How many times must Galileo drop the two balls before he "knows" that they will always fall at the same rate? Till he is satisfied? That brings subjectivism into science!

Objects in motion possess (or are) kinetic energy. Gravity is not a kinetic energy. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces in nature. The other three are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. Kinetic energy is not a fundamental force but a force that is bound to objects. — Ron Cram

You seem to understand the difference between "force" and "kinetic energy", so why insist that kinetic energy is a force? Do you not recognize that forces are understood as potential energy, not as kinetic energy?

That's a good question. One element Newton and others look for is physical necessity. — Ron Cram

You are making this up. Newton discusses no such thing as "physical necessity", he simply states his "laws" of motion. Whether or not these laws are meant to represent an observed "physical necessity" is never mentioned, and such a conclusion (by you) is an absurdity.

What might sometimes be referred to as a "physical necessity" is the necessity derived from an inductive conclusion. But as Hume demonstrated, this is not truly a necessity at all, because it is probability based. There is no such thing as "physical necessity" in the way that you use it

Math can show that a physical necessity is at work, even if the physical necessity is not clearly understood. — Ron Cram

If you truly believe this, then show me an instance where math demonstrates a physical necessity which is not based in statistics and probability.

You are asking the wrong questions. Why not try to find an argument that will refute the examples I've given instead of trying to change the subject? — Ron Cram

Your might care to try to see your examples for what they are, rather than descriptively. Nor have I changed the subject. You wrote this:

Cause and effect are directly observable. — Ron Cram

I simply ask you what you directly observe. Answer pending....

Every physicist in the world has been taught that Newton's third law of motion is also called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. How can you verify my claim that Newton's third law is commonly called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect? Let me Google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Newton%27s%20law%20of%20cause%20and%20effect%22 — Ron Cram

Good- now let's examine the evidence.

If every physicist learns that the Third Law of Motion is also called the law of cause and effect, then one would expect to see plenty of pages about the laws of motion. What one finds is as follows, in order...

• a self-published PDF of an article on the metaphysics of Newton's theory of motion arguing that force and cause are the same thing.
• this thread
• an article about Karma
• a mention in a book about managing your money
• a mention in another book equating it to Devine justice

and so on. The very evidence you cite shows that you are wrong.

Incidentally, I linked to the same search in my second post here:

A quick scroll down the Google results of "Newton's Law of Cause and Effect" shows a bunch of fringe notions that look to be trying to blame Newton for stuff he didn't say. — Banno

So, there's that.

Some small number of folk do call Newton;s third Law the Law of Cause and Effect. It's certainly not common, and it is also misleading.

SO it seems to me that unfortunately your research is misguided.

I simply ask you what you directly observe. Answer pending.... — tim wood

I have provided this answer more than once, but will do so again. Let's take the four examples I've cited.

1. One billiard ball moves, strikes a second ball and causes it to move. This is cause and effect. What you are observing is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first billiard ball "has" or "is" kinetic energy. Either term is acceptable because kinetic energy exists because the ball is moving. The kinetic energy and the moving ball are inextricable. Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when the first ball strikes the second, it causes the second ball to move. The first ball has slowed or stopped and the second ball which was stopped is now moving. That you are observing a transfer of kinetic energy is plainly obvious.

2. A match is consumed by the flame. When you strike a match, a flame ignites. The combustion process requires fuel, it is a physical necessity. As the match burns, you can see that it is consumed by the flame as smoke rises from the match. You can watch the flame progress down the match as it burns. The flame is causing the match to be consumed.

3. A brick shatters a window. When someone throws a brick through a window, we know the window is going to break. A physical necessity exists. Two solid objects cannot occupy the same space. You can even video record the brick breaking the window and watch in slow motion if you choose. You will see the brick begin to warp the window until the window cannot bend anymore without breaking, and then it breaks. There is no reasonable question about the brick causing or not causing the window to break. Causation is plainly visible.

4. Decapitation causes death. This form of execution was rarely used when Hume was alive but came back into fashion after Hume passed during the French Revolution. A physical necessity exists for anyone to be alive. Actually, many physical necessities exist, but we are only looking at one. The one is the head must be connected to the body. When you chop someone's head off, it causes them to die. There is no question about this. Cause and effect are in play. You can watch them as the axe or guillotine blade comes down.

If you wish to refute me, then you must defend each of these statements:
1. Two billiard balls can occupy the same space.
2. A flame does not require fuel to burn.
3. A brick cannot cause a window to break.
4. Decapitation does not cause death.

Good luck!

I don't wholly buy into the Principle of Sufficient Reason either. — ChatteringMonkey

Hume believed in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Constantly throughout the Treatise he is inquiring after the cause of certain mental events. It's funny that he doesn't like the principle of sufficient reason regarding the external material world, but he is a true believer regarding mental events. Hume believes our thoughts are caused by impressions, ideas, contiguity, resemblance, connection, imagination. He comes up with all kinds of causes for mental events, but he want to suspend judgment on material objects.

Consider the post

It's pretty astonishing that someone with pretences to philosophical reasoning can present such an argument.

Some small number of folk do call Newton;s third Law the Law of Cause and Effect. It's certainly not common, and it is also misleading.

SO it seems to me that unfortunately your research is misguided. — Banno

The little google search I provided for you demonstrates that I did not come up with the idea on my own. It is too bad that Google retrieves a bunch of non-physicist websites, but the evidence still proves my point.

It's pretty astonishing that someone with pretences to philosophical reasoning can present such an argument. — Banno

If you want to take on the assignment of proving me wrong, go for it!

It is too bad that Google retrieves a bunch of non-physicist websites — Ron Cram

This is a lie worthy of Trump. You provided the link to the Google search. Look at the Google Search. It does not support your contention that Newton wrote a law of cause and effect.

Ron Cram, you are picking a few things out from our experience of the world. We can all provide thousands of them too! Which sense do we perceive causality with? If you lift a chair, you can feel the causality. But with billiard balls, you aren't feeling them, so the second ball might have moved without the first hitting it. We assume that the first caused the second. Matter can fool us. Matter mystified Hume, but not you. Again, scientists see repetition till they are satisfied there is a law. So science is subjective!!! Your attempt to salvage it is not working.

This is a lie worthy of Trump. You provided the link to the Google search. Look at the Google Search. It does not support your contention that Newton wrote a law of cause and effect. — Banno

Why are you so emotional?

But with billiard balls, you aren't feeling them, so the second ball might have moved without the first hitting it. — Gregory

When the first ball strikes the other, you can hear the click. Your senses confirm one another because the external world is real.

So science is subjective!!! Your attempt to salvage it is not working. — Gregory

Hume was anti-science. It sounds like you are also. Is that true?

I just found an interesting article by John Hawthorne. It's titled "Why Humeans Are Out of Their Minds." Published in Nous in 2004.

Quote
According to Humeanism, the causal facts pertaining to any subregion of the world are extrinsic to that region,' supervening on the global distribution of freely recombinable fundamental properties.2 For example, according to the Humean, a spatio-temporal region in which a certain intrusion of a bullet into a body is followed by death is only extrinsically a region in which the intrusion causes the death. The latter causal fact will, if it obtains, be underwritten by certain global regularities (most obviously, those connecting death to certain bodily disturbances) that are extrinsic to the region in question. Embed an intrinsic duplicate of that region in a global setting where very different regularities are in play and it may be false of that duplicate region that its intrusion and its death are causally connected. Similarly a spatio-temporal region that contains a substance that has a certain causal power-say of poisoning human beings-is only extrinsically a region where that causal power is present. Embed an intrinsic duplicate of a region in very different global settings and the relevant power may be absent. Humeanism thus delivers the thesis that the causal facts pertaining to a region are extrinsic to it. But that thesis, no matter how it is embellished, is incompatible with a pair of very obvious facts about my own nature. Accordingly, Humeanism is untenable. That many philosophers subscribe to it ought not to convince us to the contrary. History
provides reminders aplenty of philosophers' willingness to believe absurd doctrines.
End Quote
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3506168.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A79e73f454721bd90ec09b3583ff765b3

:grin:

So now you want to talk about me?


Sure. But first, take your foot out of your mouth.

Sure. But first, take your foot out of your mouth. — Banno

We don't have to talk about you. If you want to take up the challenge of refuting me, I've given you the four propositions you have to defend. Go to work!

I've found another interesting paper. This one is by Erica Shumener. Her article is forthcoming in Synthese and is titled "Humeans Are Out of This World."

Quote
I defend the following argument in this paper:
1. Laws of nature are intrinsic to the universe.
2. Humeanism maintains that laws of nature are extrinsic to the universe.
C. Humeanism is false.

This argument is inspired by John Hawthorne’s (2004) argument in “Humeans are out of their Minds”. My argument differs from his; Hawthorne focuses on Humean views of causation and how they interact with judgments about consciousness. He thinks Humeans are forced to treat certain mental properties (insofar as they involve causal features) as extrinsic to conscious minds. I do not discuss causation or consciousness here. Instead, I focus on Humean accounts of laws. I argue that Humean laws are extrinsic to the entire universe. As such, Humeans are not just out of their minds; they are out of this world.

I aim to show that premises 1 and 2 are well-supported and that denying either of them comes at a cost. Nevertheless, some Humeans may prefer to reject 1 or 2 rather than give up Humeanism. Even if the Humean takes one of these routes, the argument above has philosophical import: it shows that Humeanism involves surprising commitments.
End Quote

http://ericashumener.net/Shumener%20out%20of%20this%20world.pdf

Science is without criteria. If a billiard ball makes a click, what does this mean? It's just a sound. The transfer of force is not witnessed. It NEVER is. All we see is stuff happening. If we find fire that is not hot, we would say its not fire. That is subjective. Or we will say another cause is interfering. Why not say there was no law to begin with, just sense perceptions? A law needs criteria. Again, how many times does Galileo have to drop the two balls before he concludes a universal law?????????

1. One billiard ball moves, strikes a second ball and causes it to move. This is cause and effect. What you are observing is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first billiard ball "has" or "is" kinetic energy. Either term is acceptable because kinetic energy exists because the ball is moving. The kinetic energy and the moving ball are inextricable. Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when the first ball strikes the second, it causes the second ball to move. The first ball has slowed or stopped and the second ball which was stopped is now moving. That you are observing a transfer of kinetic energy is plainly obvious. — Ron Cram

I'll take a look at this for you. First, we cannot say that the ball "is" kinetic energy, because a ball is more than just that, and the fact that it stops moving and has no more kinetic energy, in your example indicates that it is more than just kinetic energy. So let's assume that it "has" kinetic energy, as a property. After the first ball strikes the second ball, the first ball no longer has kinetic energy, and the second ball has kinetic energy. So one ball looses kinetic energy, and another ball gains kinetic energy.

By what principle do you say that this is a "transfer"? One object looses a property and another gains a similar property, why would this be a transfer of property? Do you observe the property coming off of the one and going into the other? If it is true that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, how does this premise validate your claim that one object transfers a property to another? What we observe is that one object ceases to be in motion, and the other starts to be in motion. We do not see any transfer of motion.

When you understand a ball as consisting of many parts, molecules, rather than as a mass with a centre of gravity, you'll see that all the kinetic energy of the one ball must be transformed into potential energy before that potential energy can act as a force to accelerate the second ball. So there is no transferral of kinetic energy, there is a deceleration of the first ball, as its kinetic energy is transformed to potential energy, and an acceleration of the second ball, as that potential energy acts to create kinetic energy in the second ball. Potential energy acts as a medium between the two instances of kinetic energy, therefore there is no transferral of kinetic energy, only two instances of kinetic energy, with potential energy separating the two.

is that one cause and effect or many? You do see the problem, if it's "cause and effect," yes?

1. One billiard ball moves, strikes a second ball and causes it to move. This is cause and effect. — Ron Cram

No. It's what you call cause and effect. Ask yourself what is actually happening, in this and the rest of your examples. What, for example, is "one"? What, for example, is a "billiard ball"? What, for example, is "moves"? And so forth.

As has been already observed in this thread, the labels are labels of practical convenience - and no one questions the efficacy of such labels for their appropriate purposes. But they won't do for science. And MU, above, noted that modern science pretty much does without the notion. That is, on modern practice, if you attribute anything to cause, except in informal speaking, you're making a formal error, and a fatal one.

Science went this way because it found that the idea of cause and effect was no longer useful or accurate. When did this happen? Well, you could say it started with Hume about 270 years ago. Rehabilitated by Kant a short time later, but in a way that most folks neither grasp not understand - but that's neither here nor there.

The trouble here is that you claim to see something that you do not see, or, that some thing - action is not what it is, but is something else. That is real confusion in thinking.

As to "refuting" your examples, what is it you'd like to see refuted? That is, what is it, exactly, that yo'd like refuted, that you think is irrefutable?

Let's take your #4. Decapitation causes death. Is that what you claim?

But there's a simpler example: a fellow lights a fuse to some dynamite. The fuse burns as it should and the dynamite explodes. What caused the explosion? What does it even mean to presuppose that the explosion was "caused"?

I see I'm slow again and that someone else, MU, has already given comprehensive reply.

First, we cannot say that the ball "is" kinetic energy, because a ball is more than just that, and the fact that it stops moving and has no more kinetic energy, in your example indicates that it is more than just kinetic energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

The ball isn't kinetic energy. The moving ball is kinetic energy. When the ball is moving, the ball and the kinetic energy are inextricable.

After the first ball strikes the second ball, the first ball no longer has kinetic energy, and the second ball has kinetic energy. So one ball looses kinetic energy, and another ball gains kinetic energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. This is why we call it a transfer of kinetic energy.

By what principle do you say that this is a "transfer"? One object looses a property and another gains a similar property, why would this be a transfer of property? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because of the conservation of energy.

Do you observe the property coming off of the one and going into the other? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, we observe one slow or stop and the other begin to move. You observe the first ball lose kinetic energy. The second ball had inertia and the force of the impact was enough to overcome inertia and give the second ball kinetic energy.

If it is true that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, how does this premise validate your claim that one object transfers a property to another? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when one moves into that space, the second ball has to move out of the space. This is the physical necessity I've explained.

What we observe is that one object ceases to be in motion, and the other starts to be in motion. We do not see any transfer of motion. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, what we see is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first ball was moving, now the second ball is moving. It was knocked out of its space because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space.

When you understand a ball as consisting of many parts, molecules, rather than as a mass with a centre of gravity, you'll see that all the kinetic energy of the one ball must be transformed into potential energy before that potential energy can act as a force to accelerate the second ball. — Metaphysician Undercover

False. Kinetic energy does not need to be transformed into potential energy before doing any work. Kinetic energy directly does work.

So there is no transferral of kinetic energy, there is a deceleration of the first ball, as its kinetic energy is transformed to potential energy, and an acceleration of the second ball, as that potential energy acts to create kinetic energy in the second ball. Potential energy acts as a medium between the two instances of kinetic energy, therefore there is no transferral of kinetic energy, only two instances of kinetic energy, with potential energy separating the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

False, but let's say this weird theory were true. In that case, we would still be observing cause and effect.

Correct. This is why we call it a transfer of kinetic energy. — Ron Cram

That one ball stops having kinetic energy, and the other one starts, does not mean that kinetic energy was transferred.

Because of the conservation of energy. — Ron Cram

It could only be a transfer if the very same kinetic energy was in the second ball as in the first. But some kinetic energy is lost due to inefficiencies, therefore the second ball does not have the same kinetic energy as the first, and there is no transfer.

No, we observe one slow or stop and the other begin to move. — Ron Cram

Right, we do not see any kinetic energy being transferred from one ball to the other.

Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when one moves into that space, the second ball has to move out of the space. This is the physical necessity I've explained. — Ron Cram

This is nonsense. The one object could resist being moved, and just absorb the impact. There is no necessity that the object give up its place to give it to the other object. Again, you are just making up this idea of "physical necessity". It's pure nonsense.

No, what we see is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first ball was moving, now the second ball is moving. It was knocked out of its space because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space. — Ron Cram

Asserting nonsense doesn't get you anywhere. You need an argument to justify your assertions. As I explained, there is no necessity that the object gets "knocked out of its space", it might absorb the impact, and the other object might bounce of, or explode into bits. Your so-called "physical necessity" is nonsense.

False. Kinetic energy does not need to be transformed into potential energy before doing any work. Kinetic energy directly does work. — Ron Cram

Back this up with a mathematical demonstration then.

False, but let's say this weird theory were true. In that case, we would still be observing cause and effect. — Ron Cram

That's not true, and this is the whole point, which I explained to you earlier. We do not observe energy. We apply the principles and deduce that the object has energy. We do not see energy with any of our senses, we use our minds to figure out that the object has energy, through application of the principles. The same is the case with cause and effect. Which senses do you believe that we use to observe cause and effect?

Another problem with science is that it says that two identical things will always act in the same way. This is an assumption. Two things are at least in different places, which can affect how they act.

That one ball stops having kinetic energy, and the other one starts, does not mean that kinetic energy was transferred. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it does. The energy is conserved and transferred from one ball to the other. Forget that for a minute. How does denying that kinetic energy is transferred help your position that we cannot observe cause and effect? It doesn't matter what you call it. The two balls cannot both occupy the same space. One ball knocks the second ball out of its position. You can watch that happen. You can plainly see that one ball has caused the other ball to move. What can you possibly gain by trying to deny what everyone can see with their own eyes?

Every pool shark with $20 riding on the outcome of a game of 8 ball knows that cause and effect is in play. When the pool hustler makes the prediction "8 ball in the corner pocket," it is because he knows that when the cue ball hits the 8 ball it will cause it to move. Only a pseudo-philosopher would attempt to deny what we can all plainly see.

Another problem with science is that it says that two identical things will always act in the same way. This is an assumption. Two things are at least in different places, which can affect how they act. — Gregory

There you are going all anti-science again. You don't know how science works and so your criticisms of it are useless.

Back this up with a mathematical demonstration then. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure what you are looking for exactly. But here's a website that will explain the basic equation which can be applied in different ways.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Kinetic-Energy

This next lesson explains that kinetic energy can do work directly as mechanical energy.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Mechanical-Energy

Just because regularity has happened in this Eon doesn't mean it will be the same tomorrow, or that other dimensions won't blend with ours. Ron, you need to thing about that awhile, and then you can kick the whole "law" idea out at the end of the syllogism and reach a more mystical mentality. Anybody who defends common sense as reality is insane or hypnotized by themselves or another person. Hume called Spinoza's doctrine a monstrosity, but he wasn't far from its aesthetic.

1. Two billiard balls can occupy the same space. — Ron Cram

They can. Billiard balls aren't solid particles on a quantum scale. It's just spectacularly unlikely.

But, given that you are aware of the exclusion principle, how can one Billiard ball "hit" another if they cannot occupy the same space?

2. A flame does not require fuel to burn. — Ron Cram

A flame is[/] hot, radiating fuel, so this question is plainly nonsense.

3. A brick cannot cause a window to break. — Ron Cram

A brick on it's own certainly doesn't, or else how do houses have windows?

4. Decapitation does not cause death. — Ron Cram

Ever heard of a brain in a vat?

None of these questions are really related to causation, by the way.

If you want to take up the challenge of refuting me, I've given you the four propositions you have to defend. — Ron Cram

SO you are not here for an open critique of your ideas, preferring to set out the conditions for any disagreement only in your own terms.

Fine.

You can plainly see that one ball has caused the other ball to move. What can you possibly gain by trying to deny what everyone can see with their own eyes? — Ron Cram

That's an odd description. I've never seen a cause, and the way I understand "cause" it would be impossible to see a cause, so I reject that claim as false, just like I would reject as false, the claim that someone saw God. You are obviously using "cause" in a different way from me, and are unable to make your use appear coherent to me.

In relation to Newton's laws, the question is whether you saw the force, which acted on the ball, because according to Newton, force is what causes acceleration. Until you convince me that you can see a force, you will not convince me that you saw the "cause" of motion, using "cause" in a way which is applicable to Newton's laws. Any other argument is useless equivocation.

Every pool shark with $20 riding on the outcome of a game of 8 ball knows that cause and effect is in play. — Ron Cram

Do you not understand the difference between knowing that cause and effect is in play, and seeing cause and effect? One can know something without seeing it.

This next lesson explains that kinetic energy can do work directly as mechanical energy. — Ron Cram

What your lesson actually says is that a "force" does the work. You are leaving out an essential part of the equation, the means by which one form of energy is converted to another, and that is "force". As Newton explained, the billiard ball does not directly cause the other ball to move, it does this through the means (medium) of force. There is activity which occurs in that very short time between one ball moving and the other ball moving, and this activity is represented as "force" which is understood through deceleration and acceleration. The ball applies a force to the other ball, and the force is what causes the ball to move. The fact that the so-called transfer of energy is not one hundred per cent, and some is lost to inefficiencies, is evidence of this activity in the time between. And as I explained to you, in modern physics forces are understood in terms of fields, which represent potential energy, not kinetic energy.