Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Causality is not fundamental

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way. This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

Here is what Sean Carroll had to say:
"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.
It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

But I like Harvey Browns explanation the most:
"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like". So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the lest is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past." And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past. Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is. It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can. But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."
https://youtu.be...

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:44:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
wall texts are very unfriendly to read. I wouldn't mind discussing your position, if I didn't have to read a few books to do so.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:21:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I concur with Smithereens. You need to reformat as something more readable. I'm not even sure what point you were trying to convey, aside from causality being an illusion or something.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:59:47 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
You can use either of my references to get my point. The first is better formatted than this forum allows me to and the second is a video.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com......

Harvey Brown

"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like".
So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the left is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past."

And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past.
Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is.
It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can.

But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."

https://www.youtube.com...

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:24:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.

My initial thought is why ban intuition before we even begin. While something that is intuitive is not always true, it might be throwing baby out with the bath water to assume what is intuitive is always false or misleading!

I am thinking about Bob's balls (which is not something I do every day!). If I observe ball B to the exclusion of all else I will see it just sitting there and suddenly start moving. I do not need to observe ball A to detect a change in the motion of ball B, but surely I can infer that some event occurred that resulted in the observed behaviour of B, and label that event the 'cause' of the change. Perhaps causality is not fundamental to statis but it is fundamental to change.

In the Persian carpet case, one may be able to do away with causality to explain or build up the pattern from a slice, but one would need something like causality to explain, say, a blood stain in one corner of the carpet.

I have a horrible feeling this thread is going to require actual thinking.... could be an interesting ride!
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:37:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way. This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

A rose is a rose by any other name and would smell just as sweet.

Recent research has established that Noam Chomsky was wrong and children acquire grammar using pattern matching rather than inheriting it. In fact, the first five neural networks responsible for pattern matching have already been mapped in the human brain. The implication is that words only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts and arguing that concepts like causality are unnecessary or not real is simply pointless splitting of semantic hairs. Causality is obviously a useful concept even its possible to sometimes avoid using it and whether anything is ultimately "real" or "unreal" is, again, a question of what you mean by the words.

Yelling that a cow is actually a chair is simply a waste of time when its much more useful to simply use the popular definitions of such words.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 1:37:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Thoughts?
I'm glad to see a new consensus forming regarding causality, especially as it upends the lingering Aristotelian and Newtonian metaphysics/ontology. Pragmatists will naturally attack you here, as they seek to maintain an epistemology with a great track record.

However, your input in the neutrino-experiment thread was slightly in line with the causalist prejudice of a fundamental ontology (http://www.debate.org...). Rather than following the standard of quantum theory, where the photon's polarization doesn"t exist until it is measured, you seemed there to fall back on a defense of the "strict laws of nature." To be clear, you were correct in dismissing Smithereens' assertion; she was utterly wrong in proposing a conscious interaction/mediation between observer and observed; but while it is easy to dismiss her error, the implication of the neutrino experiment points away from that fundamental ontology, which you undermine here yet defend there.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 5:43:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 1:37:44 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Thoughts?
I'm glad to see a new consensus forming regarding causality, especially as it upends the lingering Aristotelian and Newtonian metaphysics/ontology. Pragmatists will naturally attack you here, as they seek to maintain an epistemology with a great track record.

That would depend on the kind of pragmatism you are referring to. A Peirceian pragmatist like myself has no problem with causal eliminativism. That said, I argued causality is not fundamental, not that we should banish all everyday talk about it.

However, your input in the neutrino-experiment thread was slightly in line with the causalist prejudice of a fundamental ontology (http://www.debate.org...).
I am not sure how.

Rather than following the standard of quantum theory, where the photon's polarization doesn"t exist until it is measured, you seemed there to fall back on a defense of the "strict laws of nature."
I am not aware of any version of QM where a particle literally didn't exist before measurement. If by standard QM you are referring to the Copenhagen interpretation, then no, it doesn't say the particle doesn't exist prior to a measurement, it says the particle doesn't have a definite state prior to a measurement, which then collapses the wavefunction to give a definite result. There still needs to be something to be collapsed to give a measurement.

To be clear, you were correct in dismissing Smithereens' assertion; she was utterly wrong in proposing a conscious interaction/mediation between observer and observed; but while it is easy to dismiss her error, the implication of the neutrino experiment points away from that fundamental ontology, which you undermine here yet defend there.
I wouldn't know the results, since no source was provided.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 7:54:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 5:43:38 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:37:44 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Thoughts?
I'm glad to see a new consensus forming regarding causality, especially as it upends the lingering Aristotelian and Newtonian metaphysics/ontology. Pragmatists will naturally attack you here, as they seek to maintain an epistemology with a great track record.
That would depend on the kind of pragmatism you are referring to. A Peirceian pragmatist like myself has no problem with causal eliminativism.
By pragmatists I am referring to the obtuse and inarticulate posters who, while lacking a leg to stand on, refuse to acknowledge the difficulties regarding scientific truth and its representation. But since you're a Peircean pragmatist, you know this delicate matter by heart and reject the common simplification.

That said, I argued causality is not fundamental, not that we should banish all everyday talk about it.
My point is that we should relegate causality to the level of everyday chatter. For example, I still use the expressions sunrise and sunset, or centrifugal, but I would never take recourse to them as established facts.

However, your input in the neutrino-experiment thread was slightly in line with the causalist prejudice of a fundamental ontology (http://www.debate.org...).
I am not sure how.
As I stated above, your criticism appeared to presuppose a fundamental ontology (Aristotelian or Newtonian "nature").

I am not aware of any version of QM where a particle literally didn't exist before measurement.
If by standard QM you are referring to the Copenhagen interpretation, then no, it doesn't say the particle doesn't exist prior to a measurement, it says the particle doesn't have a definite state prior to a measurement, which then collapses the wavefunction to give a definite result. There still needs to be something to be collapsed to give a measurement.
Wouldn't you rather say that the model determines the observation? In other words, that the active participation of the observer with the observed is a determinant which must always be taken into account. If not, how would you describe it?

To be clear, you were correct in dismissing Smithereens' assertion; she was utterly wrong in proposing a conscious interaction/mediation between observer and observed; but while it is easy to dismiss her error, the implication of the neutrino experiment points away from that fundamental ontology, which you undermine here yet defend there.
I wouldn't know the results, since no source was provided.
She did provide them in the thread -- page 2, I think -- but not in the OP.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 11:12:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 7:54:36 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/1/2016 5:43:38 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/30/2016 1:37:44 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Thoughts?
I'm glad to see a new consensus forming regarding causality, especially as it upends the lingering Aristotelian and Newtonian metaphysics/ontology. Pragmatists will naturally attack you here, as they seek to maintain an epistemology with a great track record.
That would depend on the kind of pragmatism you are referring to. A Peirceian pragmatist like myself has no problem with causal eliminativism.
By pragmatists I am referring to the obtuse and inarticulate posters who, while lacking a leg to stand on, refuse to acknowledge the difficulties regarding scientific truth and its representation. But since you're a Peircean pragmatist, you know this delicate matter by heart and reject the common simplification.

That said, I argued causality is not fundamental, not that we should banish all everyday talk about it.
My point is that we should relegate causality to the level of everyday chatter. For example, I still use the expressions sunrise and sunset, or centrifugal, but I would never take recourse to them as established facts.

However, your input in the neutrino-experiment thread was slightly in line with the causalist prejudice of a fundamental ontology (http://www.debate.org...).
I am not sure how.
As I stated above, your criticism appeared to presuppose a fundamental ontology (Aristotelian or Newtonian "nature").
I have asked for sources and pointed out the paper does not conclude what she claimed it concludes. But I have not stated any of my own views.

I am not aware of any version of QM where a particle literally didn't exist before measurement.
If by standard QM you are referring to the Copenhagen interpretation, then no, it doesn't say the particle doesn't exist prior to a measurement, it says the particle doesn't have a definite state prior to a measurement, which then collapses the wavefunction to give a definite result. There still needs to be something to be collapsed to give a measurement.
Wouldn't you rather say that the model determines the observation? In other words, that the active participation of the observer with the observed is a determinant which must always be taken into account. If not, how would you describe it?
Of course, without an observer you cannot observe antything and unlike classical mechanics an observer wil influence the state of the observed.

To be clear, you were correct in dismissing Smithereens' assertion; she was utterly wrong in proposing a conscious interaction/mediation between observer and observed; but while it is easy to dismiss her error, the implication of the neutrino experiment points away from that fundamental ontology, which you undermine here yet defend there.
I wouldn't know the results, since no source was provided.
She did provide them in the thread -- page 2, I think -- but not in the OP.
That paper was about a delayed choice which-way experiment (using photons), not about neutrino oscillations.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2016 11:57:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/2/2016 11:12:36 AM, Fkkize wrote:
As I stated above, your criticism appeared to presuppose a fundamental ontology (Aristotelian or Newtonian "nature").
I have asked for sources and pointed out the paper does not conclude what she claimed it concludes. But I have not stated any of my own views.
I see. I thought the criticism implied a positioning in favor of the strict causalists in the thread, but I'm obviously mistaken. My bad.

Wouldn't you rather say that the model determines the observation? In other words, that the active participation of the observer with the observed is a determinant which must always be taken into account. If not, how would you describe it?
Of course, without an observer you cannot observe antything and unlike classical mechanics an observer wil influence the state of the observed.
Precisely. And as the observer needn't be a human subject, as Smithereens incorrectly implies, the very notion of the observer's "conscious mediation" goes out the window.

That paper was about a delayed choice which-way experiment (using photons), not about neutrino oscillations.
There was a previous citation somewhere. Regardless, Smithereens will likely not revisit the thread, so I guess the argument is buried for now.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
If the goal is merely to record reality's contents and to make predictions by extrapolating patterns found within the mass of data, then one does not need to bring causality into the mix. On the other hand, if one wants to explain why things are the way they are as opposed to other possible ways, then some mention of causality will be necessary. The way I see it, causation and explanation are semantically linked at the most basic level, and they both reduce to the same essential concept: logical implication. To say that something is "explained" is to say that something else's existence causes (implicates) the existence of whatever is being explained within their common explanatory framework (reality), and rules out its nonexistence, thereby rendering the issue of whether or not it exists wholly decidable.

The example of the Persian carpet shows that a correlation between two things does not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship between them. But that is not even controversial. It does not show that patterns, or anything for that matter, can be causeless: for that, one would need another argument. That's because even though the patterns of the Persian carpet aren't explained by anything in the carpet itself, that does not mean the patterns do not have a cause beyond the carpet. Moreover, every aspect of the carpet's pattern exists simultaneously. To say that looking at the carpet from left to right is in fact analogous to looking at how reality evolves from past to present to future needs further justification. Time may be a fundamentally different process with fundamentally different requirements. In other words, whether or not reality is a frozen history of details or a truly dynamic system is relevant to the topic.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:01:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the goal is merely to record reality's contents and to make predictions by extrapolating patterns found within the mass of data, then one does not need to bring causality into the mix. On the other hand, if one wants to explain why things are the way they are as opposed to other possible ways, then some mention of causality will be necessary. The way I see it, causation and explanation are semantically linked at the most basic level, and they both reduce to the same essential concept: logical implication. To say that something is "explained" is to say that something else's existence causes (implicates) the existence of whatever is being explained within their common explanatory framework (reality), and rules out its nonexistence, thereby rendering the issue of whether or not it exists wholly decidable.

The example of the Persian carpet shows that a correlation between two things does not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship between them. But that is not even controversial. It does not show that patterns, or anything for that matter, can be causeless: for that, one would need another argument. That's because even though the patterns of the Persian carpet aren't explained by anything in the carpet itself, that does not mean the patterns do not have a cause beyond the carpet. Moreover, every aspect of the carpet's pattern exists simultaneously. To say that looking at the carpet from left to right is in fact analogous to looking at how reality evolves from past to present to future needs further justification. Time may be a fundamentally different process with fundamentally different requirements. In other words, whether or not reality is a frozen history of details or a truly dynamic system is relevant to the topic.

Please read up on implication in logic. It has absolutely nothing to do with causality.

Thank you,

A smart person.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:05:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:04:02 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:01:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the goal is merely to record reality's contents and to make predictions by extrapolating patterns found within the mass of data, then one does not need to bring causality into the mix. On the other hand, if one wants to explain why things are the way they are as opposed to other possible ways, then some mention of causality will be necessary. The way I see it, causation and explanation are semantically linked at the most basic level, and they both reduce to the same essential concept: logical implication. To say that something is "explained" is to say that something else's existence causes (implicates) the existence of whatever is being explained within their common explanatory framework (reality), and rules out its nonexistence, thereby rendering the issue of whether or not it exists wholly decidable.

The example of the Persian carpet shows that a correlation between two things does not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship between them. But that is not even controversial. It does not show that patterns, or anything for that matter, can be causeless: for that, one would need another argument. That's because even though the patterns of the Persian carpet aren't explained by anything in the carpet itself, that does not mean the patterns do not have a cause beyond the carpet. Moreover, every aspect of the carpet's pattern exists simultaneously. To say that looking at the carpet from left to right is in fact analogous to looking at how reality evolves from past to present to future needs further justification. Time may be a fundamentally different process with fundamentally different requirements. In other words, whether or not reality is a frozen history of details or a truly dynamic system is relevant to the topic.

Please read up on implication in logic. It has absolutely nothing to do with causality.

Thank you,

A smart person.

By "Logical implication" I don't mean cause and effect are linked a priori. Rather, the implication is logical WITHIN THEIR COMMON EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.


It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com......


Harvey Brown

"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like".
So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the left is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past."

Aristotle's unmoved mover has absolutely nothing to do with causes occurring temporally.


And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past.
Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is.
It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can.

But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."

https://www.youtube.com...

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.
I didn't quote him because of what he has to say about Aristotle, did I? My argument does not rely in the slightest on Aristotles conception of causality, does it?

It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com......


Harvey Brown

"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like".
So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the left is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past."

Aristotle's unmoved mover has absolutely nothing to do with causes occurring temporally.
Did you just want to say that or is there actually something you are responding to here?

And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past.
Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is.
It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can.

But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."

https://www.youtube.com...

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 8:02:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.
I didn't quote him because of what he has to say about Aristotle, did I? My argument does not rely in the slightest on Aristotles conception of causality, does it?

More like it hurts your credibility, since it makes you seem uninformed regarding the philosophers on the pro-causality side.

Nonetheless, Sean Carroll's argument completely fails because he doesn't even understand Aristotle's conception of causality. Understanding an argument/position is usually a necessary condition to refuting that position.


It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com......


Harvey Brown

"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like".
So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the left is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past."

Aristotle's unmoved mover has absolutely nothing to do with causes occurring temporally.
Did you just want to say that or is there actually something you are responding to here?

And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past.
Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is.
It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can.

But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."

https://www.youtube.com...

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 8:05:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Yeah, those quotes don't do anything to disrupt Aristotelian causality (which will, forever and always, stand).
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 8:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 8:05:28 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Yeah, those quotes don't do anything to disrupt Aristotelian causality (which will, forever and always, stand).

The smart person has spoken.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 8:10:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.

How do you defend this? Seems obvious to me that if you were to write out equations and show a conservation of momentum, then B gets its kinetic energy by virtue of the fact that A has kinetic energy which has been transferred to B in an inelastic collision, along with all the energy loss due to friction.

By highschool physics I assume you mean Newtonian physics. But Newtonian physics can't even describe the position of an electron in orbit around the nucleus. Newtonian physics is a useful tool on the macroscopic level, but fundamentally, it is incorrect.

This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

Here is what Sean Carroll had to say:
"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.
It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

But I like Harvey Browns explanation the most:
"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like". So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the lest is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past." And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past. Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is. It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can. But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."
https://youtu.be...

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 8:02:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.
I didn't quote him because of what he has to say about Aristotle, did I? My argument does not rely in the slightest on Aristotles conception of causality, does it?

More like it hurts your credibility, since it makes you seem uninformed regarding the philosophers on the pro-causality side.
Oh no.

Nonetheless, Sean Carroll's argument completely fails because he doesn't even understand Aristotle's conception of causality. Understanding an argument/position is usually a necessary condition to refuting that position.
His argument does not depend on Aristotle's conception of causality either. He doesn't need to know about the details of Aristotle's, van Fraassen's or Lewis' accounts of causality, because it is an argument against any positions which suggests there is something to be said about the balls' behavior over and above what the physics says.

It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com......


Harvey Brown

"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like".
So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the left is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past."

Aristotle's unmoved mover has absolutely nothing to do with causes occurring temporally.
Did you just want to say that or is there actually something you are responding to here?

And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past.
Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is.
It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can.

But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."

https://www.youtube.com...

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:19:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 8:10:11 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.

How do you defend this? Seems obvious to me that if you were to write out equations and show a conservation of momentum, then B gets its kinetic energy by virtue of the fact that A has kinetic energy which has been transferred to B in an inelastic collision, along with all the energy loss due to friction.
But can we describe it without reference to causality? The answer is yes.

By highschool physics I assume you mean Newtonian physics. But Newtonian physics can't even describe the position of an electron in orbit around the nucleus. Newtonian physics is a useful tool on the macroscopic level, but fundamentally, it is incorrect.
Umh, so what? Quantum mechanics does not reference causality either.

This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

Here is what Sean Carroll had to say:
"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.
It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

But I like Harvey Browns explanation the most:
"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like". So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the lest is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past." And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past. Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is. It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can. But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."
https://youtu.be...

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.


The fact that the universe is Markovian in this respect (which is to say that it operates without needing to remember anything in the past, including a "push") does not refute the argument that in order for an object to attain a state of "movement," the causal chain leading up to that state must begin with a push. I don't actually agree with Aristotle on this one though. But it's hardly the case that either an object in motion began with a push or it exists, and will evolve, completely inexplicably.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:52:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:19:11 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 8:10:11 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.

How do you defend this? Seems obvious to me that if you were to write out equations and show a conservation of momentum, then B gets its kinetic energy by virtue of the fact that A has kinetic energy which has been transferred to B in an inelastic collision, along with all the energy loss due to friction.
But can we describe it without reference to causality? The answer is yes.

How?


By highschool physics I assume you mean Newtonian physics. But Newtonian physics can't even describe the position of an electron in orbit around the nucleus. Newtonian physics is a useful tool on the macroscopic level, but fundamentally, it is incorrect.
Umh, so what? Quantum mechanics does not reference causality either.

Indeed it doesn't. I never said I ascribed to Aristotle's notion of causality.


This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

Here is what Sean Carroll had to say:
"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.
It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

But I like Harvey Browns explanation the most:
"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like". So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the lest is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past." And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past. Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is. It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can. But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."
https://youtu.be...

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:59:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:52:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:19:11 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 8:10:11 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.

How do you defend this? Seems obvious to me that if you were to write out equations and show a conservation of momentum, then B gets its kinetic energy by virtue of the fact that A has kinetic energy which has been transferred to B in an inelastic collision, along with all the energy loss due to friction.
But can we describe it without reference to causality? The answer is yes.

How?
With the equation that describes all of the space-like hypersurfaces during the time of the event. Like it was explained in the quote from Brown.

By highschool physics I assume you mean Newtonian physics. But Newtonian physics can't even describe the position of an electron in orbit around the nucleus. Newtonian physics is a useful tool on the macroscopic level, but fundamentally, it is incorrect.
Umh, so what? Quantum mechanics does not reference causality either.

Indeed it doesn't. I never said I ascribed to Aristotle's notion of causality.
And I never suggested you do.

This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

Here is what Sean Carroll had to say:
"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.
It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

But I like Harvey Browns explanation the most:
"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like". So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the lest is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past." And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past. Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is. It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can. But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."
https://youtu.be...

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:59:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:10:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 8:02:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.
I didn't quote him because of what he has to say about Aristotle, did I? My argument does not rely in the slightest on Aristotles conception of causality, does it?

More like it hurts your credibility, since it makes you seem uninformed regarding the philosophers on the pro-causality side.
Oh no.

Nonetheless, Sean Carroll's argument completely fails because he doesn't even understand Aristotle's conception of causality. Understanding an argument/position is usually a necessary condition to refuting that position.
His argument does not depend on Aristotle's conception of causality either. He doesn't need to know about the details of Aristotle's, van Fraassen's or Lewis' accounts of causality, because it is an argument against any positions which suggests there is something to be said about the balls' behavior over and above what the physics says.


Yeah, well, science assumes so many things about the world that, in my opinion, it's not a fool-proof way to arrive at truth.... And I'm an engineer saying this, lol.

There's an underlying metaphysical worldview that science assumes. And Aristotle's worldview is also a metaphysical one, not a physical explanation of the world (science and Aristotle's metaphysics are certainly not in contradiction). Why assume science's metaphysical principles and not Aristotle's? At least Aristotle presents arguments for why we should accept his metaphysical principles... I've never heard any professor or engineer in my life explain why they accept the principles that science assumes. They just do.

I will give you this, though. Lots of theoretical physics is more like philosophy/metaphysics at its core than actual physics. It's more about underlying principles of the natural world than it is about summing moments and durability testing your product, lol.

It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com......


Harvey Brown

"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like".
So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the left is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past."

Aristotle's unmoved mover has absolutely nothing to do with causes occurring temporally.
Did you just want to say that or is there actually something you are responding to here?

And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past.
Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is.
It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can.

But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."

https://www.youtube.com...

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 10:01:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:59:36 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:52:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:19:11 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 8:10:11 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/28/2016 10:58:10 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.
Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.

How do you defend this? Seems obvious to me that if you were to write out equations and show a conservation of momentum, then B gets its kinetic energy by virtue of the fact that A has kinetic energy which has been transferred to B in an inelastic collision, along with all the energy loss due to friction.
But can we describe it without reference to causality? The answer is yes.

How?
With the equation that describes all of the space-like hypersurfaces during the time of the event. Like it was explained in the quote from Brown.

Never heard the word hypersurfaces in highschool physics or any college physics. Care to explain?


By highschool physics I assume you mean Newtonian physics. But Newtonian physics can't even describe the position of an electron in orbit around the nucleus. Newtonian physics is a useful tool on the macroscopic level, but fundamentally, it is incorrect.
Umh, so what? Quantum mechanics does not reference causality either.

Indeed it doesn't. I never said I ascribed to Aristotle's notion of causality.
And I never suggested you do.

This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and (some) philosophers had the same idea.

Here is what Sean Carroll had to say:
"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.
It"s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle"s Physics " a textbook on quantum field theory, for example " words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they"re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

But I like Harvey Browns explanation the most:
"What does it mean to say the past causes the present? That's a Persian carpet. Now you're looking at the carpet and you have a scientific bent and you are seeing that there are patterns in the carpet and you are studying these patterns. You place a bet to yourself, you say, "hmm, I've been studying these patterns, I've worked them out, I got an equation for them. If you give me just a slice out of this carpet I'll predict..., I can tell you what the rest of the carpet looks like". So, there it is, somebody says "ok, here is your slice. Now, given the information on that slice I want you to predict what the rest of the carpet is". So you say, "I'm going to apply my equations and I've got to know what the right is and what the lest is and I'm going to call the right the future, just for the sake of argument and I'm going to call the left the past." And if you are really good and you've got the right equations you can do it. But of course it didn't matter very much from where you took your slice. That could have been your slice, in which case the future is a little bit less than the past. Question: if you're successful with this, that means you just found a new law of physics. Now, if you think instead of the carpet about the landscape of events and spacetime, that's what physics is. It just picks out a little slice, it's called a space-like hypersurface, it's an instantaneous state of affairs, you put down certain information, for example in the case of a gas the positions and velocities of all the particles in the gas and then you ask yourself, "I've got the right equations, can I predict the future and the past?" and the answer is well, theoretically yes, you can. But now go back to the carpet, did the initial slice up here, did it cause that part over there? Or did this end of the carpet cause the rest? The idea of causality doesn't seem to apply here, does it? It's just that you have a pattern and the pattern is such that a small amount of information gives you the whole carpet, if you know what the regularities are and that's just the way it works in physics."
https://youtu.be...

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 10:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:59:55 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:10:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 8:02:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.
I didn't quote him because of what he has to say about Aristotle, did I? My argument does not rely in the slightest on Aristotles conception of causality, does it?

More like it hurts your credibility, since it makes you seem uninformed regarding the philosophers on the pro-causality side.
Oh no.

Nonetheless, Sean Carroll's argument completely fails because he doesn't even understand Aristotle's conception of causality. Understanding an argument/position is usually a necessary condition to refuting that position.
His argument does not depend on Aristotle's conception of causality either. He doesn't need to know about the details of Aristotle's, van Fraassen's or Lewis' accounts of causality, because it is an argument against any positions which suggests there is something to be said about the balls' behavior over and above what the physics says.


Yeah, well, science assumes so many things about the world that, in my opinion, it's not a fool-proof way to arrive at truth.... And I'm an engineer saying this, lol.

There's an underlying metaphysical worldview that science assumes. And Aristotle's worldview is also a metaphysical one, not a physical explanation of the world (science and Aristotle's metaphysics are certainly not in contradiction). Why assume science's metaphysical principles and not Aristotle's? At least Aristotle presents arguments for why we should accept his metaphysical principles... I've never heard any professor or engineer in my life explain why they accept the principles that science assumes. They just do.
Have you ever heard of or read about any argument for scientific realism?

I will give you this, though. Lots of theoretical physics is more like philosophy/metaphysics at its core than actual physics. It's more about underlying principles of the natural world than it is about summing moments and durability testing your product, lol.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 10:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 10:09:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:59:55 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:10:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 8:02:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:40:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/5/2016 7:18:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:05:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Imagine Bob rolls a ball A such that it hits another ball B. Intuitively we might say "B's motion is caused by A hitting it" and people have spent a lot of time trying to give an account of just what "caused" might mean here. There are regularity theories, counterfactual theories, primitivist theories and many more and they all give a different answer to that question.

Intuitive appeals aside, what reason is there to think that causality is of any philosophical significance? After all, we can describe the above scenario only using trivial highschool physics, without referencing causality in any way.
This is a thought that struck me a while ago, when I was listening to a lecture: I have these equations and I can use them to very accurately describe the state of the system at every point in time, but none of these equations reference causality. I was glad to see scientists and philosophers had the same idea.

Sean Carroll

"Aristotle"s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details " I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. "Causes" didn"t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn"t need a push; it can just keep going.

Oh my gosh, with all due respect, this shows that both you and Sean Carroll have no idea what Aristotle was talking about.
I didn't quote him because of what he has to say about Aristotle, did I? My argument does not rely in the slightest on Aristotles conception of causality, does it?

More like it hurts your credibility, since it makes you seem uninformed regarding the philosophers on the pro-causality side.
Oh no.

Nonetheless, Sean Carroll's argument completely fails because he doesn't even understand Aristotle's conception of causality. Understanding an argument/position is usually a necessary condition to refuting that position.
His argument does not depend on Aristotle's conception of causality either. He doesn't need to know about the details of Aristotle's, van Fraassen's or Lewis' accounts of causality, because it is an argument against any positions which suggests there is something to be said about the balls' behavior over and above what the physics says.


Yeah, well, science assumes so many things about the world that, in my opinion, it's not a fool-proof way to arrive at truth.... And I'm an engineer saying this, lol.

There's an underlying metaphysical worldview that science assumes. And Aristotle's worldview is also a metaphysical one, not a physical explanation of the world (science and Aristotle's metaphysics are certainly not in contradiction). Why assume science's metaphysical principles and not Aristotle's? At least Aristotle presents arguments for why we should accept his metaphysical principles... I've never heard any professor or engineer in my life explain why they accept the principles that science assumes. They just do.
Have you ever heard of or read about any argument for scientific realism?

Most philosophy I've heard from scientists was pitiful, as, for example, the quotes you provided.


I will give you this, though. Lots of theoretical physics is more like philosophy/metaphysics at its core than actual physics. It's more about underlying principles of the natural world than it is about summing moments and durability testing your product, lol.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."