No. The "belief" implies that "immaterial data" is indefinite or without sufficiently definite parameters with respect to material data, thereby, in effect, comparing apples & oranges (or facts & dreams). I think both conservation laws and the principle of causal closure, however, imply that only material entities can have causal relationships with material entities. Btw, isn't "immaterial thing" an oxymoron? :smirk:Doesn't the {belief that eliminating immaterial data decreases a model's error} imply that immaterial things have no causal relationship with material things? — Lionino
Absent any physical theory, logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation. — Mark Nyquist
↪180 Proof indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} — Gnomon
I did not claim or imply this.
As I've stated in several of our exchanges, Gnomon, my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) ... just as there is no edge of the Earth off of which one can fall, no north of the North Pole, etc.
Stop making up sh*t. :sweat: — 180 Proof
Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. — LFranc
Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10) — LFranc
The brain model applies to brains as emergent and affecting matter in the present.
The signal back propagation idea is speculative but if it exists could be relavent to a first cause.
For me it's something to keep in mind. — Mark Nyquist
Another form of retrocausality is information based. Our brains hold concepts of past, present and future so an anticipated future event can affect the physical present. For example we do things based on future projections like storing food, preparing for storms, launching space probes and preparing for wars. All things not possible without brains so brains can affect matter. Would it be relavent to a first cause? I don't know but it's a mechanism that appears to operate differently than lesser forms of physical matter are capable of. — Mark Nyquist
It is true, we cannot perceive the simultaneity of the cause and the effect, we can just think about it. To Spinoza, "watching it unfold" is indeed just something that "we" do, humans, through what Spinoza calls "imagination" (which doesn't mean hallucination). But humans can comprehend, with rationality, that, in a way, everything happens at once, which is what Spinoza calls "considering things sub specie aeternitatis", "under the aspect of eternity", as you probably know.we have to watch it unfold — Philosophim
Science often thinks in terms of laws and not causes indeed. For example, law of gravitation: is it the Earth that attracts the moon or the other way around? The answer is: both, it's a law, a relationship, not a causality.The only option in which logic applies is two physical entities interacting. — Mark Nyquist
my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) — 180 Proof
I'll try to rephrase it. The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. For example, the plant includes its seed, because the plant is the-seed-that-grew. The plant is the continuation of the seed. (This continuation already blurs the border between cause and effect, by the way). — LFranc
if causality is necessary (like science and Spinoza say), then the cause has to produce this effect, in this specific way and at this specific moment. So, in a way the effect is already there in the cause, for nothing else can happen but this effect. — LFranc
But humans can comprehend, with rationality, that, in a way, everything happens at once, which is what Spinoza calls "considering things sub specie aeternitatis", "under the aspect of eternity", as you probably know. — LFranc
Science often thinks in terms of laws and not causes indeed. For example, law of gravitation: is it the Earth that attracts the moon or the other way around? The answer is: both, it's a law, a relationship, not a causality. — LFranc
...non-existent... — Mark Nyquist
...logic says non-existent and non-physical things don't have any cause and effect relation. — Mark Nyquist
Is mathematics non-existent? Some might say yes. It's certainly non-physical. — jgill
The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc
The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc
The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. — LFranc
If the effect hasn't happened yet, its not there. — Philosophim
Non-existent is a concept. — Mark Nyquist
It does exist as brain state, — Mark Nyquist
Brain; (a concept) — Mark Nyquist
Brain; (a non-existent entity) — Mark Nyquist
Also brains activate muscles soand concept can takeaffect physical matter. Like the result of a math problem.
That's the only way an abstraction, concept, mathematical construct can affect physical reality. — Mark Nyquist
Show me how you will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after you die; show me how the universe will determine the calculation of input values and a binary operator after all sentients die. — ucarr
Sorry. No idea what you are talking about. — jgill
Counter Premise: A priori deduction ≠ a posteriori deduction along the measurement axis of time. — ucarr
Question A: Deduction can lead to knowledge only by empirical observation in time?
Deduction does not require empirical observation. But we need to think through it right? Are you saying time doesn't exist? I'm confused again.
Question B: Deduction can lead to knowledge both by observation in time and by abstract reasoning? — ucarr
David Hume addressed the philosophical Causation Problem by noting that, in Physics there is no Causation, only Change*1. Yet, the human mind attributes the Power of Causation (potential) to some unseen force. By the same reasoning, there are no Laws or Logic in the physical world. But the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact.First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary.
But this necessity kills causality itself: it's actually a problem in Spinoza's works that you probably already heard of. Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10) — LFranc
Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize? — Philosophim
Deduction does not require empirical observation. But we need to think through it right? — Philosophim
Are you saying that abstract reasoning does not take time? — Philosophim
Can we observe things outside of time? — Philosophim
Are you saying that all a priori deductions don't take any time to realize?
— Philosophim
Do a priori deductions take time to be true? How much time does it take for two + two to equal four? — ucarr
...the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact. — Gnomon
Ucarr, I'm asking a question to understand what you're trying to say. Returning my question with a another question is just more confusing. :) In fact, all of my questions you just answered with questions. My questions are not statements, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. — 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.