This is not a possibility, backed by the fact that you posted an argument on an online forum. Barring the fact that you were the cause of writing that argument, the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality. — Philosophim
the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality. — Philosophim
Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still.The classic Hume approach. — Philosophim
Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball.
— Philosophim
Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist.
The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state
— Philosophim
Is there a new thing that exists when the 8 ball exists in a new velocity state?
You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.
— Philosophim
Sure... would that be a new thing existing? — InPitzotl
Now you impose your idea of causation into someone's mind. If the person addressed doesn't agree, your reality is wrong, and your idea of causality is just an idea then. Even if computers and the internet seem to conform to your idea. There can even be physics done without the use of time, without cause and effect, seeing the whole of existence as one instant happening, unstructured by cause and effect. — Verdi
The internet and the computer I use are phenomena that are conditioned by the mental apparatus. Things in space and time have no independent existence outside of their appearance. — _db
I'm not clear how this is answering the question. Are you comparing the 8 ball before the cue ball hits it to the 8 ball after it hits it, or the 8 ball after the cue hits it to what would be the 8 ball were the cue ball not to hit it? And how does this relate to my question... what new thing was caused to exist?Yes, the 8 ball in a state of velocity is different from the 8 ball in a state of zero velocity. — Philosophim
This means nothing to me until you tell me what new thing was caused to exist.The reason it is in the state of velocity — Philosophim
You're a bit ahead of yourself here. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by causing something to exist, and you're having me pick scales for some reason or another.Depending on the scale of measurement, — Philosophim
Curious language... isn't this your argument? I would have thought you would be the authority on what was meant.I believe the argument isn't concerned with scale, — Philosophim
Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still. — tim wood
Disingenuious selective reading. Let's not waste anymore of each other's time. Our respective posts might be read and evaluated by interested third-parties. I've guven this thread topic far more attention than it warrants. Pax. — 180 Proof
With even one instance of independent causality, it cannot be the case that causality is merely in the mind. — Philosophim
There could have been many first causes. In theory, there could be first causes happening in the universe now that we're unaware of. But much like multiverse theory, its something we really can't test easily, if at all. — Philosophim
What then do you see as one instance of independent causality, which is only an illusion on your part, as reality doesn't contain causation, as it's merely imparted on it by us, to make our way through space and time. Very usefull features, them cause and effect, but merely Illusions. As seen by the person you address. Is his view not corresponding to reality, because he made use of cause and effect himself? — Verdi
Would gravity be a force? Magnetism? The Higgs Mechanism?My apologies if I've been confusing. The state of the cue ball in its new velocity is not the same as the cue ball without velocity. This is a "new" state caused by the cue ball's collision. Without the cue balls collision, or an equally placed force, the 8 ball would not be in its new state of velocity. — Philosophim
It is my understanding of quantum mechanics, that matter and energy are continually being created and destroyed from nothing and to nothing in the quantum vacuum state. — T Clark
Would gravity be a force? Magnetism? The Higgs Mechanism? — InPitzotl
I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at this point I'm not sure what the difference is between "cause things to exist" and just "cause things".I am not trying to put my own spin on force here. Yes. All of these are forces in physics. — Philosophim
Yes! You don't know how good it feels to finally speak with someone who is willing to take the conversation to its conclusion. — Philosophim
I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at this point I'm not sure what the difference is between "cause things to exist" and just "cause things". — InPitzotl
All of this necessitates that causality, independent of the human mind, exists. You believing that the computers circuitry does not exist when you aren't looking at it is not good enough for the chip manufacturers who ensure you received a working product. — Philosophim
Yeah, but it's not that simple. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics and creation from nothing, they'll tell you the quantum vacuum isn't nothing. Anything that can cause something is, by definition, something. — T Clark
I got my degree in CS, I know how these things work...regardless, none of it necessitates that causality exists independently of the human mind. Rather, all it demonstrates is that our perception of computers always involves an element of causality.
There is the computer chip qua phenomena, which is conditioned by the pure sensible conditions of space and time, and is understood through the application of concepts, one being causality; note that the computer chip qua phenomena is nothing when not considered in relation to them. Objects of perception are always in a relation to the mind, in that it is the mind that determines how the object is perceived.
The computer chip, as it exists independently of the human mind (qua noumena), is unknowable, i.e. it transcends the conditions of the possibility of experience. — _db
But if I am blind, light still exists. My perception of it by sight is gone, but it is still around. This is evidenced by there being blind people in the world and light still exists. If you are going to go into solipsism, I decline as that goes too far out of the topic we are covering. — Philosophim
Unless there is a language barrier, I can't think of anything more plain to prove that causality exists apart from direct perception than that. — Philosophim
This doesn't mean we should keep trying to look for prior to that which we discover causality, but logically, there will be a point that has no prior explanation for its existence. And if that is logically the case, what does that mean for the universe's existence? What potentials does that open up? Does this mean multiverse theory is not only plausible, but a logical certainty given enough time? — Philosophim
It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. — tim wood
And I wonder if that distinction has been made, or even seen, because accounts themselves are just convenient fictions. — tim wood
Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still. — tim wood
The point is, I suppose, that if you wish to account for your world with stories, you can. But they'll break down at the borders of your world. And just see to what lengths some - many - will go to extend their story beyond its border, where it does not belong. — tim wood
Different from the former as opposed to same as the former?Its about things being a state captured in time, another state captured later in time, and an explanation for why the state of the later is different form the former. — Philosophim
We do not experience causality! We experience phenomena, arranged in an order in space and time, and apply the concepts of cause-and-effect to these phenomena. — _db
Yes, a certainty. Besides, if one universe can become, so then can another. — PoeticUniverse
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.