Damn you! Still laughing. I can't stop...

G'nite my friend. :yawn:

Sweet dreams! :yawn:

I have put it in my Haglund. — Bartricks

:lol:

Okay, seriously now. An eternal universe can have created itself? The ball on the cushion is self caused?

Simultaneity in re causation is actually a fallacy: cum hoc ergo propeter hoc. The cause must always be anterior to the effect.

Question begging

Question begging — Bartricks

How so? I'd say the principle that causes must temporally precede effects is derived from empirical evidence and it's held up to scrutiny.

you have just taken as gospel the very thesis whose credibility is in question, namely that every cause precedes its effect.

you have just taken as gospel the very thesis whose credibility is in question, namely that every cause precedes its effect. — Bartricks

derived from empirical evidence and it's held up to scrutiny. — Agent Smith

The cause must always be anterior to the effect. — Agent Smith

Unless time flows backwards. Then what we call effect gets ahead of cause. Tceffe->esuac. Or will the effect become the cause then?

you have just taken as gospel the very thesis whose credibility is in question, namely that every cause precedes its effect. — Bartricks

What do you think about them then? All-in-one?

Substance causation is causation by a substance. When the substance is an agent it is called 'agent causation'. You are simply referring to agent causation when you maintain that an act of will is not an event but causes an event. — Bartricks

Yes, I am referring to "agent causation". But I went through this already. A substance does not cause anything on its own, it is the act of the substance which is the cause. That's what makes the substance an "agent", it is acting. Your description, 'the ball is always on the cushion', contains no act, so there is no agent, and no causation. There is no event described, only a static situation.

But anyway, as you clearly accept the coherence of substance causation, then you should also accept that there can be simultaneous causation, for that's what one has with substance causation. When a substance causes an event, the causation and the event are simultaneous. To maintain otherwise would be to have to posit some earlier 'event' that caused the later event - but then that's event causation, not substance causation. — Bartricks

But there is no "event" in your description, only a static situation. Do you understand the difference between a static unchanging situation, a state, and an event, which is an occurrence, something which happens? You need to show me an event before you can claim that the substance and the event are simultaneous. You have given me two substances, the ball and the cushion, and a static relation between the two. Now describe the event (what occurs, or happens), the act, so that we can determine the agent, and what type of causation is involved in that event.

Once again: you are begging the question.

There is no empirical evidence that simultaneous causation is impossible. And it is its possibility that I am defending.

Now, stop begging the question and engage with the argument.

You clearly don't really understand what substance causation is.

Substance causation involves a substance - an object - causing an event. Not - not - by means of some other event. That's event causation. But directly.

You can put whatever label you like on the instantiation of that causal relationship - you can call it an 'act' or a teapot, it won't make a difference. The simple fact is that substance causation involves the instantiation of a causal relation between a substance and an event. And when does that occur? At the time of the event. Thus, substance causation 'is' simultaneous causation.

If time runs backwards there is still linear causation, just no linear time

Yes. But then the cause has become the effect and the effect the cause. Entropy will get smaller and smaller. The universe will end on a singularity. And a new universe will spring into being at infinity. With maximum entropy i.e., scrambled photons carrying the information of the universe to reversely be.To contract again, while creatures arise from the grave, words are inhaled, and babies are sucked back in the womb. How would such a world feel like? Like a puppet on reverse strings? Like those puppets with a clockwork inside, to excite with a key?

You clearly don't really understand what substance causation is. — Bartricks

That's because I have never come across "substance causation" before, it seems to be your idiosyncrasy, and you haven't yet explained it in a coherent way.

Substance causation involves a substance - an object - causing an event. Not - not - by means of some other event. That's event causation. But directly. — Bartricks

But a substance must act to in order to cause an event. This is how we can say that the substance is an "agent".

You can put whatever label you like on the instantiation of that causal relationship - you can call it an 'act' or a teapot, it won't make a difference. The simple fact is that substance causation involves the instantiation of a causal relation between a substance and an event. And when does that occur? At the time of the event. Thus, substance causation 'is' simultaneous causation. — Bartricks

An "act", like a "teapot", is something which is describable. So, when the substance "acts" (or "teapots", whichever you prefer), to cause an event, we can describe that "act" (or "teapot"). Are you prepared to describe the proposed "simultaneous" act involved with the ball and the cushion?

I've seen some descriptions, where the cushion would push up on the ball, while the ball would push down on the cushion, the two pushings are obviously not equivalent. This is like the way that the gravity of the earth interacts with the gravity of the moon, both have an effect on the other. But this is not "substance causation" according to how you've used the phrase, because each of the two distinct substances act as causes, and each have an effect on the other. The "simultaneous causation" involved here, is two distinct causal acts acting at the same time. Is this what you mean? If so, since there is a requirement of two distinct substances acting as causes, it doesn't seem like it could support self-creation.

But is it the case that causes precede their effects? Well, there is no consensus on it, but probably most philosophers would accept that simultaneous causation is coherent. Kant used a famous example of a ball on a cushion. The depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball on the cushion even if both call and cushion have been in that arrangement for eternity. Thus in this case we have simultaneous causation. The depression is being caused by the ball, but there was no time when the ball came to be on the cushion. — Bartricks

In that case there is no cause for the depression, because there is no existence of the cushion with any other shape than that in which the ball fits. There is no evidence that the ball caused the depression - there is only your understanding of a ball and cushion as temporally related objects, which these are not. So you can’t apply that understanding here.

The problem is, you’re using actual objects and their interaction in time as a model for eternity. Causation refers to the potential relation of an event between the objects involved. You can say that a depression in a cushion is ‘caused by the ball’, but in reality the depression is caused by the impact between the cushion and ball: an event. There is no potential relation between eternal entities without the potential for change. If the arrangement has no potential for change (as described here), there is no cause to be determined.

The depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball on the cushion even if both call and cushion have been in that arrangement for eternity. — Bartricks

1) This is an arbitrary assumption or, at best, a hypothesis, and as such, it doesn't prove anything.
2) In the same way that "the depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball", "the cushion envelops, enwraps the ball" as well.

So, this is not a valid example. Do you have another one, where the effect precedes the cause or there's a simultaneous cause and effect?

(BTW, you are talking about the "causality principle", the reversibility of which has is still to be proved ...)

Only events, paradoxically the name is, contain both cause and effect. It depends which way objects on worldlines flow which precedes which. If matter were set in motion at infinity, the end of the universe, we would now be typing away the text on the computerscreens. Can you imagine?

This is an arbitrary assumption or, at best, a hypothesis, — Alkis Piskas

No, it is a thought experiment. And our reason is clear about it: the ball is causing the depression on the cushion even if the ball and cushion have always been in that arrangement. That's why Kant presented it and why so many afterwards appeal to it. It's why so many philosophers accept the possibility of simultaneous causation.

"the cushion envelops, enwraps the ball" as well. — Alkis Piskas

Relevance?

So, this is not a valid example. — Alkis Piskas

Validity is a property of arguments, not examples.

Do you have another one, where the effect precedes the cause or there's a simultaneous cause and effect? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I have given it numerous times. Substance causation is when a substance - an object - causes an event. It is simultaneous causation for the time of the causation is the time of the event. And substance causation has to be admitted to be coherent, for if one denies the possibility of substance causation then one will have to posit an actual infinity of past events.

Put it this way: if every cause has to precede its effect, then we're off on an infinite regress.

So there does not seem to be a way of denying the coherence of simultaneous causation and thus we have no basis for denying the coherence of self-creation.

(BTW, you are talking about the "causality principle", the reversibility of which has is still to be proved ...) — Alkis Piskas

What are you on about?

I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I am arguing that the only reason to think self-creation is incoherent is the assumption that causes must precede their effects. That assumption is false.

In that case there is no cause for the depression, because there is no existence of the cushion with any other shape than that in which the ball fits. There is no evidence that the ball caused the depression - there is only your understanding of a ball and cushion as temporally related objects, which these are not. So you can’t apply that understanding here. — Possibility

That's flagrantly question begging.

Imagine you come across a ball on a cushion. Now, if asked what is causing the dent in the cushion, you're going to answer - correctly - that it is the ball. Yes? Of course, you're going to say no. So just imagine anyone else - anyone else is going to say the ball is causing the depression.

Now imagine the entire universe came into being 5 minutes ago, with everything arranged as it is. Well, it's still true that the depression is being caused by the ball.

Plus, I gave TWO examples, the second appealing to substance causation.

The problem is, you’re using actual objects and their interaction in time as a model for eternity. — Possibility

The problem is that you lot don't understand how thought experiments work!

If an iron ball had always rested on a cushion it would eternally be the cause. Each minute can be seen as a member of the infinite series. But this has nothing to do with the effect being before the cause. It's still linear

Do keep up, Gregory. I am arguing that simultaneous causation is coherent. And that's what Kant's ball example shows.

As you seem extremely confused about everything (yet blithely unaware of this), try and recognize that I am not saying that there is a ball and a cushion that have actually existed for eternity, one on the other. Note as well that I am not saying that all causation is simultaneous causation. I am arguing that simultaneous causation is coherent and that, as such, we have no basis for deeming self-creation incoherent.

Why should the ball cause the depression when both are stationary? There are no cause and effect. There is a single event. The ball on the cushion. In a spacetime diagram there is a straight line only. Each event of both the cushion and the ball coinciding at one surface of contact. No causing going on. This would only be if the ball were laid on it. And even then it could be that the dent was already there. There is one event only, and we all know a single event is neither cause or effect.

My dear god... :pray:

That's because I have never come across "substance causation" before, it seems to be your idiosyncrasy, — Metaphysician Undercover

Er, no. You are clearly ignorant of the debate over causation and the debate over free will. Substance causation is a term of common use in philosophy. But you think that because you're ignorant of it, I must have made it up! Like most here, you think your own knowledge is exhaustive.

you haven't yet explained it in a coherent way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, I imagine you mean by 'coherent' 'a way I can understand'. That's not what coherent means.

Substance causation is causation by an object - a thing - rather than an event. So, not causation by a thing changing, but a change caused by a thing. It's not that the thing causes the event by undergoing some change - for a change is an event. The thing causes the event directly.

The first event or events are going to have been caused this way (some argue that all events are caused this way - that events are just manifestations of substance causation).

Many in the free will debate think that free will requires substance causation, where the substance in qusetion is ourselves (that's called 'agent causation'). And an apparent example of substance causation would be our own decisions, which we seem to make directly.

Anyway, it is coherent and importantly the causation involved seems simultaneous.

am arguing that simultaneous causation is coherent. — Bartricks

Causation at the same time? What on Earth do you mean? Simultaneous? What events are simultaneous? What causes? You're drifting off...

There's no event at all. There's no 'event' of the ball causing the depression in the cushion. Yet there is causation.

Causation at the same time? What on Earth do you mean? Simultaneous? What events are simultaneous? What causes? You're drifting off... — Haglund

When a substance causes an event, the event and the causation occur at the same time. The event's being caused is its standing in a causal relation to the substance. And that causal relationship is instantiated at the time of the event.

There's no event at all. There's no 'event' of the ball causing the depression in the cushion. Yet there is causation — Bartricks

Okay, the happening then. The ball aint pushing the cushing. It's the cushion doing the pushing. So the dent is it's own cause.