There is a third thing or quality which explains how one ball causes the other to move. It is the transfer of kinetic energy. Whenever you see an object in motion, you are looking at kinetic energy. — Ron Cram
There's no 'force of gravity' or "masses attracting eachother"... gravity is the curvature of space. — ChatteringMonkey
False. Cause and effect are directly observable. I've given a number of examples. — Ron Cram
Hume is also the better scientist because he takes what the world does. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Are you ready to discuss Newton's laws without substituting "force", and address directly what Newton meant by this term? — Metaphysician Undercover
Notice that we conclude deductively that a force acted, by applying Newton's first law as a premise. We do not observe that a force acted. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've already quoted Newton's Principia. I've already proven what Newton said. — Ron Cram
The words "fundamental level" refer to quantum scales. Hume was not aware of quantum mechanics so don't try to force him to take a position he never took. In the video you linked, Sean Carroll admits that causes and effects are known on the classical scale. — Ron Cram
Newton did not assign a cause for gravity, he simply described it as a centripetal force without being able to assign a cause for the attraction. Einstein came with a deeper and more precise theory which explained the cause of the attraction as the warping of the spacetime continuum. — Ron Cram
Newton did not write a specific law of cause and effect; in particular, the law "To every action there is always opposed an equal action" is not a law of cause and effect. — Banno
Cause and effect are not directly observable. One might be able to observe a sequence of events, and then to claim that one is the cause, another the effect; but that claim, while perhaps guided by observation, is not something one can see. — Banno
Hume only made a sceptical argument about Causation, namely that (on a macro-level) we don't see anything like a mechanism or law of Causation, which was inferred by others at the time. For Causation to be true metaphysically it has to be true on a more fundamental level too, or what would 'metaphysical' mean otherwise? — ChatteringMonkey
On a classical scale means on the surface, emergent... that is not fundamentally or metaphysically. — ChatteringMonkey
Edit: The point is not that Hume took a modern physics point of view, but that he was sceptical of people inferring something they had no evidence for. And as it turns out modern physics seems to justify his scepticism. — ChatteringMonkey
I don't think causes (and effects) are the best vocabulary to use here, the curvature of spacetime doesn't exactly 'cause' attraction... Edit: ... and although some of the math stayed the same, the whole paradigm has changed. — ChatteringMonkey
Yes, that would be weird and not what I'm doing at all. It is a logical fallacy to think that because separating a head from a living body would cause it to die that sewing the head back on would cause the body to come back to life. — Ron Cram
False. Cause and effect are directly observable. I've given a number of examples. You have not attempted to refute the examples and so I am under the impression that you agree that cause and effect are directly observable in these cases. — Ron Cram
Everyone knows that Newton uses the term "force" to mean "kinetic energy" and "impulse" to mean "transfer of kinetic energy." — Ron Cram
You are thinking about this wrong. We observe cause and effect directly. We come to understand the physical necessity involves. This leads us to understand the natural law at work. The physical law then allows us to make inductive inferences. This is how science works. Modern philosophers of science understand this, but Hume and his followers are still living in the Middle Ages. — Ron Cram
I think you slightly misunderstand the point of the example. It's about why cutting of the head can be labeled a "cause" even though it's only one element among many of the system. I turned your examples around to show that your "cause" is not sufficient. — Echarmion
So it must be the moving brick approaching the window. It must be that the brick, in some instant, while on a certain vector through spacetime, is just about to occupy the same space and time as the window, on a different vector through spacetime. But that is a description of a state, followed by another state, where various particles are now on different vectors. We might call the transition from one state to another an "interaction", but where, precisely, is the cause? Is the entire state of the universe that cause, and the entire next state the effect? — Echarmion
No, there's a very big difference here. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. And momentum is equal to mass times velocity. "Kinetic energy" was developed from Leibniz' "vis viva" (living force), which was expressed as mass time velocity squared. This was later modified in the concept of "kinetic energy" such that kinetic energy is half of the vis viva — Metaphysician Undercover
Despite your claim that I am thinking wrong, you clearly have this backward. The "physical law" is an inductive conclusion, produced from descriptions of natural occurrences. Any "necessity" which is apprehended is a logical necessity dependent on acceptance of the inductive law. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no necessary relationship between the physical law and any "natural law". — Metaphysician Undercover
This is not a refutation. It is not even a positional statement about what happened. — Ron Cram
No, you turned around my example to no point at all. If you want to refute my point, then you would have to explain how the body could continue to function and live when the neurological pathway between the brain and the heart are no longer functioning. — Ron Cram
There is a physical necessity that the head and body be connected. — Ron Cram
There are many physical necessities that must be present in order to allow for the possibility of life. I'm simply pointing to one. — Ron Cram
No. Leibniz did not invent the term "kinetic energy." — Ron Cram
Newton clearly understood that an object in motion is a force, — Ron Cram
No, a law is not declared based on frequentism. — Ron Cram
False. What is true on classical scales does not have to be true on quantum scales. Also, Sean Carroll didn't mention this, but Einstein was correct when he said that GR and QM will never be unified because the spacetime continuum cannot be quantized. — Ron Cram
The term "fundamentally" and "metaphysically" are not synonymous. — Ron Cram
False. Sean Carroll is a modern physicist. He knows that we live in the classical scale universe and the video admits that cause and effect play a role in our everyday lives. — Ron Cram
The use of "cause and effect" to describe the warping of the universe causing the attraction of gravity is exactly right. — Ron Cram
The math between Newton and Einstein is very, very close. Newton's equations are much easier to work with and precise enough on smaller astronomical scales, that NASA used Newton's equations to plan the manned flight to the moon instead of Einstein's. — Ron Cram
It's a question. Given that you claim we can directly observe causation, you should be able to tell me what the actual cause is, in physical terms. — Echarmion
Can you point out to me what physical laws make this a physical necessity? — Echarmion
It could be kept alive by machinery. That's not difficult to imagine given we can stop people's hearts for surgery. — Echarmion
So, if there are multiple, which one is the cause? Are all together the cause? — Echarmion
I have. And I have asked you to refute me. You have not. — Ron Cram
It is the physical necessity that points to the laws, not the other way round. Are you doubting that it is physically necessary for the head to be attached to the body for a person to be alive? — Ron Cram
Machines can keep the heart pumping and keep air going into and out of the lungs, but that isn't enough to sustain life for a person without a head. — Ron Cram
The cause of the death is separating the head from the body. — Ron Cram
This is clear from the fact that gravity is a force, and it is not an object in motion. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, then when someone like Newton declares a law, what is it based on? — Metaphysician Undercover
No it's not, that's a Newtonian way of speaking about it. There is no attraction, mass curves spacetime, and the curve of spacetime determines how masses move. Singling out causes and effects to describe a proces where everything influences everthing else seems to only complicate the matter unnecessarily. — ChatteringMonkey
If an apple drops from a tree, it still falls to the ground. It does not go into orbit following a curved spacetime. Attraction exists. The warping of spacetime explains planetary motion precisely, but I don't see that it is explains gravitational attraction on the surface of earth. — Ron Cram
Causes and effects are necessary due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. — Ron Cram
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.