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?

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.

I saw a member of a natural tribe who said he didn't wanna use technology because that's the way to disaster and natural chaos and imbalance. That's not how God had meant us to function. I don't completely agree but he seems to be right. Is this innate a priori knowledge?

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.

The whole aversion for the model is based on one observation only. The quarks, leptons, W, and Z, are though basic. That's the dogma, the standard. And experiments have seen no subs. Unless you call the g2 evidence. They should just smash electrons head on! Shake them hard and they'll rattle! Gonna send them a message!

So you were hand-waving. Yet even my quick search found such consideration from 2004 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0102242.pdf — apokrisis

That's from 2004! I talk about the recent muon g2 experiment. Divergent from the standard model. If you can find a calculation based on the C and U preons, show it please. There isn't. What's so difficult to understand that the dipole moment is different if the muon is an excited electron?

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.

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.

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...

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:

Precisely. That's what physics is. Philosophizing about nature. Math is just the quantitave description of ingredients. And a recipe to cook them. Some ingredients have zero nutritious value though. A cake of air follows. I think strings and branes are such ingredients.

Logical causations or necessities seem to lack an element of time or matter.

Some small birds know to take hide if the overlying shape is hawk-like but cry out for food if it's a friendly shape. The animal forms are already known by the brain at birth. Which seems logical as the brain developed in that particular body.

Motion one-way. We can call time the measurement of motion or time is what clocks measure. Time is used as a human convenience. A measurement--hours, minutes. Time is so flexible; it changes from country to country. So do you call a measurement an existent? — val p miranda

Yes, but that's why we have made clocks that run off only 1 sec every 10exp15 years. Not perfect, as they don't exist, but still... There were no clocks to measure time yet at the big bang, but you can image one, like is done in relativity, where everywhere in space an imaginary clock is thought. Which expresses itself as the time axis being an imaginary: it. Time is just asymmetric motion, irreversible processes. The mystery though is why it didn't start in the future, back to the start. It obviously is not the case, but that's no explanation. That's where gods come in.

Aha, so it went from 1.4mm to 3.6mm , therefor in one case Marseille would be under water in 25k years, but in the other in just 10k years. Yeap, that a real emergency! :D — stoicHoneyBadger

The real emergency, though floods and fires are serious, lies not in temperature change per se. It's the short time in which it happens that matters. And in comparison with human impact on nature, even this looks pale and bleak.

You are looking at them like some God-send enlightened gurus, I see them just as another breed of quacks, similar to astrologers, homeopath, faith healers, taro card readers etc.

I don't need to read every book on horoscopes to know it is quackery. — stoicHoneyBadger

Seems pretty clear though that the planet has never been so fucked up as in recent times. Even the big asteroid that once hit had a mild effect in comparison.

Okay.

Moreover, these drives are in a constant struggle or combat with each other: my drive to smoke and get my nicotine rush is in combat with (but also coexistent with) my drive to quit. This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power—at the level of the drives. “Every drive is a kind of lust to rule,” — Joshs

What's the drive to rule in the drive to smoke?

Anyhow, Ill back off from your thread. With these preons, that is. :smile:

Yes. I read all of Feyerabend and wrote a thesis on forms of reality, from empiricism, logical positivism, to van Fraassen, Radder, Pickering, etc. And one guy I like, experimental metaphysics. Don't remember his name. He wrote Feyerabend wrote 3 different books in 3 editions.

But as physics moved from Europe to the USA and increasingly under the patronage of the military-industrial complex then it became much more a matter of shut up and calculate — Wayfarer

Yes. But that's exactly what I don't do. For example I asked why the model aint popular while it explains all.

It's not a matter of using maths explicitly, but that most of the concepts in mathematical physics require a grasp of the maths in order to understand. The concept of the Hilbert space can't be understood except through the mathematics. So it's not that there's anything 'wrong' with them, only that unless you have that training, then it's not intelligible — Wayfarer

But why isn't it a part of philosophy? The love for wisdom.

Besides, it's really not that inside knowledge kind of thing. Math is just about quantities, and space.

The concept of the Hilbert space can't be understood except through the mathematics. — Wayfarer

It can be very easily laymanified.

This of course assuming that there must, or at least could be philosophical implications of physics). — Janus

I was exactly wondering about them. The implications.

See! Lagrangian. What I said. — Wayfarer

So. Gibbs free energy, Friston blankets, markov blankets... I saw them all here. What's wrong with a Lagrangian? Kant would have liked it!

Not to mention the wavefunction.

The problem is, mathematical physics — Wayfarer

Where do you see me using math?

You tell me. I don't claim to understand what the superstrong force might be, let alone how it could apparently lack the essential strong force feature of asymptotic freedom — apokrisis

If charges rotate wider, the magnetic moment changes. The superstrong color force keeps the prekns together, like the quarks in hadrons. So the Lagrangian is QCD like. Charged hadrons have various magnetic moments too.

I'm sure nobody here other than yourself and Apo would know what a 'preon' is (or a Mexican hat, for that matter — Wayfarer

Not sure about the preon, but a Mexican hat? Don't we all know that? But you're right. This thread ain't the place. Though the most fundamental cause could be found...

The muon's magnetic moment is larger than thought. Which happens if three charges circulate wider.

If not exotic preon combos like W8, then what? — apokrisis

The electron: C/C/C/
Up quark: CCU
Down quark:C/U/U/
Neutrino UUU

/ is anti, C is 1/3 charged, U is uncharged

Color and superstrong colors cause binding and colored quarks.

C'mon. I asked you to substantiate your claim that preons have some advantage is accounting for the g-2 muon result. Just give us the paper that backs that one up. — apokrisis

That's the point. The preon model isn't even considered. Rishons and braids show similar structures Triplets.

There's nothing inherently the matter with that. It's only since science popularises like Krauss and Dawkins started to claim that science somehow 'disproves' God that natural science has itself started to be taken as a metaphysics. — Wayfarer

A wise observation. That Krauss guy is a total creep. Together with Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, etc. he started a new religion.

Oh! Sorry! It's your thread. Ill leave it...

Also of interest, Braid group

ahem....philosophy forum..... :angry: — Wayfarer

Physics was part of philosophy once... Why not anymore? Especially physics not accepted on other forums. Ain't this the place?

Natural philosophy! :grin:

What is matter? What is a particle? What is space? What is time? Seems philo-talk to me...

That is the question I am asking. How does God do that? — Jackson

Ah. With his hands?

To give it a push.

If one believes in preons, one can believe in exotic preon composites like W8 and arrange the contributions to fit whatever dipole moment is measured — apokrisis

No. That can't be done. The combination has to be colorless. And there are two kinds of them.

Every particle process can be explained. Proton decay is easy. The basic group is SU(3)XSU(3)XU(1).

Aristotle is talking about the cause of all motion. — Jackson

So that's not motion? How can things get in motion without giving them a start kick?