Q&A: Energy and Causality
Energy and Causality
Question
Regarding the principle of causality –
Someone told me very confidently that energy is something that does not perish, and therefore nowadays it is accepted to say that energy is something primordial, that always existed. And as such it does not require a cause.
Is that correct? Is there support for that? I’m not familiar with this, but I’d be happy if you could explain in simple terms where the mistake is.
Answer
Why do you think there is a mistake here?
Energy can indeed be lost in various processes. But it is converted into something else, and that too is usually defined as energy of a different kind. But even if energy always existed, it still requires a reason/explanation (in the third notebook I explained the distinction between the principle of causality and the principle of sufficient reason).
But the form that this energy takes in our world is special, and as such it certainly requires a cause. Is there anything that happens in the world that requires a cause? Seemingly no, since in everything that happens energy is conserved. But it is clear that causes are required, because the cause is what makes sure that the conserved energy is organized in a particular way.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t discuss energy there. The distinction between reason and cause is in the third discussion. The principle of sufficient reason (try the index).
With your permission, I want to sharpen something for a moment that I didn’t quite understand:
The assumption that everything has a cause—where does it come from? Is it itself based on the principle that everything is perishable, and from that it follows that it began at some point, and then we arrive at its cause?
If so, then with respect to energy—which is perishable—does the principle apply to it? (Setting aside for the moment the principle of sufficient reason.)
Thank you for your words.
No. That assumption is an a priori assumption of reason. It does not come from observation, as Hume wrote. The idea that everything perishes is a result of observation. The assumption that if something perishes then it also began is an outlook that was accepted in ancient thought (Duties of the Heart and many others), and I do not see that as necessary.
Thank you very much!
I looked in the book and couldn’t find any discussion of energy, or of the distinction between reason and cause. Maybe I missed it. Could you point me more precisely to it?