How does one distinguish something, an x, that has no effect from something else, a y, that can't possibly be a cause. In all probability, x has to be within the light cone of whatever is being considered an effect and y would lie outside the light cone.

This alone may not suffice for to infer causation there seems to be other essential requirements. For instance, if we're investigating the cause of a fire that started at 5:00 AM, many events will have occured in the light cone of spot where the fire began. Suppose we look at 1 second prior to the fire, the light cone will be a "sphere"(?)186,000 miles in radius. It's possible that within a sphere of that size, two lovers could be kissing, a vehicular collision could occur, and so on. However, knowing the mechanism of fire - heat + oxygen + fuel - that the kiss between the lovers or the traffic collision could be a cause of the fire is ruled out.

Then there's the issue of degrees or levels if you will. Take the example of a block of stone that weighs 10 Newtons. If we exert a force less than 10 Newtons, the block won't budge. Only when a 10 Newton or greater force is applied to the block, the block can be lifted. In such a situation, are we to conclude that the forces 1 or 4 or 5.6 Newtons (less than 10 Newtons) are causes with no effects? :chin:

Then there's the issue of degrees or levels if you will. Take the example of a block of stone that weighs 10 Newtons. If we exert a force less than 10 Newtons, the block won't budge. Only when a 10 Newton or greater force is applied to the block, the block can be lifted. In such a situation, are we to conclude that the forces 1 or 4 or 5.6 Newtons (less than 10 Newtons) are causes with no effects? :chin: — TheMadFool

If there was no friction, an infinitesimal force would be able to move a huge object. Again, that the block does not move does not reflect absence of effect. At the microscopic level, a bunch of non-covalent bonds are being broken. The forces that are unable to move the object have not broken a statistically significant amount of bonds to overcome friction and make the object move. They have an effect, nonetheless.

How does one distinguish something, an x, that has no effect from something else, a y, that can't possibly be a cause. In all probability, x has to be within the light cone of whatever is being considered an effect and y would lie outside the light cone.

This alone may not suffice for to infer causation there seems to be other essential requirements. For instance, if we're investigating the cause of a fire that started at 5:00 AM, many events will have occured in the light cone of spot where the fire began. Suppose we look at 1 second prior to the fire, the light cone will be a "sphere"(?)186,000 miles in radius. It's possible that within a sphere of that size, two lovers could be kissing, a vehicular collision could occur, and so on. However, knowing the mechanism of fire - heat + oxygen + fuel - that the kiss between the lovers or the traffic collision could be a cause of the fire is ruled out. — TheMadFool

For this part, I do not quite understand what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate/explain in other words?

Have you considered the Participatory Anthropic Principle? Or in layman's terms, the law of attraction.

All that is similar to the Observer Effect in physics (QM). We are all interconnected Beings.

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16)
Taken from: http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html#:~:text=The%20Participatory%20Anthropic%20Principle%20states,and%20probabilities%20from%20superposition%20into

I agree to some extend with this statement; to be more precise, I agree in that existence is conditioned. However, I do not agree that existence depends on life. We are objects just like any other object in the universe. Nothing special if you really think about it (not saying life is insignificant, nothing is). What I am saying is that existence depends on the interaction of at least two things. It could be an electron and a proton, a block and a force, an idea and a conscious mind, or any other system with multiple objects*. This is not the same as saying that the universe exists because life exists or because conscious observers exist. It would be more like saying that the universe exists because there exist at least two interacting things.

The other subcategories of the Anthropic principle seem to rely more in the existence of conscious beings. Again, I completely disagree with that.

*I say multiple objects because I am assuming that no unity/particular can act on itself (the forces would cancel to 0-@TheMadFool, maybe a case in which there is cause but not effect?) and that to interact is a requirement of existence.

The other subcategories of the Anthropic principle seem to rely more in the existence of conscious beings. Again, I completely disagree with that. — Daniel

Daniel!

Can you elaborate on that one a bit? Are you saying that an experiential world has no relevance or meaning there?

In other words, the distinction PAP makes is that it requires a subject/object relationship. An interconnectedness that without, would preclude the phenomenon of life itself/conscious existence. In a cosmological sense, it could be argued that it (the subject/object relationship) requires logical necessity to work.

Please feel free to poke holes... .

If there was no friction, an infinitesimal force would be able to move a huge object. — Daniel

This is incorrect. Rockets need fuel (non-zero force) to propel (move) themselves in space (zero-friction environment).

For this part, I do not quite understand what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate/explain in other words? — Daniel

Light cone

Causality

if there is no friction (static friction nor kinetic friction) i could accelerate a cruise liner with my finger. If there is the slightest bit of static friction or kinetic friction i would not be able to do that.

all matter in the entire universe is attracted to itself. Right now i'm pulling on you and you are pulling on me. We are pulling on every star in the universe.

What I meant is that if there was no other force opposing the applied force, then what I said was possible would be possible.

Are you saying that an experiential world has no relevance or meaning there? — 3017amen

An experiential world, in the sense of human/intelligent/conscious experience, has relevance and meaning, of course. Our experiences determine our actions which in turn affect our surroundings. We are part of existence/reality; we affect it and it affects us.
However, to experience, an object does not need to be conscious. I prefer the word interaction because it describes experience in more generally applicable terms. Every human experience comes from an interaction. Every object interacts. That's what I mean by every object experiences. I do not mean that all objects are conscious, but that all objects interact. Interaction does not require consciousness (as in Human consciousness). Consciousness, on the other hand requires interaction (assumption). Human experience is just a process analogous to the processes of planetary revolution, or protein folding, for example; analogous in that they are processes (that follow the same natural laws).
The Participatory Anthropic Principle seems to rely heavily in the idea that an "intelligent, information-gathering life form" is required to justify existence. I do not agree with this. I believe that the mere interaction (no matter the kind of) "justifies" the existence of the interacting objects. It is not, however, that the interaction exists before the objects exist since I think that is impossible. How could there exist a capacity of performing an action x without that which performs the action?
It is like if there was a fundamental triad that makes up existence. A triad formed by the interacting objects and the interaction.

If there is a single thing in the universe, we say (or at least I used to) there is existence, in contrast to nothing. I say a single thing in the universe cannot exist since existence requires plurality. Again, it is not the interaction that determines the existence of the interacting objects; instead, I'd say it is the inability of a single object to exist by itself*. Now, why not nothing?

Now, if life did not existed, reality would not be the same. However, I think this does not mean that life is a requirement for existence. If this was the case, any other concurrent process would be entitled to belong to the same category of conditional-for-existence. Maybe they all are. Or maybe something they have in common.

*Again, I am making the assumption that interaction is required for existence and that an object cannot act on itself.

if there is no friction (static friction nor kinetic friction) i could accelerate a cruise liner with my finger. If there is the slightest bit of static friction or kinetic friction i would not be able to do that. — christian2017

To my knowledge force, F = mass * acceleration. Do you suppose you, with your finger, could generate enough force to move a cruise liner weighing 100,000 tons?

Yes, absolutely, but because the force would be small and the mass large, the acceleration would be very small. But it would still be something: in the absence of any friction, the cruise liner would slowly begin moving, faster and faster the longer you kept pushing.

Yes, absolutely, but because the force would be small and the mass large, the acceleration would be very small. But it would still be something: in the absence of any friction, the cruise liner would slowly begin moving, faster and faster the longer you kept pushing. — Pfhorrest

I don't think a finger can generate the force necessary to move a cruiseliner. If you disagree, show me how.

Isn't that Newton's first law of motion? The law of inertia? I think he gives proof of it in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica; I am just guessing, though, never read it.

Just do the math in your own equation. F = ma, correct. If F and m are nonzero, then a is nonzero. Plug in whatever force you can apply with your finger and whatever you look up the mass of a cruise liner to be and find the nonzero acceleration you could apply to it. It will be very small, but not zero.

Just do the math in your own equation. F = ma, correct. If F and m are nonzero, then a is nonzero. Plug in whatever force you can apply with your finger and whatever you look up the mass of a cruise liner to be and find the nonzero acceleration you could apply to it. It will be very small, but not zero. — Pfhorrest

:up:

Isn't that Newton's first law of motion? The law of inertia? I think he gives proof of it in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica; I am just guessing, though, never read it. — Daniel

Yes.

I don't think a finger can generate the force necessary to move a cruiseliner. — TheMadFool

Yeah....me too. Seems I would move backward and the ship would pretty much stay put. Even with Newton’s law, there’s zero force on the ship if all the force is accelerating the lesser mass.

Yeah....me too. Seems I would move backward and the ship would pretty much stay put. Even with Newton’s law, there’s zero force on the ship if all the force is accelerating the lesser mass. — Mww

:groan: This is high school physics!

And experience. Ever tried to push a car on an icy street? Even if the car had a SaranWrap hood and you disfigured it with the pressure of your hands, the car ain’t goin’ nowhere but you’ll end up in a face-plant.

Not much point in claiming you accelerated the hood when the objects of discourse....the variables in Newton’s law....are you and the car.

Anything which doesn't affect something else is by that very nature undetectable and so can't be known to existence.

That aside, consciousness is perhaps an example of something that doesn't affect something else, depending on the answer to the mind-body problem. Perhaps consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity but not itself causally efficacious (which presumably must be the case else it would appear that brain activity happens without any physical cause - creation of energy?). Hence we can't know if another is conscious; only infer that they are on the presumption that the kinds of brain activity that are responsible for my consciousness must also be responsible for consciousness in other people.

And experience. Ever tried to push a car on an icy street? Even if the car had a SaranWrap hood and you disfigured it with the pressure of your hands, the car ain’t goin’ nowhere but you’ll end up in a face-plant. — Mww

It seems a face-plant for me doesn't require either a car or an icy street. I'm a natural at falling and falling hard. :grin:

Anything which doesn't affect something else is by that very nature undetectable and so can't be known to existence. — Michael

When you say "can't be known to existence", do you mean it exists, but it cannot be experienced? or do you mean it cannot be at all-it does not exist, in all the sense of the word? Could you elaborate more on that?

It is not, however, that the interaction exists before the objects exist since I think that is impossible. How could there exist a capacity of performing an action x without that which performs the action? — Daniel

Because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. (Otherwise, how would you explain Emergence?) The universe's fine tuning seems to be the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias) in that, only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter.

But as far as why there is something and not nothing (if that's what you mean) it's almost like asking what happened before the Big Bang (causation)?

When you say "can't be known to existence", do you mean it exists, but it cannot be experienced? or do you mean it cannot be at all-it does not exist, in all the sense of the word? Could you elaborate more on that? — Daniel

If it does exist we can't know that it exists.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When you push the ship the ship pushes back on you. The force applied to it and to you are the same. Since your mass is much smaller, the force accelerates you more. But the ship still accelerates too, just less so in proportion to its greater mass.

Imagine a spectrum of examples to illustrate. You push a person the same mass as you: you both accelerate away equally. You push someone slightly more massive than you: you accelerate more and he accelerates less, but you both still accelerate some. You push something much more massive than you: you accelerate a lot more and it accelerates only a little, but still you both accelerate some.

Anything which doesn't affect something else is by that very nature undetectable and so can't be known to existence. — Michael

If it does exist we can't know that it exists. — Michael

I am assuming that every object that exists is associated to some kind of intrinsic field (i.e., a gravitational field, an electric field, etc). The object and the field are the same thing (assumption); as in, the field cannot exist without the object, and the object cannot exist without the field-or could it? Theoretically, these fields reach to infinity. So, an object, theoretically, interacts with any other object there is. My question is, could there exist an object with an intrinsic field if there were no other objects (not necessarily human beings) which interact with such field.

a field is defined as a region in which each point is affected by a force

Imagine there is a universe in which only one thing exists*. This solitary object produces a field (which would be its potential to interact, or its potential to be experienceable as @Pfhorrest mentioned). The question is, would this field exist when there is no other object to experience it. Would then this solitary object have no field? Could this be a real scenario? or can it just exist in the mind?
(I'd say it can't, not even in the mind-where the object of thought is that, an object of thought).
So, I say that a condition for existence is that there must be an object with a field, and the object that experiences the field**. The field cannot exist without the object that produces it, and the object that produces the field seems to be unable to exist without the field (HUGE assumption). In addition, the field seems to be unable to exist without the thing(s) that perceive it. This is the reason I say, it is not the interaction that defines existence, nor the objects alone. To exist, there must be an interaction and two or more interacting objects. These are conditions of existence.

The interaction is required for existence but not sufficient.
The objects are required for existence but not sufficient.

So, for example, if the self exists, it must interact with something else. If consciousness exists, it must interact with something else. If there was a singularity from which everything came from, it must have interacted with something else. Anything that exists must be interacting with something else. Again, HUGE assumptions.


*I am assuming that no matter the universe, existence is the same everywhere; it must be. To exist is to exist whatever the kind of existence.
** I am assuming that this is the case because I have not found something that exists and does not interact (I know this is not a reason to believe what I believe, but I do not really know any other way to approach this question)

Yep. That’s what the law says. Right there, “M.P.N.P”, 1687, Book1, pg 20, “Axioms or Laws of Motion”, depending on which edition/translation is referenced, of course.

The facts don’t lie, and in the case of me/cruise ship/deep space....they don’t matter. And in the case of me/car/icy street, I lose, car wins.

What we experience on earth is nothing like in space. In space there is almost no friction except for flying hydrogen atoms and photons (light). Light and small things do provide friction but it is almost non existent

Ask a high school Physics teacher to confirm what i'm saying. However if there is no coefficient of static friction and no kinetic friction you could accerate a tank as long as you are applying you finger to it in space. It would push back and you would go in the other direction. If you were in space (as well as on the earth) every particle in the universe would be pulling on you and also you would start accelerating towards the closest moon or star more than likely. Gravitational pull is effected by the density of mass and something like inverse square of the distance.