Trenton Merricks Epiphenomenalism and Eliminativism: Causality Large and Small

Robert R. Wadholm, Missouri University, 2012

A baseball shatters a window. Or is it that atoms arranged baseball-wise cause atoms arranged windowwise to scatter? Do baseballs and windows even exist? In Epiphenomenalism and Eliminativism Trenton Merricks argues that composites (macrophysical objects) do not exist. I will here display a bit of modern metaphysical theatre and ask whether objects small (even simple) and large (even composite) exist; but first, let us set the stage for our drama.

The Characters, Plot and Setting

The Characters
O (an object, in this case a baseball) X (a single object, in this case an atom of the Democritian small indivisible-unit variety, not the physicists composite object) Xs (a chorus of many single objects, in this case all atoms that are said to compose the baseball) W (the window or atoms arranged window-wise, a victim, or victims, of violence) P (a human, in this case a philosopher who argues about causality with Trenton Merricks) M (a human, in this case a philosopher named Trenton Merricks who is somewhere off-stage, heard but not seen)

The Plot
E (an event, in this case the violent crash of a window, or for Merricks an atomic collision and scattering). E has occurred before the drama begins. >>> (a causal relationship, in this case O >>> E would be read O caused E, and O !>>> E would be read O did not cause Ethis is one of the points in question)

The Setting
No mention is made about the events leading up to the violence of our drama. The dark stage is set with broken glass scattered on the ground, beside what looks like a baseball. A philosopher enters the stage.

Robert R. Wadholm

Scene 1: Causal Irrelevance

W. P. (The broken glass gasps its last breath and lets out a mortal sigh) What have we here? What is the cause of this violent act? What thing through yonder window breaks? O, are you to blame? (P points his finger at O) No! (M speaks from off-stage) O may not even exist. It was the Xs of which O is constituted. O is causally irrelevant as to whether Xs (its constituent atoms) caused E. What? (Looks startled.) What was that voice just now? It was me, Trenton Merricks. I think Ive heard of you before The Phantom of the Ontology but what is causal irrelevance? Four things: (He whispers as a chant) 1. O is not one of the Xs (O != X),

M.

P. M. P. M.

2. O plus Xs do not cause E (O + Xs !>>> E) 3. None of the Xs cause O to cause E (X !>>> (O >>> E)) 4. O does not cause any single X to cause E (O !>>> (X >>> E)) Do you see now why I said O (the baseball) is causally irrelevant as to whether Xs (its constituent atoms) caused E (the event or events)? For the baseball is not any one of the atoms. It is numerically distinct. And the broken window was caused by the atoms. Thus, the baseball didnt have anything to do with it. In fact, the baseball does not even exist, only atoms arranged baseball-wise, and the window is actually P. But wait! With the baseball and its atoms, we do not usually hold that the baseball is one of the parts of the whole, but is the whole itself. Instead, in some views (and Ill enumerate three), the baseball is all of its atoms together (O = Xs) and thus baseball-wise is a thing, or in another view the baseball is something but the Xs do not exist as distinct entities any longer (O is, but there are no distinct Xs), and in yet another view the baseball is all of its atoms together plus something else, like organization, form, complexity, information, design, function, or something of the like (O = Xs + ?). In those views, O is still not one of the Xs for one reason or another, but does that make it causally irrelevant to E? After all, in those views O directly caused E. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that O (as you variously define it) is still causally irrelevant to E. The Baseball plus its atoms did not cause the window to shatter (O + Xs !>>> E). But if the baseball is the atoms, we are not adding anything to the Xs or O (Xs = O and so O >>> E). Or if the atoms do not exist as distinct things, but only the baseball, then we cannot add the atoms to the baseball because they do not exist (O and so O >>> E). Or if the baseball is its composite atoms plus something, we could say that the baseball that is partially composed of atoms caused the window to shatter (O = Xs + ? and so O >>> E). The baseball is not in addition

M.

P.

Robert R. Wadholm to its atoms. Rather, the baseball is the atoms and something else (it is not merely some distinct thing; it is the composition of the atoms plus something else). M. P. What about the third and fourth lines of my causal irrelevance chant? If none of the atoms cause the baseball to cause the window to shatter (X !>>> (O >>> E)), and the baseball does not cause atoms to cause the window to shatter (O !>>> (Xs >>> E)), we might still have options other than causal irrelevance open to us. Like what? Well, let us say that in option one the atoms cannot cause the baseball to cause anything, or vice versa, because the composition of the atoms is the baseball (O = Xs). Rather, the baseball (or, equivalently, the composition of all of the baseballs atoms) causes the window to shatter. Our second option: the atoms do not exist, and so cannot cause the baseball to cause anything, or vice versa, because they do not exist (only O, no more single X). Rather, the baseball (that fiendish devil) causes the window to shatter all on its own. In option the third, the atoms cannot cause the baseball to cause anything, or vice versa, because the atoms all together, plus something, equals the baseball. Rather, the baseball (all of the atoms plus something) causes E. In this view, one single X of the baseball might cause E, and we could still say O caused E, because, although it was not the baseball in each of its parts that caused the event, it was part of the entirety that caused the event, and thus the whole caused the event. M. P. But the part does not equal the whole (O != X), as in what I said first about causal irrelevance. You speak truly. (ponders) Butin your view all of the atoms that were arranged baseball-wise did not cause the event either, only the ones that were involved in the shattering. If we can subtract even one atom from the many and the window still shatters the same, we have proved that not all of the atoms were necessary for the event to occur, and thus that some of the atoms that were arranged baseball-wise were causally irrelevant. So the Xs did not cause E, only this X and that X, and it is likely that those ones werent even arranged baseball-wise (if we deleted all of the causally irrelevant atoms from the mix). So the baseball-wise-ness is causally irrelevant as well. That is good, because I do not think that baseball-wise-ness is a thing, rather it is just an arrangement. But if the baseball-wise-ness is causally irrelevant and not a thing, why do you refer to the atoms as being arranged baseball-wise as if it were important to this case? It is important. It helps us identify which atoms I am talking about. But we do not know which atoms you are talking about. (points at Xs) Perhaps only some of those atoms caused E, not all of them. And if that is true, your use of baseball-wise does not help us identify which ones those are. Dont we need the real culprits, and not just atoms acting in concert in which some might have been the culprits? Or do we? 3

M. P.

M.

P.

M. P.

Robert R. Wadholm If the baseball is a true composition, as in two of the views I mentioned earlier, we may be able to posit that while O !=X (and thus some of the atoms do not equal all of the atoms, or some of the atoms do not equal all of the atoms plus something), still O = Xs or maybe O = Xs + ?. If a part of O is guilty, O is guilty. Not guilty by association, but guilty because it is composed of the guilty (at least in part). Each X does not have to be guilty for Xs to be guilty. Like a composite statement, in which one part is false, and thus can make the entirety false. It may be that applying causal irrelevance to a composite is never quite appropriate for this reason. M. P. Why would you say that? Because if O is a composite, made up at least partially by Xs, then what Xs do in concert, so does O, for O is made up of Xs. O (if composed of Xs) is not an X itself (and it might be irrational to suppose it was), and so is counted differently (it is not one among the many, it is the many, or the many plus something). In the additional view, if O is a unity, Xs do not exist in and of themselves, and O is the cause (for lack of other causer). So it seems that O is responsible for E in all three of these other views, in spite of positing causal irrelevance (because causal irrelevance may not apply to them). (grabs O from the ground and binds him to take him to prison) O. P. Noooooo! Silence! There is only one thing I still wish to know. What about the existence of our phantom? If it is a macrophysical object, made up of atoms, does it exist? I guess we will never know, for only Ms words entered this show. Hmmm. And there the phantom speaks again! And is he causally relevant and able to speak, or is it his atoms that speak? Further, if the argument for causal irrelevance is a composite (and it seems to be made of at least four parts as enumerated), does it exist in his view?

M. P.

(Silence) (Another baseball is thrown from offstage and hits P on the head, knocking him to the ground and killing him instantly) M. (Merricks enters from offstage, looking at the dead body of P aghast, then turns and whispers to the audience) I didnt do it!

(M exits)

Robert R. Wadholm

Scene 2: Conclusions Large and Small

(The first baseball, amongst the wreckage of the glass and the broken philosopher at its feet, rises and begins to sing as in a Greek chorus) Xs. Though many, we are one. Though I am small, we are large. Are we ultimately one, do we cease to exist if we are, or are we many and parts of something grander than us all together? X. X. X. Xs. X. X. Xs. O. X. I am one. Me too. Yes, and me. But are we part of something more than us? I am guilty. I didnt do it. Together, we are guilty. As am I. Bummer.

(The curtain descends)