I think some might be slightly troubled by hearing that logic is not causal. But I agree.
One can _test_ a set of statements to see if they are valid logical deductions from another set of statements. Even if true, this does not mean that the deducible statements are _caused_.
In some cases, that statement from above (the deduced one) might be 'realized' (noticed by people) before its premises are!
We might even be able to logically prove it is true without the other set of statements! Why? There are multiple logical paths (not always mapping to reality) that _could_ prove a particular statement.
They are physical causes but they are abstracted from matter. The underlying cause originates from the math/logic, not the material instantiation. Physicalism is often conflated with materialism, but the world is physically constituted by more than matter!
A lot of this world is obviously caused by the inherent formal influence of math and logic. There are ongoing mysteries in this, to be sure, but these forms are beyond matter. I’m speaking from the Pythagorean-Platonic-Tegmark school of thought. I’m trying to address the typical atheist layperson scientist who hasn’t thought through immaterial reality (rejecting it as supernatural, thinking it involves ghosts or spirits or something). I know there are reasonable counter positions to argue why math isn’t real, but I don’t subscribe.
> They are physical causes but they are abstracted from matter.
That sequence of words doesn't even denote a coherent concept. To be physical is exactly to be a state of matter/energy.
> The underlying cause originates from the math/logic, not the material instantiation.
No, logic, including math, describes the relationship between abstract concepts. It doesn't cause anything. Implication is not causation.
> I’m trying to address the typical atheist layperson scientist who hasn’t thought through immaterial reality
I'm Catholic, not atheist, and I have no problem with immaterial reality, or even immaterial causes of material effects. But I do have a problem with the simple error of describing immaterial concepts as being physical causes, or with describing systems of concepts and oc describing their relations as causes of anything, except insofar as belief in them causes behavior in the believer.
> I know there are reasonable counter positions to argue why math isn’t real, but I don’t subscribe.
There are certainly senses in which “math is real” is a valid or defensible statement, but bot in the sense of it being a physical thing which can exist as a cause.
Most physicists don’t see the world as “made” of stuff, either matter or energy. But algorithmic laws. The ontology of modern physics is weird.
Physical refers to natural causes. How could math not be causal? Not like, math in a textbook (though I’d argue that is causal too. Ideas are immaterial but they cause effects in the material world. They are thus natural, physical causes!).
Maybe you’d prefer the word “necessitate” over cause? Mathematical and logic necessitate certain effects in material reality? Personally I don’t see a difference, but maybe you do.
