3

# More about cause and effect

igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 09:43 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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.

When does the transmission of forces stop being part of the cause and start being part of the effect?
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 09:50 am
@igm,
When the entirety of the energy package (quantity X) passes through the physical mechanical contact between A and B, the energy is absorbed, and is followed, to avoid the word "provoke", by the effect.
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

When the entirety of the energy package (quantity X) passes through the physical mechanical contact between A and B, the energy is absorbed, and is followed, to avoid the word "provoke", by the effect.

Is the cause, the energy package and the effect... are all three existing at the same time?
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:24 am
@igm,
They only need to exist in mechanical contact through spacetime.
if you describe spacetime in an ensemble through a geometric representation, you have several axis, the axis of space, one, two, or three dimensions, plus the dimension of time, yet another axis. Movement along these axis show the mechanical contact both in space as in time. They are not juxtaposed. You can say they coexist if you extend one dimension above the spacetime dimension and you observed all together in sequence in an ensemble, but remember even if in an ensemble they do not occupy the same spaces in the representation. They are along a group of axis.
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:30 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

They only need to exist in mechanical contact through spacetime.
if you describe spacetime in an ensemble through a geometric representation, you have several axis, the axis of space, one, two, or three dimensions, plus the dimension of time, yet another axis. Movement along these axis show the mechanical contact both in space as in time. They are not juxtaposed. You can say they coexist if you extend one dimension above the spacetime dimension and you observed all together in sequence in an ensemble, but remember even if in an ensemble they do not occupy the same spaces in the representation. They are along a group of axis.

Before I ask the question again... link to some science that agrees with you, I will study their explanation.

I believe you have avoided answering the question by using pseudoscience but you can just prove me wrong by showing a link that backs up your explanation.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:32 am
@igm,
Both Relativistic Physics and Newtonian physics agree with this. You yourself should have study it while in high school. Check yourself how time and space are geometrically represented. If you find something wrong come back and correct me.
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 10:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
igm wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

When the entirety of the energy package (quantity X) passes through the physical mechanical contact between A and B, the energy is absorbed, and is followed, to avoid the word "provoke", by the effect.

Is the cause, the energy package and the effect... are all three existing at the same time?

Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 11:38 am
@igm,
To the first part of you question now for the third time Yes, to the second part depends on the point of reference being on a dimension encompassing spacetime or if the reference is within spacetime. In none of the cases there is a juxtaposition of events although they are mechanically linked !
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 12:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Is the cause, the energy package and the effect... are all three existing at the same time i.e. the cause, the energy package and the effect (they are all named by you as part of cause and effect)?

Answer my question Fil... yes or no? It's in blue above. Or just say you can't answer yes or no. Don't say anything other than yes, no or neither yes or no.

Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:20 pm
@igm,
I have answered your question in the most correct possible manner several times now. When I am saying it depends of the frame of reference you use I am not joking. If you have any doubts investigate the subject, I am not your teacher or tutor.
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
It's a simple question I've asked... and you won't answer... with a yes, no or both (you'll need to explain how) or neither or some other explanation... your frame of reference is not science it's pseudoscience if you are saying it is outside of spacetime. If it's within spacetime then you can answer in a straightforward manner as asked... this is about philosophy and not science and it can be answered without reference to science.

igm wrote:

Is the cause, the energy package and the effect... are all three existing at the same time i.e. the cause, the energy package and the effect (they are all named by you as part of cause and effect)?

Answer my question Fil... yes or no? It's in blue above. Or just say you can't answer yes or no. Don't say anything other than yes, no or neither yes or no.

By the way, Science isn't saying it understands causation it just assumes it. You are saying you understand it Fil... pseudoscience.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:34 pm
@igm,
There is no way of knowing if on the realm of all possible (conceivable universes) our Universe belongs to a frame of reference that encompasses Spacetime or if spacetime is at the core of reality. This is the SCIENTIFIC correct answer to your question. If you have any problems with it debate the scientists. Is perfectly correct to say that it depends on the frame of reference once we don't know for sure which one is true.

Second you ought to understand I am not particularly talking of causation at this point I already explain you why 10 posts ago I am talking of the sequence of events in reality to which we vulgarly apply the coinage causation. I am talking of the mechanics between events and that suffices to make my point.
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
In other words you don't know how cause and effect actually takes place which is what I've been saying from the beginning... it isn't possible for science or you to explain how a cause produces an effect.. but it is required nevertheless... and assumed in order that further science can be done.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:41 pm
By the way and just so you know, you ARE NOT TALKING of CAUSATION, you are using the term causation to refer to the mechanic of events in spacetime. That is what you have been asking independently of what you intended to ask.

The problem of causation is classically debated as I frame it in the first place regarding the problem of a first cause not having a cause. That is the best argument against the concept of causation but that doesn't change one inch the problem you have in fact address which is the mechanic of events in spacetime.

You assumed a juxtaposition was needed when the only thing needed is a CONNECTION !!!!
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:43 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
That's called changing the subject Fil... why?... because you realized that there was no answer... it can't be answered, but causation is just assumed and then the problem of explanation is ignored by science and they move on to questions that do seem to have an answer or at least an approximate answer.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:45 pm
@igm,
Read above it was edited. I am addressing the subject you are the one who seams to be at odds with WHAT EXACTLY IS/WAS the subject !
0 Replies

igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

By the way and just so you know, you ARE NOT TALKING of CAUSATION,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation

Causation
:

Causality, in philosophy, a relationship that describes and analyses cause and effect

What are you talking about Fil... I'm disappointed in you...

Goodbye!
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:48 pm
@igm,
...oh gosh !!! bye bye...
(you donĀ“t disprove causation with your argument was the point. Your argument is relevant for spacetime mechanics and not for disproving causation. In fact it is completely irrelevant to it for the simple reason it is false.)
igm

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 01:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Of course Fil... in your world... you couldn't answer a simple yes/no question and wouldn't admit to knowing, that if you did, your position would have been untenable.

http://able2know.org/topic/222602-3#post-5507036
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 29 Nov, 2013 02:09 pm
@igm,
My position is exactly the same as in the beginning rest assured.
I can quote you several passages in my posts in this thread where I myself explain how you can question the problem of causation.
The problem at hand has nothing to ad to it. It is a question on spacetime mechanics and geometry that DOES NOT DISPROVE causation on its formulation.

### 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