3
   

More about cause and effect

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 08:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
igm wrote:

A cause does not arise at the same time as the effect.
A cause if it does not arise at the same time as the effect is not the cause of the effect as it has ceased before the effect has arisen.
A cause must have been present, if it wasn't present then there will be no effect.

Causation cannot be explained and you've already agreed that you cannot explain it... that summarizes what I've said up to now and you haven't shown it is incorrect... why are you continuing to argue?


Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It needs not be simultaneous,

If it is not simultaneous then how is the cause connected to the effect?

If the cause is not directly connected due to having ceased i.e. it is not simultaneous with the effect... why can't anything cause anything else? All other phenomena are also not connected to the effect?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 08:38 am
@igm,
Because of transmission ! And it is connected mechanically. Where did you take the idea it is not connected ?
If I punch you in the face I transmit energy to your face, the cause ceases to exist after the energy was transmitted, but the energy is passed on to you and you get to learn a punch hurts !!!
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 08:45 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Because of transmission ! And it is connected mechanically. Where did you take the idea it is not connected ?
If I punch you in the face I transmit energy to your face, the cause ceases to exist after the energy was transmitted, but the energy is passed on to you and you get to learn a punch hurts !!!

How is energy the specific cause of the effect? If it is, then energy is the cause of effects and not the cause prior to the transmission itself.

If energy is the cause of effects then you have the same problem as I explained with cause and effect, accept it is now called energy and effect.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 08:53 am
@igm,
You make no sense this is not a problem of infinitely defining many things between causes and effects it begs the question of infinite causes being necessary...you just need to understand transmission and mechanical connections allow X causes establishing followed Y effects.
In fact my understanding of cause & effect in a timeless medium where all the time sequencing of reality is already there, past present and future, is that "causes" and "effects" are just the order of existing events in the whole with a given pattern to it. You cant distinguish necessity of X causes for Y effects from non necessity because there is nothing else in the order of events. So even if the impression of causation is an illusion played at beings living inside spacetime necessity of causes is indistinguishable from contingency for lack of alternatives.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 09:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
A cause either has to arise at the same time as the effect or not at the same time as the effect... which is it?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 09:28 am
@igm,
For twice I told you now, a cause ONLY needs preceding an effect in a finite chain of X events. Cause n effect are not the same event, there is a change of states between A and B. That is, you have one followed by the other with nothing else between them. They are immediately connected to each other.
The timeless perspective has causes and effects distributed throughout spacetime continuum all the same. It just so happens like in a sequence of frames in a film all the spacetime is there already. It doesn't mean the beginning of the film is ahead or on top of the end or half of the film. The order established in the film the spacetime in the film is exactly as is.
The fact that the sequence exists in an ensemble doesn't mean the sequence has not a sequencing of events !
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 09:43 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

They are immediately connected to each other.

If they are connected then they arise at the same time, in which case the cause e.g. the seed is untouched and none of the seed is used to produce the shoot. This means that the shoot did not need the seed to be its cause because it did not use any of the seed to become a shoot.

They cannot be connected to function as cause and effect... the alternative is... they must be unconnected but as explained above this is not possible.

Nevertheless the seed has to have been assembled with the correct conditions for the shoot to arise... how?... it is beyond our ability to know.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 10:44 am
@igm,
Where did you took the idea connected things must arise at the same time ? Time is just another axis yet another dimension.
I gave you a clear example with the sequence of photos in a film. They are connected but there is an order to it.
For instance in a film where you did rise up from a chair the image where you are seated in a chair comes before the image you are standing up, they are connected in the 2D DISCRETE "space" sequence of the film, the time arrow, yet another dimension, establishes the order from left to right when the movie rolls. One cause stops its manifestation and the following effect rises in the next. None of it prevents you from grasping the whole film exists in a CONNECTED ensemble when you grab the tape.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 10:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Your explanation raises countless questions... it seems like your personal fantasy to me... I stand by what I've said.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 11:13 am
@igm,
Are you suggesting videotapes are a fantasy ? They are not real ? You asked for an example I gave you one.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 01:11 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Are you suggesting videotapes are a fantasy ? They are not real ? You asked for an example I gave you one.

No... but your analogy doesn't explain why a cause cannot appear at the same time as the effect or not at the same time as the effect, not both and not without a cause... you have not explained how cause and effect works using your analogy.

Two film frames joined are not two separate frames but one piece of film consisting of two frames... the first frame of the film doesn't not cause the second frame of the film. However I look at you analogy it doesn't make sense to me as an explanation of cause and effect.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 01:41 pm
@igm,
Then I can't help you there...I can only say to you there are plenty of mathematical models of the Universe without assuming a background. They work exactly in the same way I explained you. Wink
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 04:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Wink
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 08:11 am
To put things in perspective there is a distinction to be made between pseudo questions and questions:

Why does the sun shine ? ...instead of How does the sun shine ?
Why does the rain is wet ? ...instead of How does the rain is wet ?
Why does igm writes the way he does ? How does Igm Writes the way he does ?

Because to the first version of the question the answer is always the same.
To the why question, the answer is always, because is its nature !
The same could be applied to igm pseudo problem with causation and the problem of mechanical transmission of energy, the how part was explained already, now why does it happen that energy and forces deform and transform bodies, the answer is obviously, because is its nature.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 08:53 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
No need to get personal Fil.

You are avoiding the logical consequence of the notion of cause and effect.

A cause cannot arise at the same time as the effect nor can it arise separate from the effect as I've already explained. What logical alternatives are there?

Does a seed arise at the same time as the shoot or not at the same time as the shoot?

By the way, if you believe your English is clear... it isn't... I can just about understand.. probably... what you are trying to say... that doesn't help in this or any discussion.

Finally, and this is why cause and effect are beyond elaboration... there has to be a seed prior to the shoot... but how this becomes the cause of an effect remains unknown.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 08:59 am
@igm,
You know how we can represent that problem in an A4 sheet ? I explained you already, but you seam to be missing it time and again. I didn't ask you to place a line on top of another line by juxtaposition did I ?
What I asked of you was to put a line (an event with duration) in mechanical contact with another line (another event with duration). It is simple, one comes first the other comes next they are not on top of each other, but they are in contact. From there you only need to understand that there can be transmission of forces, and that forces, deform and reshape objects by NATURE !!!
There is nothing else needing explaining !
You seam to be asking why forces are forces and why objects can be reshaped. It just so happens that so is the nature of reality.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 09:01 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

(an event with duration)

That's your problem... there is no duration... can you show me an example of duration? I've asked before and I'm still waiting...

The smoke screen of your use of, "It just so happens that so is the nature of reality." You'll be saying there's an uncaused cause, next.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 09:12 am
@igm,
Are you implying there is a cause of causing ? that is an absurd, you surely should be able to see that.
Or are you implying that the behaviour in our world does not depend on its own nature ? Which is to say that it depends on its own properties for behaviour, is that it ? Are you really asking why forces have the property of reshaping things or why objects can be deformed ? The answer mate is because that's the property of forces and objects. Forces carry energy objects are reshaped by it. There is no smoke screen rest assured what there is is understanding in distinguishing a legitimate question from a pseudo question. The only part of your problem needing clarification was in regard of causes and effects being able to stand in contact through a sequence. I have provided already the simplest exemplification in geometry on how does that work. You claimed there needs be a juxtaposition I show you there isn't !
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 09:20 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Remember, I'm not denying that a cause can be retospecivally remembered to have been in place prior to the effect having arisen.

How is the cause transmitted to the effect? Try and answer with one sentence as simply as possible i.e. it is transmitted by this or it is transmitted by that.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 09:36 am
@igm,
Event A, cause, at time X is in MECHANICAL CONTACT with, event B, effect.
From the mechanical contact, there is transmission of forces, at time X that provoke the effect.
(Remember contact does not require juxtaposition)
You can for exactness sake, substitute the subjective wording "provoke" by the more plain wording, "are followed by" the effect.
You may question causation by the reasons I explained a couple of posts ago, regarding the need for an uncaused causer, but not by its mechanic. There is nothing wrong with the mechanic per se.
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 05:57:11