When a substance causes an event, the event and the causation occur at the same time — Bartricks

No, they don't. The causation event comes before the event it gives cause to upon touch.

I've been following this conversation along with many others that cover similar territory and I have several questions to all parties -

If "self creation" is possible - OR - if it is not possible - either way does that change how I should live my life? Should I give my worldly possessions to charity and live a life of penance? Should I leave my spouse and spend all my money on booze & hookers? Does this affect how I should feel about the Ukraine situation? Etc?

Also (and related) - why is this topic so important that you spend hours debating it? If this is merely for fun and/or intellectual stimulation I get it - there's no harm done and there are many worse ways of spending your time. But given the level of intensity and vitriol in these conversations, it appears that this topic is really important to people. Why? What difference does it make?

What has simultaneous causality to do with self creation? You say their analogous but they are not the same thing. The ball causes the dent, not itself

Also (and related) - why is this topic so important that you spend hours debating it? If this is merely for fun and/or intellectual stimulation I get it - there's no harm done and there are many worse ways of spending your time. But given the level of intensity and vitriol in these conversations, it appears that this topic is really important to people. Why? — EricH

It's about what cause and effect are. Belief it or not, but philosophy has gotten to this sad point. Don't take it too hard. Sell your personal belongings, take your spouse by the hand, and try to look for the lost paradise.

This is a very hard subject for everyone

This is a very hard subject for everyone — Gregory

So it seems. The cause has to touch the effect. But how can it be still a cause then? The modern approach is the coupling of non pointlike particles to an intermediary nonpointlike virtual particle field. Nit by touch. The particle couples (touches), because of charge, to a virtual particle field which another charge might have changed. Interaction.

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

You mean a constant causation? Like a constant force?

If "self creation" is possible - OR - if it is not possible - either way does that change how I should live my life? Should I give my worldly possessions to charity and live a life of penance? Should I leave my spouse and spend all my money on booze & hookers? Does this affect how I should feel about the Ukraine situation? Etc? — EricH

That depends on how you look at self creation. If it exists it might change your view of gods, and even let them disappear. Will life have still meaning then? Meaning will be looked for in hookers, drugs, and booze then. All meaningful activities lack true meaning then.

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

No - the problem is that you don’t understand the qualitative aspect of a thought experiment.

If we imagine coming across a ball in contact with a cushion, we cannot simply discard their qualitative structure as if it’s irrelevant. From our imagined observations, we infer that at some point the cushion existed sans depression, and that the ball was not eternally impacting on the cushion in this way. There is nothing about the relation of ‘ball’ and ‘cushion’ in any thought experiment that would imply this is not the case.

You can’t expect to ignore the inherent qualitative structure of the concepts ‘ball’ and ‘cushion’ when it suits.

Consider two entities A and B: A has an invariant 3D structure, while B has a different and slightly variable 3D structure. If we observe these two structures in contact, and notice that the 3D structure of B is shaped in inverse relation to A at the point of contact, we can infer that A caused the variation in the 3D structure of B, because we know that the 3D structure of A is less variable than that of B.

Now consider two eternal entities, X and Y, existing in an invariable 4D event - that is, there is no variation in their 4D structure in relation to each other. How then, is it possible to infer that X was the cause of a 3D structure in Y when there is no way even to distinguish a 3D structure of Y from the invariable 4D arrangement of XY?

Just read the OP until you understand.

In the ball case that would seem to be the case, but not in the substance causation case.

I don't know what you're talking about.

You can come up with any number of cases in which there does 'not' seem to be causation. What's the point in that?

The ball and cushion case is a case in which the depression is being caused by the ball and we do not need to know whether the ball was ever not on the cushion in order to be able to conclude that the ball is causing the depression.

And I gave TWO examples. As you are clearly having trouble with the first one, question beggingly insisting that we have to know if the ball was ever not on the cushion before we can conclude that it is causing the depression, why not focus on the other example? Only one has to work.

Presumably you accept that not every event can be caused by a prior event, for then one would have to posit an actual infinity of prior events. So, all events must ultimately trace to causes that are not events, but things.

So, substances can cause events. But when do substances cause the events that they cause? Well, when the events occur. That is simultaneous causation. So, unless simultaneous causation makes sense, it seems event causation won't make sense either.

And if simultaneous causation makes sense, then there seems to be nothing incoherent about self-creation.

Also (and related) - why is this topic so important that you spend hours debating it? If this is merely for fun and/or intellectual stimulation I get it - there's no harm done and there are many worse ways of spending your time. But given the level of intensity and vitriol in these conversations, it appears that this topic is really important to people. Why? What difference does it make? — EricH

The sneer of the peon. Answering these questions - fundamental questions in philosophy, that is - will make you wealthy and happy. Happy?

@Bartricks What about the cosmic speed limit (roundabout 300,000 km/s aka speed of light)? No cause can be produce an instantaneous effect then, oui? :chin:

I don't know what you're asking.

I don't know what you're asking — Bartricks

Causation, to my knowledge, requires a mechanism. The fastest possible mechanism is an electromagnetic signal (light and its ilk). The speed of light is finite i.e. the mechanism can't be instantaneous. In other words, cause and effect can't be simultaneous. :chin:

The speed of light is finite i.e. the mechanism can't be instantaneous. In other words, cause and effect can't be simultaneous — Agent Smith

I don't know what you mean by a mechanism.

If A causes B, when does it do it? If you imagine the causation itself to be a third event - a kind of intermediary between A and B, when did A cause that intermediary event?

When it occurred - yes? And when did that intermediary event cause B? When it occurred, yes?

So, it seems if A causes B, it does so simultaneously. A causes B when B occurs. That's simultaneous causation.

There's got to be a mechanism of causation! For instance, I push you, you fall over; the mechanism here is force & energy, how the conspire to shift your center of gravity away from your base.

I still don't know what you mean.
And anyway, you're missing the point. All you're doing is introducing an intermediary. Now, consider teh questions I asked.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, mechanisms are a sine qua non to establish a causal link. In other words, it isn't enough to simply show a correlation.

To illustrate my point we all know, more accurately we're told that, smoking causes cancer. The first step involved was to demonstrate a correlation: the smoking & cancer association was statistically significant. The second step was/is to find out how smoking leads to cancer. The putative mechanism: genetic damage/mutation.

... Whatever. It seems useless to continue this exchange ...

You can come up with any number of cases in which there does 'not' seem to be causation. What's the point in that?

The ball and cushion case is a case in which the depression is being caused by the ball and we do not need to know whether the ball was ever not on the cushion in order to be able to conclude that the ball is causing the depression. — Bartricks

Yes - specifically because of the softness (ie. 3D variability) of the cushion in relation to the ball. You can’t extend this same quality of softness to an eternal entity - if there is no 4D variation (it never changes), then there is no 3D variability (no softness). Case closed.

And I gave TWO examples. As you are clearly having trouble with the first one, question beggingly insisting that we have to know if the ball was ever not on the cushion before we can conclude that it is causing the depression, why not focus on the other example? Only one has to work. — Bartricks

I only noticed the one example, sorry.

Presumably you accept that not every event can be caused by a prior event, for then one would have to posit an actual infinity of prior events. So, all events must ultimately trace to causes that are not events, but things.

So, substances can cause events. But when do substances cause the events that they cause? Well, when the events occur. That is simultaneous causation. — Bartricks

I accept that there comes a point in our relation to events where ‘cause’ is a meaningless term - I’d say it’s about where we posit an infinite, either as quantity or quality.

I’m going to be pedantic for a sec: aren’t events still things? Do you mean things as in concepts or only tangible 3D objects? You also call them ‘substances’, which is another ambiguous term that allows you to play with dimensional quality as it suits you. I’m going to insist on you clarifying the dimensional structure of entities here, because it makes a difference in relation to causation.

Events are four-dimensional structures, so it’s important to recognise that time is not simply a linear relation of change or causation between objects and events, the way our language structures it. It only appears that way because in language we reduce the observation/measurement event itself to a zero-point value, and treat all other events and ideas as objects. It’s only in the quality of each concept that different relational structures are evident.

So, when you state that ‘substances can cause events’, you need to be clearer in your language to avoid people misinterpreting what you mean.

From what I understand, a relation between differentiated potentiality can theoretically ‘cause’ events without any necessary relation to actual objects or things. This makes more sense to me than substances causing events or simultaneous causation.

@Bartricks

Yahweh (the Father), "married" his own mother (Maryam) and sired Jesus (the Son). Sancta trinitas, Unus deus.
Self-creation? :chin: In short, the Biblia Sacra, interalia, is incest porn! You might wanna research works on incest, the mother-son kind, and maybe time travel, two subjects no one would've imagined were connected in such an intriguing way!

Yahweh (the Father), "married" his own mother (Miriam) and sired Jesus (the Son). — Agent Smith

AG, my man! Does that make Miriam the holy spirit? :chin:

A carnal trinity...

and maybe time travel — Agent Smith

I had the same thought! Can we cause our own inception? Or prevent it maybe? "POOF!"

Simultaneous causation is coherent. Simultaneous causation applied to self-creation no, because the same entity X would be simultaneously existent (as effect) and non-existent (as cause). Besides properties and relations presuppose the existence of the terms they are predicated of, so if causality is a relation or a property it would require the existence of the causal factor to already obtain. Therefore non-existing entities can't cause anything.

simultaneous causation is coherent — neomac

To what refers simultaneously here? What things are simultaneous?

cause and effect

cause and effect — neomac

I thought so already. Cause and effect are separate events. If they coincide its not clear which is which. Simultaneous effect would be just as appropriate. The depression on the cushion can be the cause as well as the effect. The ball can be the cause or effect as well. If we consider a force pulling or pushing and the ball is in rest, there are no cause and effect anymore. Nor a simultaneity of both, So think I in my humblyhumbleness.

Cause and effect are separate events. If they coincide its not clear which is which. — Haglund

We should distinguish epistemology from ontology. The incapacity of identifying cause and effect is not a reason to reject of the simultaneity of cause and effect. The metaphysical argument why cause and effect should be simultaneous goes roughly as follows. If causality is a relation, then it presupposes the existence of the related terms, because relations (at least external relations) are existence-entailing, one cannot have a relation without its relata: aRb cannot obtain unless both a and b exist. But if the existence of the cause precedes the existence of its effect, then when the cause exists the effect doesn’t, while when the effect exists the cause doesn’t exist anymore. So if there is no moment in which they co-exist then there can not be any relation between them, therefore not even a causal relation.
The problem of distinguishing cause and effect as events could be overcome if we consider that events can be temporally extended entities and that the causal relation between them requires the simultaneity of some moments: e.g. the rolling ball A hits the still ball B at t1 causing B to move. Then, the event of A ball’s rolling and the event of B ball’s moving are simultaneously and causally correlated at t1 (exactly when A hits and B starts moving, cause and effect).