This chapter intends to evidence that we dwell within a causally semideterminate world. To do so, a listing of three mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities regarding the causal nature of the world will be presented. Two of the three possibilities—those of a world devoid of causation and of a causally omnideterminate world—will be evidenced contradictory to the eidem-derived unfalsified certainty that ontic changes occur within the world. The only remaining conceivable possibility—that of a causally semideterminate world—will be found conformant to what is so far deemed unfalsifiedly certain. This sole conformant possibility will in turn be concluded with unfalsified certainty to accurately represent the causal nature of the world.

10.1. The Cosmic Map

For increased ease of argumentation, the notion of a cosmic map will be implemented.

Let the cosmos be understood to be the sum of all that has, does, and will coexist—this irrespective of whether that which does coexist is limited to some present moment (be this moment durationally extended or not) or is else construed to timelessly occur (such that its occurrence remains constant in all of what we as eidems interpret to be the past, the present, and the future). So conceptualized, the cosmos will be the total world we inhabit as eidems—irrespective of whether the world consists of one universe or an unlimited quantity of multiverses, and irrespective of the ontology via which the world might be interpreted.

Then, let a cosmic map be understood to be a purely hypothetical, global model of the ontically certain cosmos wherein the cosmos’s occurrences, including their relations, are deemed to be accurately depicted.

Depending on the envisioned nature of the ontically certain cosmos, this hypothetical cosmic map could be finite or infinite, could have any number of dimensions required to adequately depict all the world’s occurrences and their relations, could be static or else dynamic, and could take any other attribute one deems fit.

Regardless of the possible forms the hypothetical cosmic map might potentially take, let this one constant be found in all variations: The upheld cosmic map will necessarily depict all aspects of the cosmos and will thereby necessarily depict ourselves as eidems within the cosmos.

10.2. The Three Conceivable Causal Natures of the Cosmos

It will be deemed an unfalsified certainty that those here concerned can envision only three generalized possibilities regarding the cosmos’s causal nature—such that any conceivable causal nature of the cosmos will necessarily be a subcategory of one of these three possibilities. These three possibilities are as follows:

Causal negadeterminism: The cosmos is causally negadeterminate and thereby fully devoid of causation—i.e., fully devoid of genesial determinacy—being instead solely composed of change-independent determinacies such that no change-dependent determinacies ontically occur.
Causal omnideterminism: The cosmos is causally omnideterminate and thereby consists of causation such that all instances of causation are strictly comprised of closed causes, at the complete exclusion of open causes.
Causal semideterminism: The cosmos is causally semideterminate and thereby consists of causation which is itself at least in part comprised of open causes. This will thereby entail that at least some aspects of the cosmos, at minimum the open causes concerned, are partly determined while remaining partly nondetermined. This, in turn, will furthermore necessitate that the cosmos— when the cosmos is strictly interpreted as the sum of all that has, does, and will coexist—is only partly determined and that it therefore remains in part nondetermined.

Presently, any one of these three, jointly exhaustive, and mutually exclusive possible stances regarding the cosmos’s causal nature can at best be a psychological certainty, but none of these three stances can at present be deemed of unfalsified certainty. This is because, at this juncture in the work, each stance will hold the other two as justifiable alternatives to itself (alternatives whose justifiability will hence currently be on par to that one stance that might be favored).

10.3. The Epistemic Certainty that Changes Ontically Occur Within the Cosmos

In review, our ontic occurrence as eidems—i.e., as first-person points of view—is of unfalsified certainty to ourselves for as long as we are in any way aware.

To this unfalsified certainty can be appended the following:

All those here concerned will hold an awareness as eidem of undergoing constant changes as an eidem—including changes of perceptual awareness (e.g., changes in what we physioceptually observe, including in what we proprioceptively sense), changes of senceptual alloawareness (e.g., changes in the concepts we contemplate and in the values we ascribe) as well as changes of protoceptual autoawareness (e.g., changes in our degrees of happiness or of sadness as protocepts and changes in what we are autoaware of doing as protocepts, with the latter including changes in that which we consciously intend).

Irrespective of how this unfalsified certainty might or might not affect the standing of an eidem’s ontic identity over time, it will nevertheless entail the following:

Because an eidem’s ontic occurrence (for as long as it is in any way aware) is of unfalsified certainty to itself as eidem, so too will be of unfalsified certainty the ontic occurrence of all changes which the respective eidem is aware of undergoing as an ontically occurring eidem. Hence, if I as eidem am in any way aware of undergoing changes as an occurring first-person point of view, i.e. as an occurring eidem, then the changes I am aware of undergoing as eidem will be as unfalsifiedly certain to me to be ontically occurring as is my very occurrence as an eidem.

Due to the aforementioned, it will then be an unfalsified certainty that changes ontically occur within the cosmos—this, at the very minimum, within oneself as an eidem which dwells within the cosmos, and this irrespective of the cosmos’s attributes, including its ontological nature.

Because no one here concerned can demonstrate that no one for all time yet to come will ever discover a justifiable alternative to the just expressed, personally held unfalsified certainty, it cannot be an infallible certainty. Nonetheless, it remains a possible unassailable certainty and, because of this, it is currently deemed an epistemic certainty.

It will be emphasized that all stances affirming a perfectly changeless cosmos (via which one’s awareness of changes within oneself as eidem can be deemed illusory) will hold the justifiable alternative of a cosmos comprised of changes and, therefore, will be less than epistemically certain. Moreover, in review, the ontic occurrence of the eidem (for as long as it as eidem is in any way aware) will be of epistemic certainty (to itself)—as will likewise be the eidem’s epistemic certainty (relative to itself) that it ontically undergoes changes as an eidem (again, for as long as it as eidem is in any way aware). Hence, we as eidems here hold an epistemic certainty that changes occur within the cosmos that can only be contradicted by non-epistemic certainties regarding the nature of the cosmos—but cannot be contradicted by any epistemic certainty of which we are currently aware. Because non-epistemic certainties hold justifiable alternatives whereas epistemic certainties do not, and because it is of epistemic certainty that we as eidems undergo changes as aspects of the cosmos, it is to be thereby concluded that all non-epistemic certainties affirming a perfectly changeless cosmos (and, thereby, affirming the illusory nature of the eidem’s experiences of change) will be erroneous stances.

10.4. Of Cosmic Maps Regarding the Causal Nature of the Cosmos

Via use of purely hypothetical cosmic maps, this section will investigate how the three conceivable causal natures of the cosmos conform to the unfalsified certainty that change occurs within the cosmos.

10.4.1. Cosmic Maps Depicting Causal Negadeterminism

A causally negadeterminate cosmos will be one wherein no genesial determinacies and, by extension, no telosial determinacies ontically occur.

One possibility of such a cosmos which at least some of us can envision will be that of a cosmos strictly comprised of mathematical entities and relations that are themselves solely determined via change-independent determinacy types.

Regardless of how we might envision a causally negadeterminate cosmos, and regardless of how its cosmic map might be constructed via particulars, because any cosmic map of causal negadeterminism will be completely devoid of all change-dependent determinacy types, it will necessarily depict a cosmos that is perfectly devoid of change.

Because an accurate cosmic map will necessarily encapsulate all aspects of ourselves as eidems, any cosmic map of causal negadeterminism will logically necessitate that we as eidems are ourselves perfectly static—perfectly devoid of changes—in all possible ontic respects.

However, because it is unfalsifiedly certain that we as eidems ontically undergo changes, what results is a contradiction between the non-epistemically certain position of causal negadeterminism—however it may be depicted in a cosmic map via particulars—and the epistemic certainty that changes occur within the cosmos.

The contradiction between the just mentioned non-epistemic certainty and the epistemic certainty that changes ontically occur then logically necessitates the following conclusion: the judgment that the ontically certain cosmos is one of causal negadeterminism can only be erroneous—and this irrespective of the details which might be ascribed to causal negadeterminism.

Furthermore—per the relevant unfalsified certainties provided in §8.3.1 and its subsections—because it is an unfalsified certainty that the only means via which we can conceive of changes being directly brought into being will be that of genesial determinacy (i.e., will be that of causality), it then becomes an entailed unfalsified certainty that, given the epistemic certainty that changes occur within the cosmos, so too do instances of causality occur.

What then presently remains viable are two mutually exclusive possibilities regarding the occurrence of causality within the cosmos: that of causal omnideterminism and that of causal semideterminism.

10.4.2. Cosmic Maps Depicting Causal Omnideterminism

A causally omnideterminate cosmos will be one wherein only closed causes, and no open causes, ontically occur.

Such a cosmos might be modeled as infinite or finite. It might or might not be modeled as endowed with one or more nonembedded closed causes. It might be furthermore causally modeled via causal chains, causal webs, or some other causal representation. Yet, irrespective of the cosmic map that might be entertained, such a cosmos will in all cases be one where all past, present, and future causes are fully set in their limitations or boundaries as to what they are and what they do.

Whichever way the deemed to be accurate cosmic map is envisioned, it, here, will hence be perfectly fixed in all respects—this as necessitated by the cosmos being fully comprised of closed causes without exception—thereby resulting in a perfectly static map. No change in what a cause is or in what a cause generates can ever be plotted on the map—irrespective of the cause being nonembedded or embedded—for all instances of causation will, again, by necessity here be perfectly fixed on account of being strictly comprised of closed causes. This, for example, signifies that not only is (what we as eidems experience to be) our past and our present perfectly fixed but so too is the entirety of our future.

In short, regardless of the cosmic map’s detailed specifications, any deemed to be accurate cosmic map of a causally omnideterminate cosmos will always be as perfectly static as will be a simplistic, two-dimensional photograph in which we find ourselves depicted: It as representation of the cosmos will be perfectly devoid of changes as a whole and in all its details.

This, then, will present the following contradiction:

Per the relevant unfalsified certainties provided in §8.3.1 and its subsections, genesial determinacy, aka causation, is the only determinacy type we can conceive of that directly brings about changes in the cosmos—this via change in what was prior to the moment of causation and what will be after the moment of causation. Yet, in affirming that causes can only be omnideterminate, any deemed to be accurate cosmic map of such a causally omnideterminate cosmos can only be found perfectly devoid of changes—thereby entailing that no changes ontically occur in the cosmos. Hence, here, what results is the proposition that changes within the cosmos both ontically occur and do not ontically occur at the same time and in the same respect.

Attempts to remedy the just specified contradiction inherent to causal omnideterminism might in principle take the form of further affirmations that what we experience as changes within ourselves as eidems somehow amounts to an illusion that is brought into being by the very omnideterminate cosmos we inhabit.

Notwithstanding, because a) any model of the ontically occurring cosmos positing the cosmos to be one of causal omnideterminism and b) all subsequent affirmations concerning the illusory nature of our awareness regarding changes within our eidemic selves as aspects of the cosmos—and, therefore, regarding change within the cosmos—will both at best be non-epistemic certainties, and because it remains an epistemic certainty relative to any individual eidem here concerned that changes ontically occur in the cosmos (due to the unfalsified certainty that change occurs within our individual selves as eidems), here there again results a contradiction between non-epistemic certainties and the epistemic certainty that change occurs within the cosmos.

The contradiction between the just mentioned non-epistemic certainties and the epistemic certainty of ontically occurring change then logically necessitates the following conclusion: the judgment that the ontically certain cosmos is one of causal omnideterminism can only be erroneous—and this irrespective of the details which might be ascribed to causal omnideterminism.

10.4.3. Cosmic Maps Depicting Causal Semideterminism

A causally semideterminate cosmos will be one wherein open causes ontically occur.

Open causes—be they poietic causes or tychistic causes—will allow for the generation of different effects in a selfsame situation and, thereby, are not perfectly fixed in what they generate. They thereby can have more than one possible future.

Were a causal semideterminacy to consist of a singular and nonembedded open cause, each of this open cause’s effects would change the cosmos or parts therein from what was prior to its instantiation of causation to what is as a result of said causation—this such that the changes which transpire are not fully fixed aspects of a fully fixed tapestry of causation but, instead, alter the cosmos’s complex details of what ontically occurs in part or in whole.

Were a causal semideterminacy to consist of multiple, embedded open causes that in any way influence each other, because each open cause’s instantiation of causation will create a change from what was to what is, and because these open causes interact in—at the very least—the nature of what is and will be, here, minimally, the commonly shared future shall always be to some degree subject to change and, therefore, will to some extent be ontically uncertain.

Cosmic maps depicting a causally semideterminate cosmos which are comprised of other elements are possible to conceive.

Nevertheless, because open causes will not be perfectly fixed in what they generate, any hypothetical cosmic map of a causally semideterminate cosmos—irrespective of the cosmic map’s specifics—will need to depict the occurrence of unfolding changes in the cosmos; it will thereby need to be a dynamic map (rather than perfectly static map), and it will furthermore need to somehow account for some measure of ontic uncertainty occurring within the ontically certain cosmos.

In short, in order to be an accurate model of such cosmos, any hypothetical cosmic map of a causally semideterminate cosmos will need to actively depict changes that ontically occur within the cosmos.

Because any hypothetical cosmic map of a causally semideterminate cosmos will actively depict changes in the cosmos, a causally semideterminate cosmos—irrespective of its particulars—will thereby necessarily be one wherein changes actively unfold ontically.

This third conceivable possibility of the cosmos’s causal nature, that of causal semideterminacy, will therefore be the sole possibility we can conceive of which is not contradictory to our unfalsified certainty that changes ontically occur within the cosmos.

Because causal semideterminacy is the only one of the three conceivable possibilities regarding the cosmos’s causal nature which is not contradictory to the unfalsified certainty that changes occur in the cosmos, and because at the current juncture this solely viable possibility does not hold any justifiable alternatives, that the cosmos is casually semideterminate will presently be concluded an unfalsified—and, hence, epistemic—certainty.

10.5. Concluding Remarks

In review, given that all the so far expressed unfalsified certainties will so remain upon further scrutiny, this chapter then concludes in the unfalsified certainty that the ontically certain cosmos is one of causal semideterminacy.

Explicitly stated, the unfalsified certainty of causal semideterminism then entails the unfalsified certainty that the cosmos is neither one of causal negadeterminacy (i.e., one wherein no causation occurs) nor one of causal omnideterminacy (i.e., one fully comprised of closed causes such that no open causes occur).

• Navigation

Main Page || Chapter 11: Validating Our Free Will