Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 04:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
The suggestion was, in more detail, that cause and effect is actually a single interaction, not a sequence of one event and then another event. In other words, when a cue balls strikes another ball, the rebounding of the second ball is not a secondary (re)action but 'part and parcel' of the same initial action of the cue ball making an impact.

I view things a little differently. To me, cause and effect is a temporal thing. It happens within the confines on time, and is therefore subject to a sequence of action then reaction (no two events can occur at the exact same moment in time).

For a start, it's not always as simple as having one action and then one reaction. The cue hits the cue ball, which reacts by shooting across the table, hitting another ball. That ball then reacts by moving, possibly hitting another ball, and so on. This all involves the passage of time, and it could not be said by any means that the final ball to move was in fact the cause of the other balls moving and of the cue being pulled back.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I see it as how we categorize what we observe and how we theorize about it. Determinism and cause-and-effect have been very fruitful ways to explain the world. The temporal issue is that we assume that cause precedes effect, which is true even in the cue-ball example: the rolling of the cue ball into another ball precedes the rolling of the other ball away from the cue ball. True, the temporal ordering has raised issues for physicists who note that their equations show no preference for time flow one way versus the other -- but on the other hand, some physiscists have claimed that some equations do favor time flow one way over another. Not my problem. Likewise, temporal order becomes a nightmare if there is such a thing possible as faster-than-light travel, at least of information; but I'm sure that if physicists ever develop FTL, they'll figure out a way to deal with temporal order and cause-and-effect. ;-)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
But I still relate to where James Bath was coming from when he said what he said. It seems to me that he was talking about 'atemporal cause and effect', the way cause and effect plays out in the absence of time.

Putting aside the fact that without time you are without space and thus without objects to act or react, the most fascinating idea about atemporal cause and effect is that cause does not have to preceed effect. In other words, the effect can be the cause, or any ball on the table could be said to have been the cause.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

With atemporal cause-and-effect how do we sort out the causes from the effects? How do we know what is producing and what it being produced by it? I guess that at some time science could come up with decision rules for doing this and find that it could apply them fruitfully; but first science would have to have a reason to do so. Maybe when it tries out that first FTL starship. ;-)

Jan 29, 2004, 04:13 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,) The suggestion was, in more detail, that cause and effect is actually a single interaction, not a sequence of one event and then another event. In other words, when a cue balls strikes another ball, the rebounding of the second ball is not a secondary (re)action but 'part and parcel' of the same initial action of the cue ball making an impact. I view things a little differently. To me, cause and effect is a temporal thing. It happens within the confines on time, and is therefore subject to a sequence of action then reaction (no two events can occur at the exact same moment in time). For a start, it's not always as simple as having one action and then one reaction. The cue hits the cue ball, which reacts by shooting across the table, hitting another ball. That ball then reacts by moving, possibly hitting another ball, and so on. This all involves the passage of time, and it could not be said by any means that the final ball to move was in fact the cause of the other balls moving and of the cue being pulled back.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I see it as how we categorize what we observe and how we theorize about it. Determinism and cause-and-effect have been very fruitful ways to explain the world. The temporal issue is that we assume that cause precedes effect, which is true even in the cue-ball example: the rolling of the cue ball into another ball precedes the rolling of the other ball away from the cue ball. True, the temporal ordering has raised issues for physicists who note that their equations show no preference for time flow one way versus the other -- but on the other hand, some physiscists have claimed that some equations do favor time flow one way over another. Not my problem. Likewise, temporal order becomes a nightmare if there is such a thing possible as faster-than-light travel, at least of information; but I'm sure that if physicists ever develop FTL, they'll figure out a way to deal with temporal order and cause-and-effect. ;-) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,) But I still relate to where James Bath was coming from when he said what he said. It seems to me that he was talking about 'atemporal cause and effect', the way cause and effect plays out in the absence of time. Putting aside the fact that without time you are without space and thus without objects to act or react, the most fascinating idea about atemporal cause and effect is that cause does not have to preceed effect. In other words, the effect can be the cause, or any ball on the table could be said to have been the cause.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> With atemporal cause-and-effect how do we sort out the causes from the effects? How do we know what is producing and what it being produced by it? I guess that at some time science could come up with decision rules for doing this and find that it could apply them fruitfully; but first science would have to have a reason to do so. Maybe when it tries out that first FTL starship. ;-)