Cause And Effect

[orgaelin]

Someone in the middle of a religious discussion mentioned that cause and effect were not necessarily in that order, and before continuing the discussion I thought it wise to bring it here.

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.

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.

Apply that to the existence of the universe.

...In the beginning(!) there was nothing, right? No time, no space, no nothing. If the universe already existed, there might be something in it that would be capable of creating the universe. Whether that be a god or a goldfish is unimportant right now. Ordinarily the main issue here would be that the god or goldfish would have to exist before it could create anything, but without time things are different.

Without time, something could literally create a universe that would in turn create it. Cause and cause!

I'm not seriously proposing either a god or fish were involved. What I think I am getting at is not 'what caused the universe' but rather that 'it is quite feasible for a universe to be created out of nothingness'.

I look forward to your comments...

[Impenitent]

there is no necessary connection between events...

to claim that it will happen in the future because it has always done so in the past is an error, the inductive fallacy...

no time or space? kant would spank you...

there is no need for a prime mover, and you couldn't claim anything about it if there was one

[Pooeypants]

Is that a bit like going back into time and pushing yourself into the time machine?

[orgaelin]

Yes pooeypants - spot on!

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Is that a bit like going back into and pushing yourself into the time machine?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

not at all...

according to kant, the human mind creates time and space

there is still no need for a prime mover

[orgaelin]

Impenitent... I'm having a little trouble with your post.

What do you mean by no connection between events?

Also, I don't think I said anything about something happening in the future because it has happened in the past.

I'm not up on Kant either, so am not sure why he would spank me... I'm assuming he wasn't into spanking as a general persuit

And finally, what is a prime mover? You mean like a first cause? If so, why couldn't I say anything of it?

I'm interested by your signature... "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" Could you explain that to me too while you're at it?!

Sorry - I must be being slow or something! :)

[Impenitent]

read hume...

1. I mean that there is no necessary connection between events...
just because a happens it does not necessarily follow that b will happen

2. that is the fallacy of induction that is inherent in scientific "facts" which are actually theories and percentages

3. kant would argue that you create space and time as a function of your mind... critique of pure reason...

4. prime mover, first cause, yep... why couldn't you say anything about it? well I suppose you could say whatever you wanted, but there is no empirical proof to back up your assertions...

5. the signature is for friends of bill w...

[damnrad]

</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. ;-)

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
there is no necessary connection between events...

to claim that it will happen in the future because it has always done so in the past is an error, the inductive fallacy... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Science assumes that past events provide insight into future events, that there is a connection between events, that cause and effect are useful concepts, that it should try to explain as much as possible in as deterministic a way as possible, that inductive reasoning is useful, that parsimony is good, and so on. You don't like some of those assumptions? To bad for you -- science has a good track record. What track record do you have?

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Is that a bit like going back into time and pushing yourself into the time machine?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I've always liked that idea in time-travel fiction. It's fun to play with.

As to what could exist, try reading Gott's "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe." Besides discussing how some time travel MIGHT be allowed for in Einstein's and others' physical theories, he also discusses time-travel conventions in popular fiction. Good fun all the way around.

Meanwhile, we go on living in the here and now -- well, at least until we get our bright, shiny, new time-travel machine.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
according to kant, the human mind creates time and space<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And according to cant, the media creates reality.

I take both sources with a grain of salt.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
read hume...

1. I mean that there is no necessary connection between events...
just because a happens it does not necessarily follow that b will happen

2. that is the fallacy of induction that is inherent in scientific "facts" which are actually theories and percentages<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

To Hume it may concern:
1. The connection between events has proved to be a quite-fruitful assumption to humans. Of course, it has to be dealt with carefully, because events don't repeat identically. Science has been pretty good at scoping out when they do and when they don't.

2. No, that's not the "fallacy of induction," that's "induction as a useful tool." And, no, facts are not 'actually theories' -- facts are much-easier come by than are theories. Neither is absolute certainty -- something science doesn't deal in. Scientific theories and facts can both be swept away by new discoveries; but both are established after rigorous study, so may in fact be rather persistent.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
3. kant would argue that you create space and time as a function of your mind... critique of pure reason... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Good for him. The issue is whether the concepts of space and time, created by human minds, are useful for getting around, and for explaining, the universe. They seem to be working fairly well, at least until some better concepts come along.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
there is no necessary connection between events...

to claim that it will happen in the future because it has always done so in the past is an error, the inductive fallacy... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Science assumes that past events provide insight into future events, that there is a connection between events, that cause and effect are useful concepts, that it should try to explain as much as possible in as deterministic a way as possible, that inductive reasoning is useful, that parsimony is good, and so on. You don't like some of those assumptions? To bad for you -- science has a good track record. What track record do you have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

assumption is not truth... usefulness is not truth... science is great, but it isn't the truth (neither is religion for that matter)

[orgaelin]

Impenitent...

1. Disagree
2. Don't quite agree
3. Agree
4. Note sure
5. OH, I see!

That's as much depth as I'm going in to because Damnrad has said it all already, sometimes more than once!

[orgaelin]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
assumption is not truth... usefulness is not truth... science is great, but it isn't the truth (neither is religion for that matter)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Or to put it another way, 'lots of things are not truth'.

IHMO, we can't have truth. We can only make agreements between each other and ourselves about what is satisfactory *for ourselves*. For example, what is satisfying for the majority of scientists may not be satisfactory for everyone, (or you!)

Sounds almost like I'm talking about sex now!

What I am interested in very much is just what does satisfy you, Impenitent; What is true for you? God? Reason? Biology? *anything*?!

Also, what are you impenitent of - any terrible sins we should know of?

[James Bath]

Push on a rubber membrane and the membrane pushes back on your hand at exactly the same time and with exactly the same force. Do it very slowly and you will see that at every millimeter-step of the way, a force is being supplied from both your hand and from the membrane. This is an equal and opposite force of precisely the same pressure magnitude, coming from diametrically opposed directions, and producing a net momentum-force of zero.

Both the membrane and the hand are cause and effect. It’s arbitrary which designation you give either one, because now they are both pushing against each other at precisely the same moment.

The prior journey of the hand to the membrane is beside the point as far as this thought experiment (if you will) is concerned. The concept at hand is “What is happening during the time the hand is pushing the membrane.”

The only answer to this is the membrane is pushing with equal force on the hand – not before and not after the hand pushes, but at the same time. If you suddenly move your hand away, the membrane will snap back into its normal position. It’s not the force of the hand that makes it snap back. It’s the force of its own contracting elastic – the same force it was supplying to the so-called “cause and effect” coupling of the hand and the membrane.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a quote from a very successful and popular physics teacher:

“Newton’s third law states: Whenever one objects exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first object. One force is called the action force. The other force is called the reaction force. It doesn’t matter which force we call action and which we call reaction. The important thing is that they are coparts of a single interaction and that neither force exists without the other. They are equal in strength and opposite in direction.” – Hewitt, Paul G. Conceptual Physics, Third Edition. Menlo Park, California: Addison Wesley, 1999, p. 75.

[orgaelin]

I see what you mean Mr Bath.

You're talking about the actual physical interaction.

So you have two forces, one from the hand, one from the rubber. But aren't these both effects of the hand pushing the membrane? Am I not right in thinking that action/reaction are not the same as cause/effect?

[James Bath]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
I see what you mean Mr Bath.

You're talking about the actual physical interaction.

So you have two forces, one from the hand, one from the rubber. But aren't these both effects of the hand pushing the membrane? Am I not right in thinking that action/reaction are not the same as cause/effect?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The pressure on the hand is the effect of the tension of the membrane pushing on the hand. In this view, the membrane is the cause. But it’s only a “view.” In truth, both entities are pushing against each other at exactly the same time. So both hand and membrane are causes (at least, this is an equally valid view to take). Actually, the whole thing is just one event in which the hand-pressure and the membrane-pressure are merely aspects of the single, unitary event.

Of course, one may argue that situations like this are isolated events, leaving initial causes outside the arena of the event, so to speak, and that they only enjoy their simultaneity in isolation. But I suspect that no part of the universe is isolated unto itself, that everything touches directly or indirectly. And as I mentioned in a previous post, I haven’t had time to really dig for the proof but I would think that, in a unified universe, if anything is simultaneous with anything else, all things will be simultaneous with each other since all things are in some way or the other in contact with each other – that is, in a sense, pushing against each other.

Hence, time loses its meaning – at least the meaning we are accustomed to giving it, such as things following other things. I think a better definition of time now would be “the measure of change.” (I think Aristotle had said that, didn’t he?) But that leaves us with the interesting task of defining change. Which ought to be rewarding in itself.

I’ve planned for some time to work on the details of this idea, and I’m glad it came up here to spark me on. I’m between projects and it’s a good time to work on it. Especially in an intellectually savvy forum like this.

Of course, it’s not a question that can resolved quickly. But neither was the “flat Earth” concept.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
assumption is not truth... usefulness is not truth... science is great, but it isn't the truth (neither is religion for that matter)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Or to put it another way, 'lots of things are not truth'.

IHMO, we can't have truth. We can only make agreements between each other and ourselves about what is satisfactory *for ourselves*. For example, what is satisfying for the majority of scientists may not be satisfactory for everyone, (or you!)

Sounds almost like I'm talking about sex now!

What I am interested in very much is just what does satisfy you, Impenitent; What is true for you? God? Reason? Biology? *anything*?!

Also, what are you impenitent of - any terrible sins we should know of? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

no, to put it as it is meant, science is not truth, science is based on an error in inductive reasoning...

I am in the same camp as mick jagger and devo... can't get no satisfaction...
true for me? truth is in the moment, and the moment is always gone...

impenitent of my irreligion and antichristian philosophy

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)

To Hume it may concern:
1. The connection between events has proved to be a quite-fruitful assumption to humans. Of course, it has to be dealt with carefully, because events don't repeat identically. Science has been pretty good at scoping out when they do and when they don't.

2. No, that's not the "fallacy of induction," that's "induction as a useful tool." And, no, facts are not 'actually theories' -- facts are much-easier come by than are theories. Neither is absolute certainty -- something science doesn't deal in. Scientific theories and facts can both be swept away by new discoveries; but both are established after rigorous study, so may in fact be rather persistent.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
3. kant would argue that you create space and time as a function of your mind... critique of pure reason... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Good for him. The issue is whether the concepts of space and time, created by human minds, are useful for getting around, and for explaining, the universe. They seem to be working fairly well, at least until some better concepts come along.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
1. fruitful assumption is fruitful assumption... events don't repeat identically... you destroy your science with this admission

2. the fallacy of induction is assuming that future events will represent past events based on the repeated nature of past events (look it up)... facts about events that are not identical? that is a prediction or theory, not a fact of the matter... science isn't absolute certainity neither is religion... that was my point all along... rigorus study of events that are never identical and never repeat? jumping jesus on a pogo stick! another "scientific" non repeating event in which to have faith...