2012: But that's also what makes it really cool :D

        Just cuz such a simple rule can create infinite possibilities and cool effects
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: exactly. darwin thought he discovered a biological phenomenon. little did he know that he actually made one of the biggest discoveries in philosophy. he discovered how can very simple initial conditions and rules create complex stuff with apparent order and design.
      • Jul 28 2012: Life replicates with water and sunshine. If I mix water and sunshine the life do spontaneouly be created?
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: James, you have made a circular argument with enough circles to make an olympic symbol. Science would come to a halt if everything was consistant and logical.

    This sounds like a question a prof would throw out to his class if he needed to go to the toliet. Just keep on fighting and I'll be right back.

    This is Philosophical not scientific. Good try but I do not think I'll bite on this one.

    All the best. Bob.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: So then are you saying that, there are some illogical things that exist in some realm/universe? But if we can understand the illogicalness of it, then wouldn't that make it logical? So then if we understood all illogical things, then wouldn't that mean everything is logical, or does it mean that nothing is logical? But if we're trying to understand an illogical thing with our logical thinking, then why? Cuz it doesn't seem logical to try to achieve something you can't achieve... or does it....

      So then the true theory of everything would mean it would include all that is logical and all that is illogical, or all that is logical and illogical, or nothing that is illogical nor logical, or else it wouldn't include everything if this were not the case.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: James, I am an engineer but cannot explain how a bee can fly. I accept that it does but it escapes all theories.

        Every time I see ALL, EVERY, NO EXCEPTIONS, ALL INCLUSIVE, etc ... The red flag goes up. You want an absolute fom me. Can not do it. You want a different answer ask a different question.

        All the best. Bob.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: I don't necessarily want an answer from YOU, personally, I'm just asking questions. But maybe there comes a point where I can't or shouldn't ask more questions... And I'm beginning to feel that way myself...
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: And the other thing is, I'm not really sure what I want, in terms of the answers, because maybe I'm just not ready for them,despite all these questions...
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: James, never stop asking questions. Weigh all answers. My answers are what works for me ... not you. I offer them as input for you to evaluate. I offer them honestly and openly to do otherwise would be a disservice to you and comprimise my beliefs.

        As a PHd candidate you will have your documents challenged and you must defend your findings or you will fail.

        The oak tree is might and stong. However, it is the willow that is flexable and survives the storm. Learning is a series of comprimises. Adjust, adapt, and overcome.

        All the best .... Doctor Zhang .... Bob.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: Thanks for your insightful post!

          I try to be really honest about my answers and questions as well, and in the end we can really only do what we believe in anyways.

          lol if you really think I'll be a PHD candidate
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: James, It is not important what I believe regarding your Dr degree. You have made it your passion. Why is it I have more faith in you than you seem to.

        To achieve it ... Believe it.

        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: It's not that I don't have a lot of faith in myself, it's just that I've recently come to realize that there may be some questions I'm afraid to answer, because the shock of the revelation could be too great... if that makes any sense.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: Life is short. Face the dragons and move on.

        If you wish contact me on my profile e-mail for further discussion..

        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: thanks for the advice, Bob! I really appreciate them.
  • Jul 26 2012: There is only distance on a multitude axes (left right up down front back past future quantum spin this and that) and when it comes to these axes. Here is my own thought experiment:
    Everything Nothing
    Always Never

    Everything x Always = + x + = +
    Everything x Never = + x - = -
    Nothing x Always = + x - = -
    Nothing x Never = - x - = +

    That is your proof
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: hmm, I'm not entirely sure I follow. Or really I'm just more confused about the arithmetic symbols
  • Jul 26 2012: I'd like to add :
    3)there is a quantum world where Effect can be observed as prior to Cause.

    Actually, cause/effect is one 'thing' we perceive as two because of Time that separates them ,creating Space for them to occur in sequence.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: so there's another rule that could be out there that says cause and effect is the same thing?
      • Jul 27 2012: I don't quite understand what you do mean by ' another rule'.
        Would you agree that there is an inevitable confusion here ?
        Classical 'cause and effect' is placed on the arrow of time and moves from past to future, it's clear and simple.
        And then we use an axe for peeling potatoes ; cause/effect that is one and happening at once or effect that comes before the cause are not ' cause and effect' any more, it's a different phenomenon. In another words: we use Newtonian/Cartesian vocabulary to describe a quantum phenomenon, no wonder, it doesn't work.
        Surprisingly,a fuzzy language of sacred texts cope with this task much better: " Before Abraham was I am " " The seer is the seen "( !!!!! ). It doesn't mean that for ToE we need another descriptive terminology ( maybe we do, but it is not the point ) we need a new way of thinking , new Paradigm.
        I am seriously doubting that we'll manage to connect all dots within an old one :)
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: Actually I don't even remember what I meant by that question anymore lol

          But yeah, you're right, it doesn't make sense that we can describe quantum phenomena with classical terms. We do need a new paradigm of some sort.

          I had a thought. I know there are paradoxes in a lot of useful theories out there. Is it even possible to create a legitimate theory on paradoxes themselves? Wouldn't that theory on paradoxes become a paradox itself, cuz it's like trying to make a logic with something illogical. Then that thing that's illogical won't be illogical anymore...
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: Where did the ball come from and why is it going at the speed of light?

    That is the problem with cause and effect linear thinking. It does't work.

    I disagree with your theory major premise number one. Where did 'everything' come from?
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: in a world where there is no cause and effect, it wouldn't make sense if there is a ball that is moving in the speed of light. If there is no cause, then the ball shouldn't even exist at all.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: OK so if you take it all the way back to the beginning of the universe, what caused that? Where did that come from? How did matter come to be arranged from that? At some point some where you have to come to the conclusion it has always been. And if it has always been, there is no original cause. If there is no original cause, the whole theory is bogus. It makes no sense.

        Cause and effect is a fine theory in a finite world but it is nowhere near the theory of everything.

        The universe cannot be explained linearly.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: Maybe there is no beginning cause, maybe it's just one big cycle of infinity?

          Ok, so then what I'm getting from a lot of these comments are that Cause and Effect is NOT the theory for everything. But at least it's possible that it is the theory to explain our universe, not other universes, from my understanding currently...
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: Well its a good theory to explain our finite world because everything in this world is constant. There is no more or less of anything. (except for the stuff we have left on other planets/moons or shot out into space.) Matter is matter and all it does is change form. You cannot get more finite than that.

        It may help explain the physical universe but does not apply in all cases, origins of the universe case in point. It is always a good discussion so kudos to the question.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: thx! Is there even such a thing as origins of the universe? Based on the idea of Cause and Effect, it wouldn't be logical., but it may exist outside of our logical world...

          Bah, *mind blown*
        • Jul 26 2012: " but it may exist outside of our logical world..."

          Sounds true, but it doesn't imply that it is not here in our world, simply we can't get there via dual logic .
  • Jul 25 2012: Positive cause/Positive effect
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2012: Empirically speaking what occurs that is not caused? Random acts of nature.

    I think they had it right at the end of Forest Gump it is both but more is predictable than most would say is. But what about the idea that randomness was caused as well?
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2012: Maybe there is a cause to randomness. Like a bunch of atoms jumbling in all different directions, the amount of randomness is high. So then what causes the atoms to jumble and move? hmm
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: My point is that if the entire universe disappeared there would still be entities that are aware of being aware as they are not a part of the universe. And they individually and by collective agreement are cause.

        I cannot prove any of this but most religions believe some flavor of this.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: Hmm, man I don't know what to think anymore if we really go so deep into the logic. Maybe my understanding is just too limited for the time being...
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: You just need to take some more peyote (8^(l)

        I'm not trying to be esoteric although it is hard on this subject. I'm just saying that we (you and I and everyone else) are the beings who are not a part of the universe. I'm not saying you have a soul I'm saying you are a soul.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: Hmm, interesting, I'll have to try some of that peyote some time lol

          Do you refer "universe" as "everything?" Cuz it seems that some other comments refer "everything" as multiple universes.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: Everything in this universe but this is not the only universe.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2012: and what if there is cause and affect, but there is also something else? from where this dichotomy comes from that either everything is predictable or nothing is?
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2012: essentially, that may be what this theory is saying or implying...
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2012: so you postulate it? but then i have two objections
        1. it is not new. determinism is the current mainstream scientific view
        2. why? what makes you believe that?
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: I based a lot of my thinkings on "I think, therefore I am."

          So what causes me to believe this? Society. Because society has progressed advanced enough to allow me to think like this. Because if I were to spread all my thoughts in 500 years ago's society, I may be shot because society didn't accept such radical thinkings.

          So then why do I feel or think in the first place? Why do I think certain things are right and wrong? Because we are intelligent enough.

          Why are we intelligent enough? Because evolution allowed us to be, or at least that's what the theory implies.

          So then why was there evolution in the first place? Because maybe the environment was just right.

          Why was the environment just right? How was the Earth made? Maybe the Big Bang explains this.

          And I can pretty much go on forever, as the theory of causality implies.

          So then what was the purpose of the environment creating this human intelligent life? Maybe it just is what it is. We live simply because we live perhaps. We are intelligent simply because it happened, the circumstances were right.

          And I think this also makes sense because why would life be born to kill itself? It doesn't make sense. It is from what I described, Illogical, so it wouldn't exist. Because it makes no sense for life to be born just so it can unborn itself. It might as well just not be born in the first place, unless it had a reason...

          Dammit, someone prove me wrong on this!
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: Maybe our purpose in this world is to try to reach a perfect state that is unreachable. Because if everything is perfect, then there would be no more effects to make. And the theory then says, there must be cause AND effect. So the "perfect" state becomes illogical.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: Ok I just looked up Determinism. You're right, then this is not a new concept. Causality is just another way of saying Determinism perhaps.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: On what basis do you say that determinism is the prevailing scientific view? Quantum mechanics says, I believe, that randomness is real at a fundamental physical level.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: Wait, what exactly causes randomness?
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2012: I love the fact that the only exception to this law is what caused causality itself.
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2012: and yet, to me, this just makes so much sense!
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2012: Yes I suppose things couldn't possibly be otherwise...
        Hence... necessity is the mother of causality?
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2012: An analogy can be like this perhaps:
    An illogical world is like saying 0=1. But 0=/=1. 0=0, this can only be true. But since 0=0 is correct, then that means that it is logical, and logical cannot be illogical. So 0=0 cannot also be 0=1, because 0=1 is illogical.