Since the modern era, Western philosophers have tried to limit causality to relationships between physical actions. Hume pointed out that causation itself cannot be directly observed. This is where Newman’s process theory comes in, which explains causation through the spatiotemporal trajectory of an object. This theory distinguishes between causal and non-causal processes, but it has limitations in explaining non-physical aspects such as norms and minds.
With the rise of the scientific worldview, Western philosophers since the modern era have tended to limit causation to relationships between physical actions. The problem is that, as Hume pointed out, causation itself is not directly observable. We can only observe the events that are the cause and effect. For example, “The river froze because of the cold.” This is not a statement of a directly observed physical fact. This led to doubts among philosophers about whether causation is a scientific concept.
An attempt to understand causation in terms of a scientific worldview is Newman’s process theory. This theory attempts to explain causation as a process, rather than simply as a sequence of events between two events. In process theory, causality is understood through the spatiotemporal trajectory of an object. When you throw a baseball, the shadow of the ball on the ground moves with it. The shadow moved because the ball moved, not because the shadow itself moved and changed its position.
Process theory explains this difference as follows. A process is the spatiotemporal trajectory of an object. A baseball in flight, as well as a ball resting on the ground, is on a spatiotemporal trajectory because time is passing. The state of the ball at rest is also a process. However, not all processes are causal. Some processes meet another process at a point in space and time, that is, they intersect. If the intersection introduces a signature, a changed physical property of the object, then the process that can carry that signature to all subsequent points is the causal process.
For example, let’s say a banana travels from point A to point B. Process 1 is the process of traveling from point A to point B. Process 2, which is taking a bite out of the banana at a point halfway between A and B, intersects with process 1. This intersection marker was introduced into process 1, and this marker can be transferred to B. In other words, the banana can continue traveling to B without losing the bite. Therefore, process 1 is a causal process. The movement of the banana is the cause of the effect of the banana being at B.
On the other hand, suppose the banana’s shadow is cast on the screen. The process by which the banana’s shadow moves from point a′ to point b′ on the screen is called process 3. After the intersection of process 1 and process 2, the shadow on the screen also changes. But suppose process 4 intersects with process 3, in which a bumpy piece of Styrofoam is attached to a point on the surface of the screen between a′ and b′. When the shadow overlaps that point, the label distortion is introduced into process 3, but when the shadow passes through that point, the shadow returns to its original shape and the Styrofoam remains the same. In this way, process 3 cannot carry the label introduced by the intersection with another process.
A limitation of process theory is that it has difficulty explaining aspects outside of the physical world, such as norms and the mind. For example, there is a causal relationship between my violation of a social norm and my deserving of punishment, but process theory does not deal with this well. Despite these limitations, process theory can be a useful tool for explaining physical causality. In particular, in scientific inquiry, the analysis of causal processes can contribute to understanding and predicting complex phenomena.
Process theory also enriches philosophical discussions about the nature of causal relationships. It broadens the horizons of philosophical inquiry by moving away from the traditional view of causal relationships as a simple sequence of events to a new perspective of the continuity of processes and the transmission of change. This is important not only for scientific inquiry but also for philosophical discussion.
The questions raised by process theory remain important topics of discussion for contemporary philosophers. Explorations of the nature of causality, the continuity of process and change, and the scope and limits of causal explanation are important elements that add depth to philosophical thought. They go beyond mere scientific explanation and may hold the key to a fundamental understanding of human experience and cognition.
