Nor can you escape to "agency," because that too yields manys, many different kinds of agency. — tim wood
So is everything either part of an infinite/eternal chain of cause and effect, or alternatively is there some first thing? I don't know. — tim wood
That should have been an end to it.A derivative can describe a rate of change with regard to a non-time variable: dy/dx — jgill
Notice that the change is ∆x, not ∆t; the force depends on the distance the spring is stretched or compressed, not on time.F = − k∆x
Generic references to papers are not a discussion — Philosophim
Russell's essay "On the Notion of Cause" challenges the traditional notion of causality. He argues against the idea that causation involves necessary connections between events, instead suggesting that our understanding of cause and effect is based on our observations and experiences. Russell explores the limitations of our understanding of causality, emphasizing the role of empirical evidence and the possibility of alternative interpretations of causal relationships. He questions the absolute certainty of causation and proposes a more probabilistic view, highlighting the complexity and uncertainty inherent in our concept of cause and effect.
In "Causality and Determination," Anscombe delves into the relationship between causality and determination, focusing on the distinction between causes and conditions. She argues that causality involves a certain kind of dependence between events, which is not merely conditional but also explanatory. Anscombe challenges the idea that causality is solely reliant on necessary conditions, proposing that causal relationships entail a direct influence rather than just a conditional connection. She emphasizes the need to differentiate between causes and mere conditions, aiming to refine our understanding of causality and determination. Anscombe's work prompts a nuanced examination of causation, shedding light on the complexities inherent in establishing causal relationships.
It changes from yellow to white over distance, not time, you see. — Banno
And then Jgill pointed out that
A derivative can describe a rate of change with regard to a non-time variable: dy/dx — jgill
That should have been an end to it. — Banno
If I have understood your post, you would like to define a sub-class of causes, which after Aristotle are to be called efficient causes, and which require change over time. That's fine, but it does not follow that all causes occur over time. — Banno
Silly of me to offer some familiarity with the literature. — Banno
One sees the image as a whole, not only by scanning it — Banno
and Hook's law does not assume a block universe. — Banno
2024 must be almost everywhere by now...? — Banno
Too much invested, it seems. The cosmological argument is not as straight forward as you supose. — Banno
It is only within it that changes occur form one part of it to another. — javra
It must be odd to live so far in the past... :wink:Not on the pacific side of the Americas ... still procrastinating in preparing for the folks that will show up :grin: — javra
↪Philosophim Yes, indeed. But it relies on the same supposed logic. — Banno
This is not a proof for God argument. — Philosophim
And this is exactly the point. There is a change over distance. — Banno
May I ask, Javra, where the insistence that change requires time comes from? Why is it important to preserve this idea? this by way of trying to understand why folk seem so adamant about something that to me seems obviously wrong. Thanks. — Banno
If infinite causality, then the entire thing in total cannot itself have a cause, but is instead, for lack of a better word, magical in its so occurring - this with all the natural laws, etc., it encapsulates. — javra
If, however, one assumes a causal determinism with an initial starting point, then the same issue applies to existence in total: its occurrence is absurd (for the reasons just specified). — javra
This can be an unnerving existential reality/realization for some but, all the same, I see no other rational conclusion to be had. — javra
The OP assumes "a first cause to existence" instead of concluding in the position of absurdism - this as pertains to existence's being as a whole. — javra
There's a difference between something's being true and it being discerned. It's true that the colour changes over distance, whether you discern it or not.That, again, requires an observer's changing/moving mind to discern. — javra
Hippo Gnu Dear.I'll get back to you on this early next year my time. :smile: — javra
For my part, the issue is that existence can only be rationally concluded absurd in so far as its being is, and can only be, a-rational — javra
I'm not sure you understand it at all. — Philosophim
You borrowed from Anselm but left off "and this we all call god". — Banno
The point is that if you take the entire set of the infinite regress and ask, "What caused it to be an infinite regress?" you realize that's the finite end. It simply is, there's no prior explanation for its being. — Philosophim
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.