Thoughts on Causation
1 “Cause” can refer to reconfiguration, in which a new thing emerges from preexisting things, or “cause” can refer to the production of a new thing from non-existing things. [EDIT] The term itself is inherently ambiguous. Its sense is only derived from analogy; the analogy itself presupposes objects (things) which are related in a certain and meaningful way and that the analogy itself can be an analogy for other things. Therefore, the “analogy,” by use, presupposes its internal contents and presupposes that at least external another system for which it can be an analogy. “Cause” is understood in this way: that it is cognitively meaningful by reference to another system. The problem: in understanding “cause,” you do not access the “origin” of any thing within the other system. That a new thing is perceived may be called “causation” or that the concepts “new” or “novel” is meaningful may be called cause. But in giving “causation” its meaning, a system that is related cannot give “causation” an origin. Imagine this: the creation of the 47th iPod in a factory. It is “new” and “novel” to the system of [the factory], [the store in which its sold], [the house in which it now resides], etc. However, the no one could have conceived its being created at the exact time in the exact way in which it was created. From this, we see that “causation” has much to do with “ignorance” and its relation to “perception.” This notions combined give us a meaningful understanding of “causation.”
2 A person has a belief or beliefs. And for that person, his or her beliefs will only entail certain propositions [for that person alone]. When you use “speculation as belief” in your argument, you are using it in an equivocal way. Speculation refers to [a single person's speculation].
3 People may speculate in concert, of course, but this does not guarantee any new thing as existing (for instance, a communally accepted true definition. For a communally agreed upon concept, it will always be a tentative one. But what is certain is that it is possible for a person to hold on to a concept solidly. For instance, I can say for certain that I will always belief that there is only one member of the null-class. But for a community qua community, this principle axiom of set-theory may shift to a mutated definition. But not for a community qua individuals. This point is important because when we say “belief” we mean a person’s beliefs, not a communities beliefs or “the Form of Belief.”
4 Many arguments will use “belief” as if it were a Platonic Form. This is poor philosophical grammar. Thus, the argument is not false or true, but meaningless. If you encounter an argument of this type, detached from humanity, you should move on to a better argument to attend to.