Hume's Failed Attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect
I have begun working on my second paper contra Hume. I call it "Hume's Failed Attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect." I am pretty happy with the Abstract and would be interested to talk about it.
Abstract
Like every philosopher of his time, David Hume praised Isaac Newton. But philosophically, Hume opposed Newton’s project of using Natural Philosophy to better understand creation and the Creator. Hume declared that cause and effect was not observable or ascertainable by sense data or logic. Hume specifically argued that one could not say one billiard ball caused another billiard ball to move by striking it. This is a frontal attack on Newton’s Law of Cause and Effect as described in the Principia. This paper examines the metaphysical commitments of both philosophers and examines the evidence that confirms one set of metaphysical commitments and refutes the other. While Hume’s attack is considered influential among philosophers, the world is fortunate that society and scientists have ignored Hume.
Abstract
Like every philosopher of his time, David Hume praised Isaac Newton. But philosophically, Hume opposed Newton’s project of using Natural Philosophy to better understand creation and the Creator. Hume declared that cause and effect was not observable or ascertainable by sense data or logic. Hume specifically argued that one could not say one billiard ball caused another billiard ball to move by striking it. This is a frontal attack on Newton’s Law of Cause and Effect as described in the Principia. This paper examines the metaphysical commitments of both philosophers and examines the evidence that confirms one set of metaphysical commitments and refutes the other. While Hume’s attack is considered influential among philosophers, the world is fortunate that society and scientists have ignored Hume.
Comments (133)
I don’t quite remember, but didn’t physicists have to change or at least clarify a part Newton’s theory to refute Hume’s argument?
Regardless, I agree that Hume’s causal objection is objectionable (even if, not for the same reason or reasons), although only to an extent; so, nonetheless, I personally still accept Hume’s argument in regards to the relation between sensible things or objects of experience, but, I don’t accept it when comes to the relation between sensible & sentient things (& as all sensible things or objects of experience cannot be, in truth, taken as sentient, the reality of the distinction between sensible & sentient things is admitted [which leads me to my partial rejection of Hume’s objection]).
Hume has something stronger in mind. It isn't just that laws of cause and effect aren't observable, but rather that there are no laws of cause and effect.
Since any causal relationship is nothing more than an appearance of some states together, no appeal can be made to an outside governing law. The states consitute what is there/define the causal relationship. A law of cause and effect cannot function because there is always just the states doing their relationship. As such, the states can always override any law might assert governs what are possible causal outcomes.
For exmaple, if there occurs a state of a ball which floats up when released, our insistence the ball must fall down by a law of gravity has no power at all.
I would guess Hume also found Newton useful because his “laws” stipulated a pattern that could be used for developing practical invention, without there being any ultimate truth to those laws. He didn’t ultimately believe in gravity, but probably found the belief useful for practical purposes, so he could safely praise Newton.
Still, his theory is disturbing because whatever he says, of course we all believe in gravity and we really think one ball causes the other to roll even though that is not strictly observable. Luckily, Kant saves our obvious belief with a nice twist. He agrees with Hume that causation is not observable, but he places it in us as a pre-existing, pre-programmed category and thereby secures its reality. Causation really exists, not in itself, but as a necessity in us.
You asked for some references. I will give you a few quotes. The billiard ball illustration was actually one he returned to several times.
In the Treatise Hume writes:
Having thus discovered or supposed the two relations of contiguity and succession to be essential to causes and effects, I find I am stopped short, and can proceed no further in considering any single instance of cause and effect. Motion in one body is regarded upon impulse as the cause of motion in another. When we consider these objects with utmost attention, we find only that the one body approaches the other; and that the motion of it precedes that of the other, but without any, sensible interval. It is in vain to rack ourselves with farther thought and reflection upon this subject. We can go no farther in considering this particular instance. T.1.3.2
Should any one leave this instance, and pretend to define a cause, by saying it is something productive of another, it is evident he would say nothing. For what does he mean by production? Can he give any definition of it, that will not be the same with that of causation? If he can; I desire it may be produced. If he cannot; he here runs in a circle, and gives a synonymous term instead of a definition. T.1.3.2
In the first Enquiry, Hume writes:
The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it. Motion in the second Billiard-ball is a quite distinct event from the motion in the first; nor is there anything in the one to suggest the smallest hint of the other. Section 25
When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion. Section 50
The first time a man saw the communication of motion by impulse, as by the shock of two billiard balls, he could not pronounce that the one event was connected: but only that it was conjoined with the other. After he has observed several instances of this nature, he pronounces them to be connected. What alteration has happened to give rise to this new idea of connexion? Nothing but that he now feels these events to be connected in his imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other. Section 59
Quoting tim wood
I'm glad you agree with me.
I don't know what you are referring to here.
No. I'm not saying anything close to that. I would be willing to say that Newtonian physics are a huge improvement over Cartesian physics and cosmology. Newtonian physics have been made more precise by Einstein's theory, but Einstein's equations still require Newton's g for gravitational constant and the value remains the same.
Quoting aRealidealist
And why would you accept it between objects?
Your description of Hume's view is correct. This is a frontal attack on Newton and his Law of Cause and Effect. And, of course, Newton is right and Hume is wrong.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I wish you could hear yourself.
You understand Hume and Kant correctly. Of course, they are both spouting nonsense. Causation is clearly observable. Physical necessity exists.
I do hear myself.
Hume is correct because he rightly identifies causal relations to be a feature of existing states, rather than being formed out of concepts of laws we imagine. "Laws" only function to describe when states are acting that way.
No. simple causation is directly observed. In the case of simple causes, they exist in the form of physical necessity which we can understand, predict and control. The laws exist because of this physical necessity. Hume never graduated from university and never completed a course in natural philosophy. If he had, he would not have made these simple mistakes.
So why do you think David Hume rates as a philosopher? Why do you think Emmanuel Kant regarded it as such a serious challenge?
Interesting question. Kant's biggest mistake as a philosopher was taking Hume seriously. By attempting to refute Hume and doing a poor job of it, Kant really did a disservice to philosophy. But then the earlier refutations by Reid, Beattie and Priestley were not great either.
A thorough refutation could have been given by some of the really good Newtonian natural philosophers. For example, Willem s'Gravesande could have done one before he passed in 1742 but Newtonians simply didn't care to waste time refuting skeptics. They would rather be about the work.
No, usually at home or a Starbucks. I'm not an academic.
No, Hume is wrong. When we watch a match burn, we are seeing cause and effect. The flame is the cause of the match being consumed. We understand the physical necessity of a flame needing fuel for the fire. When we watch a brick shatter a window, we are seeing cause and effect. No solid objects cannot pass through each other. We understand the physical necessity of the glass breaking so the brick can pass through. There are thousands of everyday examples like these. In Hume's day, he could have watched an executioner chop off a prisoner head. The blade separated the head from the body and the person died. This is cause and effect. We know a body cannot live when the head is separated. We understand the physical necessity.
So far, I entirely agree with Ron Cram. However, based on my understanding of what he and Hume are saying, I can't see why anyone would have EVER taken Hume seriously. Now obviously, Hume WAS and IS taken seriously in philosophy circles. So, I must be missing something. I feel I am way off, so it may require some patience on your part (so I will understand if you ignore this entirely, haha).
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I will show my ignorance immediately. First off, when you say "identifies causal relations" you mean "identify what appear to be causal relations", right? If that is right then we are saying that "what appears to be causal relations are actually just things that exist that are not in any way causally related"...right?
Wouldn't cause and effect work to explain the way things "appear" in the same way that math explains things?
If there is NO cause and effect, doesn't that render science as no more valid than magic? So how should we interpret the repeat-ability of experiments?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't feel the need to refer to any "laws" in order to understand cause and effect? Wouldn't understanding of cause and effect come WAY before the creation of any laws? What are the laws based on if cause and effect is meaningless?
Wait, Is he just saying that cause and effect are subjective not objective? No that can't be it, as cause and effect can be demonstrated objectively (through a repeat-able experiment) as well as ANY concept can be, right?
As you can probably tell, I don't get it. I am willing to read a little, but if you point me at whole books, I will just concede that you know more than me and move on with my day (I am already willing to concede that you know more than me, but I am not yet willing to move on with my day, haha).
What's that, then?
Funny. To me this was one theory early on in learning philosophy as a dilettante, validated me for myself as a real philosopher. This tenet of Hume's assured me I am not crazy when I decided for myself, prior to learing Hume's theory or even knowing that he had ever existed, that natural laws can be broken, without the magic power of the supernatural, but only philosophically speaking, as what humans call natural laws are not laws per se but only our ordering in our minds the events of the wrold we observe.
I was in my twenties when I realized that a priori logic is not something that can incorporate empirical observations, for this very reason.
I extrapolated, falsely or wrongly, then, that in some universes therefore fundamental a priori logical laws could also be broken. For instance, 1+1+1 can equal one. Or some thing can both exist and not exist at the same time and at the same respect.
I was argued against my hypotheses, that a priori laws can be broken by empirical observations. But much later, 40 years later, math in quantum theory did prove me right.
I attended a lecture by a philosophy professor at Western University, which he gave us, a bunch of dilettantes, about seven years ago. He said that our, human's, logic is intuitive, and we developed it as a consequence of reality we have observed as a developing, evolving species; it is an innate, congenital quality, but unfortunately our logic, which philosophers now call Logic One, can be differed by reality, which acts and behaves to the logical laws in empirical matters and manners to Logic Two, which is unacceptable by the human brain and is unintuitive, or intuitively impossible by humanly acceptable and accepted standards.
Precisely. Newton discovered many laws, such as preservation of momentum and energy, such as the nature of acceleration by gravity, such as the law that for every force there is an equal and opposite force, such as that things move without change in their movemnent or are at rest indefinitely until a force is applied ot them, (the law of inertia, I believe), and that things do need force to change speed or velocity; but Newton's laws do not comprise a law called Casue and Effect (Cause a Effet in french, and Schneiderheidigpanzerkraftgewerbunghaffen und Scholtzstuckengrafenpfeifferpferdenheidigungingung in German). According to what I know, anyhow.
It would indeed be interesting to see that the peer review process would accept a paper that debunks one of the theories of Newton which he never made.
Which we all precisely mimicked, until Banno's post as above.
Precisely, but the development of thought re: laws and cause and effect is a bit like which came first, the chicken or the other chicken.
If you believe that cause and effect is the rule of the day, then it follows that laws can exist. But humans first discovered laws, some, and a limited number of laws, but some laws anyway, and from the existence of laws they derived that cause and effect is the rule of our universe.
After all, early man, and humans in currently primitive societies, create explanations for things and events that they could not or can't explain, and that is PRECISELY because humans have a predisposition to believe that cause-effect chains rule the universe's every change and every movement.
For instance, how come the sun gets up in the east, on a flat earth, and sets in the west, yet without any visible movement next moring 'tis again on the east side? Well, the ancient Latvians thought that the sun takes a canoe or raw-boat across the south seas every night to be on time at the east side when it's time for it to get up.
Similar explanations existed all over the place in all cultures, and our superstitions such as a black cat crossing our path of travel is detrimental to us are the remnants of them, proving that humans hankered to see the world around them as a world of cause-and-effect. This is an innate human need, and I hardly think we would have gotten off and out of the trees without it.
In the Principia, Newton tells us how we can learn causes and effects by studying the motions of
bodies. After discussing motions, he then demonstrates the existence of several laws. The Third Law of Motion is also known as Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. It discusses the transfer of kinetic energy such as when one billiard ball strikes another and causes it to move. Newton's doesn't use the term "transfer of kinetic energy" because that term began to be used only in the mid-1800s. But the concept was known and understood since Newton. I will give you a few notes from the Principia.
Begin quotes
Axioms, or Laws of Motion
Law I
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon. P19
Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downward by the force of gravity… The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time. P19
Law II
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.
If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. P19
Law III
To every action there is always opposed an equal action: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. P19
Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone.
If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, towards the contrary part. The changes in these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motion of bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. P20
End Quote
Note: Here Newton is discussing the transfer of kinetic energy, although he does not refer to it by that name. Specifically, Newton is saying when a transfer of kinetic energy happens, the motion of both bodies are changed by that impact. The impact itself (the impinging) is the cause of the observed effect.
Remember that Hume never completed his coursework on natural philosophy. He never read Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, etc. and so he did not have a good foundation to understand Newton when he read the Principia. Hume did not understand why natural philosophers consider the quantity of matter and the quantity of motion to be primary qualities of objects and the color and smell to be secondary qualities. I will point out the color and smell become important in chemistry, but they are not important in physics.
Hume also wrote: "The instance of motion, which is commonly made use of to show after what manner perception depends, as an action, upon its substance, rather confounds than instructs us. Motion to all appearance induces no real or essential change on the body, but only varies its relation to other objects." T.1.4.5. Location 3592 in Kindle
Hume admits that he is confounded by motion. He read Newton but did not understand him. Hume disagreed with Newton, but he did so out of ignorance.
Don't take this wrong, but you are a very odd person.
Quoting Ron Cram
I don't know... I won't be the judge, but I wouldn't call it that.
Whether I took it wrongly as a compliment, I am honoured by the distinction. (NOT joking.)
It sounds like the Spiritism movement is trying to re-define Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. Newton's third law of motion was given that name long before the arrival of the spiritists. The reason is clear. Let me give you a quote from Newton that introduces his laws of motion. Newton writes:
The causes by which true and relative motions are distinguished, one from the other, are the forces impressed upon bodies to generate motion. True motion is neither generated nor altered, but by some force impressed upon the body moved; but relative motion may be generated or altered without any force impressed on the body. For it is sufficient only to impress some force on other bodies with which the former is compared, that by their giving way, the relation may be changed, in which the relative rest or motion of this other body did consist. P16
...how from the motions, either true or apparent, we may come to the knowledge of their causes and effects, shall be explained more at large in the following tract. For to this end it was that I composed it. P18
End Quote
I love when authors tell us why they wrote a particular piece. Here Newton tells us that he wrote the next portion of Book I to explain how we can learn causes and effects by studying the motions of bodies. This is the reason philosophers began to call the third law Newton's Law of Cause and Effect in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
Hume says it is just our habit of seeing these two events happen close to each other that we begin to think that one causes the other. Hume thinks this connection arises in our minds due to our imagination. It is not our imagination. There is a third thing or quality which explains how one ball causes the other to move. It is the transfer of kinetic energy. Whenever you see an object in motion, you are looking at kinetic energy. When you see one ball strike another and the second ball begins to move, there is at least a partial transfer of kinetic energy. Cause and effect is easily observable.
By the way, I'm not the first person to point this out. Ducasse wrote a paper on it in 1930. See Ducasse, C. J. "Of the spurious mystery in causal connections." The Philosophical Review 39.4 (1930): 398-403.
I can agree that you can think of causation and necessity as metaphysical concepts, but they have value because they accurately describe the real world that is external to our minds. I have given several examples of causation being observed: a flame consumes the match, a brick shatters a window, a decapitation causes death. I've explained that causation exists and is observable in these situations because of the physical necessity. A flame must have fuel to burn, two solid objects cannot pass through each other, to be alive a person must have their head attached to their body. These examples are simple, observable and undeniable.
Causation can become more difficult in complex or chaotic system. For example, in medicine it is often difficult to know what caused a particular disease state. While we know that correlation is not causation, doctors will often treat patients as if it is because it provides the best possible guess.
I'm not really arguing these complex situations. Rather, I'm refuting Hume who tried to say that we could not see simple cause and effect such as one billiard ball causing another to move. Hume's claim is ridiculous on its face. It is an embarrassment to philosophy that Hume is considered a great philosopher.
Yet it would be very weird to claim that a flame is caused by fuel, a window is caused by there not being a brick in the same space, and a person being alive because their head is attached to their body. In fact whenever we single out one specific factor as the cause - like the spark that lit the match, the brick that shattered the window etc., we are simplifying. This simplification is also the root of the saying "correlation does not imply causation", which is only partially true. Causation in the strictest sense only exists between the entirety of states of a system. One entire state causes another.
The crucial thing you seem to be missing is that the only justification we have for claiming that one state causes the other is that, to us, the states appear to follow each other in time. What you call physical necessity - the laws of physics, all depend on causation as an axiom. Therefore, they cannot prove causation.
You are arguing against a strawmen, Hume didn't deny the world can be split up into causes and effects for practical purposes,... he was after capital C Causality as a underlying metaphysical law. His motivation was to undercut the unbroken chain of Causality all the way back to an original creator, which gave theist an argument for God.
Also modern physics actually agree with Hume that causes and effects or Causality don't really exist at a fundamental level, things move according to a pattern, no causes and effects are necessary. Here's a vid where this is explained clearly and briefly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AMCcYnAsdQ
And a final point, on could argue that even though on an everyday basis Newton's law of gravity holds as an accurate mathematical description, his picture of gravity is fundamentally wrong. There's no 'force of gravity' or "masses attracting eachother"... gravity is the curvature of space.
Maybe. That looks a stretch to me. Look beyond billiard balls and the metaphor of cause and effect breaks down. Given two equal and opossum forces, it need not be clear - indeed, in many cases it is not clear - which is to be considered the cause, and which the effect.
A quick scroll down the Google results of "Newton's Law of Cause and Effect" shows a bunch of fringe notions that look to be trying to blame Newton for stuff he didn't say.
And that's why I would probably not read your paper - it would seem to be arguing that Hume misunderstood something Newton did not say.
Yes, that would be weird and not what I'm doing at all. It is a logical fallacy to think that because separating a head from a living body would cause it to die that sewing the head back on would cause the body to come back to life. The weirdness of the idea isn't really relevant to the fact that physical necessity is present in these cases of cause and effect that I mention.
Quoting Echarmion
False. Cause and effect are directly observable. I've given a number of examples. You have not attempted to refute the examples and so I am under the impression that you agree that cause and effect are directly observable in these cases. From the fact that we can observe cause and effect, we then inquire into the physical necessity that produces the effect. I've already named the physical necessities at work in my examples. Again, you have not attempted to refute these examples of physical necessity and so I am under the impression you agree that a physical necessity exists in each example. From the existence of physical necessity, we can then posit the existence of physical laws. The physical laws then allow us to make inductive inferences regarding future natural events. This allows us to plan for and control our environments, engineering bridges and skyscrapers and build smart phones. If Hume was right and cause and effect was only mental, then we would not be living in a technologically advanced society and we would be communicating using quill pens.
It is not the poison that is toxic, but the quantity. Yes, it is possible to know that everyone who takes a certain quantity of a given poison will die. The way we know this is due to physical necessity.
he he.
The problem is that here you're begging the question. Hume's work is called 'a treatise concerning human understanding'. Hume is questioning the nature of knowledge, the steps by which we arrive at understanding, whereas you're simply accepting the apparent veracity of the senses in the matter.
A comparable example. You might be familiar with Samuel Johnson's purported refutation of George Berkeley's philosophy, which is called argumentum ad lapidum, 'appeal to the stone'.
All of what you say about Hume's argument about causation is directly comparable. You're simply appealing to common sense -saying, in effect, that 'obviously a causes b because we can see it'. Then you wonder how the subject of philosophy could be so daft as to fall for such an obvious fallacy.
That's why I asked you if you were submitting your paper to a philosophy department, because if you did, I suspect it would't pass.
The words "fundamental level" refer to quantum scales. Hume was not aware of quantum mechanics so don't try to force him to take a position he never took. In the video you linked, Sean Carroll admits that causes and effects are known on the classical scale.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
You are correct to a point. Newton did discover the law of gravity and he described it using an inverse square law and assigned the symbol g for his equations. Newton did not assign a cause for gravity, he simply described it as a centripetal force without being able to assign a cause for the attraction. Einstein came with a deeper and more precise theory which explained the cause of the attraction as the warping of the spacetime continuum. But Einstein still retained Newton's g in his equations and g retained the same value that Newton gave it. Someday we may have a deeper theory still which will explain why massive objects warp the fabric of spacetime. When we discover it, we will not make fun of Einstein because he didn't know the cause. And we don't mock Newton because he didn't know spacetime was warped. Einstein stood on the shoulders of Newton. The point of this thread is that Hume is attacking Newton's law of cause and effect. This is not something Einstein did or would have done.
I understand what Hume is saying. I'm simply pointing out that he's wrong. We have discovered the power behind the transfer of kinetic energy, we do know the connection between decapitation and death. Let's see you take one of my examples and argue that we are not observing cause and effect. Are you telling me that when people watch an execution by decapitation that they are NOT seeing cause and effect? Are you saying that removing the head from the body doesn't cause death?
I've already quoted Newton's Principia. I've already proven what Newton said.
Hume says a lot of things, most of which is nonsense. If you wanted to know the nature or essence of a bar of metal, would you go to a philosopher or to a scientist? I would go to a condensed matter physicist who could tell me all about the bar of metal: the alloy, the tensile strength, the density, the melting point, relative strength compared to stainless steel or titanium. The scientist could tell me everything I could want to know. Hume can tell me nothing. Why do you have any faith in Hume's comments at all? Shouldn't you be a little more skeptical of him?
You'd go to a scientist. What Hume is saying is not relevant to science, per se, so to interpret him as a lousy scientist is to misunderstand the point.
No, I'm not. The veracity of the senses can be tested. Testing is the whole point of experimental philosophy.
Quoting Wayfarer
Hume's argument is based on his skeptical idealism and his skeptical materialism. The first paper I will submit for publication deals with Hume's skeptical idealism. It includes a proof of the external world which completes defeats skeptical idealism. This second paper will deal with Hume's skeptical materialism. In other words, once we know that objects external to our minds exist, how can we learn about them? The answer is that we can test our senses to gain confidence in their integrity. We learn that under certain circumstances our senses may deceive us, but we learn that through the use of other senses and reason. When our senses are in agreement, that increases our confidence in our senses. The great philosopher Dallas Willard liked to say "Reality is what you run into when you are wrong." Our senses have proven to be highly reliable.
I don't buy the yang and yin analogy. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. Newton is the most important philosopher in the history of philosophy. The Treatise is a frontal attack on Newton, his methods, natural philosophy, geometry, and Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. It springs out of Hume's ignorance of natural philosophy. He's just wrong.
One. However, we don't have any cavemen to test the question on. When I say that you can observe cause and effect in a decapitation, it assumes you know enough about biology and anatomy to know that the head and brain cannot be detached from the body without causing death. I would assume a caveman would know that. But the question is irrelevant. We certainly know it today.
My first paper on Hume is not published yet, but it is not possible that the world is a consistent illusion. My paper demonstrates my point.
Not true. Hume is arguing against the possibility of science. He is saying that we cannot possibly learn the things about the essence and nature of matter that we have learned. Hume makes the claim that we will never learn the nature and essence of bread that makes it fit to nourish the body. That claim certainly has not aged well. We know all about calories, protein, carbohydrates, fats, antioxidants and more. We understand biology, anatomy, the digestive system and cell biology that tells how a bagel eaten in the morning can end up as part of your earlobe in the afternoon. Hume is anti-science. Philosophy will never progress out of its current state of darkness until Hume is seen as entirely refuted.
Hume is also the better scientist because he takes what the world does. He allows for instances of the world breaking our expectations. When it happens, he won't get caught rejecting. He hasn't predismissed the possibility of such a state. If the world we observe happens to break a law, so much worse for the law.
Actually, in Newton's terms we would call this third thing a "force". But "force" is arguably entirely imaginary. Just like Hume said, its a concept devised to account for changes in momentum.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This is what happens when you take Newton by his words. We have to account for the real existence of what he calls "force". Ron Cram refuses to do this. The modern trend in physics seems to be to relocate "force". Instead of being completely conceptual and therefore independent from the thing (as per Newton), the trend is to make force a natural property of an object. This is somewhat problematic, making Einstein's gravity a natural property of space, rather than a "force". So space must be a real substance to have this property.
Quoting Ron Cram
What you have done is substitute Newton's term "force", with the concept of "cause and effect". But force is not directly observable, it is deduced through the application of principles like Newton's laws.
Are you ready to discuss Newton's laws without substituting "force", and address directly what Newton meant by this term?
Therefore, when we observe that a body's motion changes, we can conclude that it was acted upon by a force. Notice that we conclude deductively that a force acted, by applying Newton's first law as a premise. We do not observe that a force acted.
It is irrational to argue that science will not continue to work. You have no evidence to support that view.
What does that even mean? We make bread. If we use the ingredients to make bread, then we know it will provide nourishment.
Hume has no idea what the world does. He admits that he doesn't understand motion. He's the opposite of a scientist.
Everyone knows that Newton uses the term "force" to mean "kinetic energy" and "impulse" to mean "transfer of kinetic energy."
You are asking the wrong questions. Why not try to find an argument that will refute the examples I've given instead of trying to change the subject?
You are thinking about this wrong. We observe cause and effect directly. We come to understand the physical necessity involves. This leads us to understand the natural law at work. The physical law then allows us to make inductive inferences. This is how science works. Modern philosophers of science understand this, but Hume and his followers are still living in the Middle Ages.
You quoted some stuff about the Laws of Motion. What I am questioning is the connection between this and supposed laws of cause and effect. Your quotes do not show any such connection.
Newton did not write a specific law of cause and effect; in particular, the law "To every action there is always opposed an equal action" is not a law of cause and effect.
Well, no. He used the word "force" to mean force.
Force is the product of mass and acceleration. Kinetic energy is, in contrast, half the square of the velocity, times the mass.
You're ignoring the important point, that Hume didn't say what you think he said.
Quoting Ron Cram
Hume only made a sceptical argument about Causation, namely that (on a macro-level) we don't see anything like a mechanism or law of Causation, which was inferred by others at the time. For Causation to be true metaphysically it has to be true on a more fundamental level too, or what would 'metaphysical' mean otherwise?
On a classical scale means on the surface, emergent... that is not fundamentally or metaphysically. Causes and effects only emerge from more fundamental properties of the universe, like those described in particle physics and the fact that the universe happened to start out low entropy.
Edit: The point is not that Hume took a modern physics point of view, but that he was sceptical of people inferring something they had no evidence for. And as it turns out modern physics seems to justify his scepticism.
Quoting Ron Cram
I don't think causes (and effects) are the best vocabulary to use here, the curvature of spacetime doesn't exactly 'cause' attraction... Edit: ... and although some of the math stayed the same, the whole paradigm has changed.
Every physicist in the world has been taught that Newton's third law of motion is also called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. How can you verify my claim that Newton's third law is commonly called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect? Let me Google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Newton%27s%20law%20of%20cause%20and%20effect%22
You keep making that claim. I've already given you four examples where we can see cause and effect. Please explain to me what we are seeing in these four examples that could convince you we are NOT seeing cause and effect.
False. What is true on classical scales does not have to be true on quantum scales. Also, Sean Carroll didn't mention this, but Einstein was correct when he said that GR and QM will never be unified because the spacetime continuum cannot be quantized.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The term "fundamentally" and "metaphysically" are not synonymous.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
False. Sean Carroll is a modern physicist. He knows that we live in the classical scale universe and the video admits that cause and effect play a role in our everyday lives.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The use of "cause and effect" to describe the warping of the universe causing the attraction of gravity is exactly right. And someday we may learn why massive objects warp the spacetime continuum. The math between Newton and Einstein is very, very close. Newton's equations are much easier to work with and precise enough on smaller astronomical scales, that NASA used Newton's equations to plan the manned flight to the moon instead of Einstein's.
I think you slightly misunderstand the point of the example. It's about why cutting of the head can be labeled a "cause" even though it's only one element among many of the system. I turned your examples around to show that your "cause" is not sufficient.
Quoting Ron Cram
I think what I have written already hints at the refutation, but I can make it explicit. Let's take the example of the brick. You say that the brick shatters the window, but that's not actually a property of the brick. Rather, what shatters the window is the movement of the brick, only the movement is also not sufficient. So the moving brick must also encounter the window, which occupies the same space at the same time. But the Pauli exclusion principle says that it is impossible for the brick to be in the same place.
So it must be the moving brick approaching the window. It must be that the brick, in some instant, while on a certain vector through spacetime, is just about to occupy the same space and time as the window, on a different vector through spacetime. But that is a description of a state, followed by another state, where various particles are now on different vectors. We might call the transition from one state to another an "interaction", but where, precisely, is the cause? Is the entire state of the universe that cause, and the entire next state the effect?
No, there's a very big difference here. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. And momentum is equal to mass times velocity. "Kinetic energy" was developed from Leibniz' "vis viva" (living force), which was expressed as mass time velocity squared. This was later modified in the concept of "kinetic energy" such that kinetic energy is half of the vis viva
You can see that "force", as mass time acceleration is quite different from "kinetic energy" as half of mass times velocity squared. Kinetic energy refers to a simple property of a body in motion, the capacity to do work. "Force" was meant by Newton to refer to the means by which a body's motion is altered; this is quite clear in Newton's first law. The capacity to do work (kinetic energy), as a potential which a moving body has, is quite distinct from a 'force" which is actively doing work, changing a body's motion. This is why the "force" of gravity, as something actively doing work, must be expressed as potential energy, the capacity to create motion (kinetic energy) in a body, rather than as kinetic energy. So you'll find that in field physics, forces which are actively doing work, are expressed as potential energy.
Quoting Ron Cram
Despite your claim that I am thinking wrong, you clearly have this backward. The "physical law" is an inductive conclusion, produced from descriptions of natural occurrences. Any "necessity" which is apprehended is a logical necessity dependent on acceptance of the inductive law. This is the necessity which Hume questions. The physical law does not necessarily represent any "natural law" at work, as the physical law is merely inductive conclusion produced from our observations. So the validity of the physical law is supported by the probability of correctness of the inductive conclusion, and has the possibility of being inaccurate, due to the role of probability in inductive reasoning. Therefore your claim that we observe the natural law at work is false. There is no necessary relationship between the physical law and any "natural law".
No, you turned around my example to no point at all. If you want to refute my point, then you would have to explain how the body could continue to function and live when the neurological pathway between the brain and the heart are no longer functioning. There is a physical necessity that the head and body be connected. There are many physical necessities that must be present in order to allow for the possibility of life. I'm simply pointing to one.
Quoting Echarmion
This is not a refutation. It is not even a positional statement about what happened.
No. Leibniz did not invent the term "kinetic energy." The term was not coined until the mid-1800s. And this really has nothing to do with the vis viva controversy between Newton and Leibniz. Newton clearly understood that an object in motion is a force, a term later seen to be equivalent to the term kinetic energy. Newton talked of this force being communicated to another object by "impulse" or "the shock of impulse." Today we speak of the transfer of kinetic energy. This is the same thing.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, a law is not declared based on frequentism. This is a mistake philosopher's sometimes make based upon Hume's errors. No natural process can be called a law unless the physical necessity is understood.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
For this discussion, physical law and natural law are equivalent terms. Laws of physics are laws of nature.
It's a question. Given that you claim we can directly observe causation, you should be able to tell me what the actual cause is, in physical terms.
Quoting Ron Cram
It could be kept alive by machinery. That's not difficult to imagine given we can stop people's hearts for surgery.
Quoting Ron Cram
Can you point out to me what physical laws make this a physical necessity?
Quoting Ron Cram
So, if there are multiple, which one is the cause? Are all together the cause?
Did I say that? It seems you do not know how to read.
Quoting Ron Cram
Either you haven't read Newton's laws, or you're just demonstrating further, that you do not know how to read. A body in motion will exert a force on another. The body in motion is not the force itself. This is very clear in Newton's writing. A body in motion moves uniformly, according to the first law, and it has momentum according to its mass and velocity. If a force acts on a body, its motion changes. So "force" is understood through change in motion, not as the property of an object in motion. This is clear from the fact that gravity is a force, and it is not an object in motion.
Quoting Ron Cram
OK, then when someone like Newton declares a law, what is it based on?
How could you possibly know this, are you a theoretical physicist? Even they don't know if unification is possible or not. Sean Carroll thinks "quantizing" is a wrongheaded approach because you are starting from a classical framework and trying to incorporated quantum mechanics. He thinks QM is more fundamental and we should start from there and try to find space, time and gravity in QM...
Anyway, if unification is not possible, one theory will have to be revised. That's what they do agree on, and the non-compatibility can't just be waved away with things behaving differently on smaller and larger scales because in some cases the smaller and the larger scale coïncide, i.e. black holes and the big bang.
Quoting Ron Cram
Alright, what does metaphysical mean then, if it doesn't include the fundamental?
Quoting Ron Cram
But nobody believes that we shouldn't divide things up into causes and effects in our everyday lives, not even Hume. The point is that cause and effect are just conveniences, for our understanding, not a fundamental law of the universe, which was what Hume was arguing against.
Quoting Ron Cram
No it's not, that's a Newtonian way of speaking about it. There is no attraction, mass curves spacetime, and the curve of spacetime determines how masses move. Singling out causes and effects to describe a proces where everything influences everthing else seems to only complicate the matter unnecessarily.
Quoting Ron Cram
Sure, Newton's equation works in most cases, but Einsteins is more accurate and general because it also works in extreme cases. And even if it's only a refinement in math, it's a paradigm shift in what kind of worldview it gives rise to. A physics equation often can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, like for instance QM-equations now. Usually one only starts to make progress again if one changes the way one interprets things… like it was the case with the devellopment of QM.
I have. And I have asked you to refute me. You have not.
Quoting Echarmion
It is the physical necessity that points to the laws, not the other way round. Are you doubting that it is physically necessary for the head to be attached to the body for a person to be alive?
Quoting Echarmion
Machines can keep the heart pumping and keep air going into and out of the lungs, but that isn't enough to sustain life for a person without a head.
Quoting Echarmion
The cause of the death is separating the head from the body. This separation cuts off many physical necessities for life. If you cut off one physical necessity and not the others, death would take longer. By separating them all at once, death happens immediately. It's an interesting question why this accumulative effect brings immediate death and not slow death, but that is not really the subject before us.
No, you!
Quoting Ron Cram
Yes. I doubt that even having any biological body is necessary, given that "a person" is really just a mind.
Quoting Ron Cram
Right. And why would you? After all a body is not the person. What about the other way round though? Head without body.
Quoting Ron Cram
Really? Not the loss of blood pressure to the brain, or lack of oxygenation, or some form of trauma shutting down the nervous system?
Objects in motion possess (or are) kinetic energy. Gravity is not a kinetic energy. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces in nature. The other three are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. Kinetic energy is not a fundamental force but a force that is bound to objects.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's a good question. One element Newton and others look for is physical necessity. They also look for the ability to model the action mathematically. Newton used geometry in the Principia. Math can show that a physical necessity is at work, even if the physical necessity is not clearly understood. Newton also had the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Kepler's laws of planetary motion provided important insights for Newton as he did his work.
If an apple drops from a tree, it still falls to the ground. It does not go into orbit following a curved spacetime. Attraction exists. The warping of spacetime explains planetary motion precisely, but I don't see that it is explains gravitational attraction on the surface of earth. Causes and effects are necessary due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
I'm pretty sure this is just wrong, the apple does falls to the ground because of curved spacetime. The surface of the earth is not excluded from Einsteins theory of general relativity. It's only on the very small scales that it breaks down.
Quoting Ron Cram
I don't wholly buy into the Principle of Sufficient Reason either.
You seem to understand the difference between "force" and "kinetic energy", so why insist that kinetic energy is a force? Do you not recognize that forces are understood as potential energy, not as kinetic energy?
Quoting Ron Cram
You are making this up. Newton discusses no such thing as "physical necessity", he simply states his "laws" of motion. Whether or not these laws are meant to represent an observed "physical necessity" is never mentioned, and such a conclusion (by you) is an absurdity.
What might sometimes be referred to as a "physical necessity" is the necessity derived from an inductive conclusion. But as Hume demonstrated, this is not truly a necessity at all, because it is probability based. There is no such thing as "physical necessity" in the way that you use it
Quoting Ron Cram
If you truly believe this, then show me an instance where math demonstrates a physical necessity which is not based in statistics and probability.
Quoting Ron Cram
Good- now let's examine the evidence.
If every physicist learns that the Third Law of Motion is also called the law of cause and effect, then one would expect to see plenty of pages about the laws of motion. What one finds is as follows, in order...
and so on. The very evidence you cite shows that you are wrong.
Incidentally, I linked to the same search in my second post here:
Quoting Banno
So, there's that.
Some small number of folk do call Newton;s third Law the Law of Cause and Effect. It's certainly not common, and it is also misleading.
SO it seems to me that unfortunately your research is misguided.
I have provided this answer more than once, but will do so again. Let's take the four examples I've cited.
1. One billiard ball moves, strikes a second ball and causes it to move. This is cause and effect. What you are observing is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first billiard ball "has" or "is" kinetic energy. Either term is acceptable because kinetic energy exists because the ball is moving. The kinetic energy and the moving ball are inextricable. Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when the first ball strikes the second, it causes the second ball to move. The first ball has slowed or stopped and the second ball which was stopped is now moving. That you are observing a transfer of kinetic energy is plainly obvious.
2. A match is consumed by the flame. When you strike a match, a flame ignites. The combustion process requires fuel, it is a physical necessity. As the match burns, you can see that it is consumed by the flame as smoke rises from the match. You can watch the flame progress down the match as it burns. The flame is causing the match to be consumed.
3. A brick shatters a window. When someone throws a brick through a window, we know the window is going to break. A physical necessity exists. Two solid objects cannot occupy the same space. You can even video record the brick breaking the window and watch in slow motion if you choose. You will see the brick begin to warp the window until the window cannot bend anymore without breaking, and then it breaks. There is no reasonable question about the brick causing or not causing the window to break. Causation is plainly visible.
4. Decapitation causes death. This form of execution was rarely used when Hume was alive but came back into fashion after Hume passed during the French Revolution. A physical necessity exists for anyone to be alive. Actually, many physical necessities exist, but we are only looking at one. The one is the head must be connected to the body. When you chop someone's head off, it causes them to die. There is no question about this. Cause and effect are in play. You can watch them as the axe or guillotine blade comes down.
If you wish to refute me, then you must defend each of these statements:
1. Two billiard balls can occupy the same space.
2. A flame does not require fuel to burn.
3. A brick cannot cause a window to break.
4. Decapitation does not cause death.
Good luck!
Hume believed in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Constantly throughout the Treatise he is inquiring after the cause of certain mental events. It's funny that he doesn't like the principle of sufficient reason regarding the external material world, but he is a true believer regarding mental events. Hume believes our thoughts are caused by impressions, ideas, contiguity, resemblance, connection, imagination. He comes up with all kinds of causes for mental events, but he want to suspend judgment on material objects.
It's pretty astonishing that someone with pretences to philosophical reasoning can present such an argument.
The little google search I provided for you demonstrates that I did not come up with the idea on my own. It is too bad that Google retrieves a bunch of non-physicist websites, but the evidence still proves my point.
If you want to take on the assignment of proving me wrong, go for it!
This is a lie worthy of Trump. You provided the link to the Google search. Look at the Google Search. It does not support your contention that Newton wrote a law of cause and effect.
Why are you so emotional?
When the first ball strikes the other, you can hear the click. Your senses confirm one another because the external world is real.
Quoting Gregory
Hume was anti-science. It sounds like you are also. Is that true?
Quote
According to Humeanism, the causal facts pertaining to any subregion of the world are extrinsic to that region,' supervening on the global distribution of freely recombinable fundamental properties.2 For example, according to the Humean, a spatio-temporal region in which a certain intrusion of a bullet into a body is followed by death is only extrinsically a region in which the intrusion causes the death. The latter causal fact will, if it obtains, be underwritten by certain global regularities (most obviously, those connecting death to certain bodily disturbances) that are extrinsic to the region in question. Embed an intrinsic duplicate of that region in a global setting where very different regularities are in play and it may be false of that duplicate region that its intrusion and its death are causally connected. Similarly a spatio-temporal region that contains a substance that has a certain causal power-say of poisoning human beings-is only extrinsically a region where that causal power is present. Embed an intrinsic duplicate of a region in very different global settings and the relevant power may be absent. Humeanism thus delivers the thesis that the causal facts pertaining to a region are extrinsic to it. But that thesis, no matter how it is embellished, is incompatible with a pair of very obvious facts about my own nature. Accordingly, Humeanism is untenable. That many philosophers subscribe to it ought not to convince us to the contrary. History
provides reminders aplenty of philosophers' willingness to believe absurd doctrines.
End Quote
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3506168.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A79e73f454721bd90ec09b3583ff765b3
:grin:
So now you want to talk about me?
Sure. But first, take your foot out of your mouth.
We don't have to talk about you. If you want to take up the challenge of refuting me, I've given you the four propositions you have to defend. Go to work!
Quote
I defend the following argument in this paper:
1. Laws of nature are intrinsic to the universe.
2. Humeanism maintains that laws of nature are extrinsic to the universe.
C. Humeanism is false.
This argument is inspired by John Hawthorne’s (2004) argument in “Humeans are out of their Minds”. My argument differs from his; Hawthorne focuses on Humean views of causation and how they interact with judgments about consciousness. He thinks Humeans are forced to treat certain mental properties (insofar as they involve causal features) as extrinsic to conscious minds. I do not discuss causation or consciousness here. Instead, I focus on Humean accounts of laws. I argue that Humean laws are extrinsic to the entire universe. As such, Humeans are not just out of their minds; they are out of this world.
I aim to show that premises 1 and 2 are well-supported and that denying either of them comes at a cost. Nevertheless, some Humeans may prefer to reject 1 or 2 rather than give up Humeanism. Even if the Humean takes one of these routes, the argument above has philosophical import: it shows that Humeanism involves surprising commitments.
End Quote
http://ericashumener.net/Shumener%20out%20of%20this%20world.pdf
I'll take a look at this for you. First, we cannot say that the ball "is" kinetic energy, because a ball is more than just that, and the fact that it stops moving and has no more kinetic energy, in your example indicates that it is more than just kinetic energy. So let's assume that it "has" kinetic energy, as a property. After the first ball strikes the second ball, the first ball no longer has kinetic energy, and the second ball has kinetic energy. So one ball looses kinetic energy, and another ball gains kinetic energy.
By what principle do you say that this is a "transfer"? One object looses a property and another gains a similar property, why would this be a transfer of property? Do you observe the property coming off of the one and going into the other? If it is true that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, how does this premise validate your claim that one object transfers a property to another? What we observe is that one object ceases to be in motion, and the other starts to be in motion. We do not see any transfer of motion.
When you understand a ball as consisting of many parts, molecules, rather than as a mass with a centre of gravity, you'll see that all the kinetic energy of the one ball must be transformed into potential energy before that potential energy can act as a force to accelerate the second ball. So there is no transferral of kinetic energy, there is a deceleration of the first ball, as its kinetic energy is transformed to potential energy, and an acceleration of the second ball, as that potential energy acts to create kinetic energy in the second ball. Potential energy acts as a medium between the two instances of kinetic energy, therefore there is no transferral of kinetic energy, only two instances of kinetic energy, with potential energy separating the two.
The ball isn't kinetic energy. The moving ball is kinetic energy. When the ball is moving, the ball and the kinetic energy are inextricable.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Correct. This is why we call it a transfer of kinetic energy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because of the conservation of energy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, we observe one slow or stop and the other begin to move. You observe the first ball lose kinetic energy. The second ball had inertia and the force of the impact was enough to overcome inertia and give the second ball kinetic energy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when one moves into that space, the second ball has to move out of the space. This is the physical necessity I've explained.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, what we see is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first ball was moving, now the second ball is moving. It was knocked out of its space because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
False. Kinetic energy does not need to be transformed into potential energy before doing any work. Kinetic energy directly does work.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
False, but let's say this weird theory were true. In that case, we would still be observing cause and effect.
That one ball stops having kinetic energy, and the other one starts, does not mean that kinetic energy was transferred.
Quoting Ron Cram
It could only be a transfer if the very same kinetic energy was in the second ball as in the first. But some kinetic energy is lost due to inefficiencies, therefore the second ball does not have the same kinetic energy as the first, and there is no transfer.
Quoting Ron Cram
Right, we do not see any kinetic energy being transferred from one ball to the other.
Quoting Ron Cram
This is nonsense. The one object could resist being moved, and just absorb the impact. There is no necessity that the object give up its place to give it to the other object. Again, you are just making up this idea of "physical necessity". It's pure nonsense.
Quoting Ron Cram
Asserting nonsense doesn't get you anywhere. You need an argument to justify your assertions. As I explained, there is no necessity that the object gets "knocked out of its space", it might absorb the impact, and the other object might bounce of, or explode into bits. Your so-called "physical necessity" is nonsense.
Quoting Ron Cram
Back this up with a mathematical demonstration then.
Quoting Ron Cram
That's not true, and this is the whole point, which I explained to you earlier. We do not observe energy. We apply the principles and deduce that the object has energy. We do not see energy with any of our senses, we use our minds to figure out that the object has energy, through application of the principles. The same is the case with cause and effect. Which senses do you believe that we use to observe cause and effect?
Yes, it does. The energy is conserved and transferred from one ball to the other. Forget that for a minute. How does denying that kinetic energy is transferred help your position that we cannot observe cause and effect? It doesn't matter what you call it. The two balls cannot both occupy the same space. One ball knocks the second ball out of its position. You can watch that happen. You can plainly see that one ball has caused the other ball to move. What can you possibly gain by trying to deny what everyone can see with their own eyes?
Every pool shark with $20 riding on the outcome of a game of 8 ball knows that cause and effect is in play. When the pool hustler makes the prediction "8 ball in the corner pocket," it is because he knows that when the cue ball hits the 8 ball it will cause it to move. Only a pseudo-philosopher would attempt to deny what we can all plainly see.
There you are going all anti-science again. You don't know how science works and so your criticisms of it are useless.
I'm not sure what you are looking for exactly. But here's a website that will explain the basic equation which can be applied in different ways.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Kinetic-Energy
This next lesson explains that kinetic energy can do work directly as mechanical energy.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Mechanical-Energy
They can. Billiard balls aren't solid particles on a quantum scale. It's just spectacularly unlikely.
But, given that you are aware of the exclusion principle, how can one Billiard ball "hit" another if they cannot occupy the same space?
Quoting Ron Cram
A flame [I]is[/] hot, radiating fuel, so this question is plainly nonsense.
Quoting Ron Cram
A brick on it's own certainly doesn't, or else how do houses have windows?
Quoting Ron Cram
Ever heard of a brain in a vat?
None of these questions are really related to causation, by the way.
SO you are not here for an open critique of your ideas, preferring to set out the conditions for any disagreement only in your own terms.
Fine.
That's an odd description. I've never seen a cause, and the way I understand "cause" it would be impossible to see a cause, so I reject that claim as false, just like I would reject as false, the claim that someone saw God. You are obviously using "cause" in a different way from me, and are unable to make your use appear coherent to me.
In relation to Newton's laws, the question is whether you saw the force, which acted on the ball, because according to Newton, force is what causes acceleration. Until you convince me that you can see a force, you will not convince me that you saw the "cause" of motion, using "cause" in a way which is applicable to Newton's laws. Any other argument is useless equivocation.
Quoting Ron Cram
Do you not understand the difference between knowing that cause and effect is in play, and seeing cause and effect? One can know something without seeing it.
Quoting Ron Cram
What your lesson actually says is that a "force" does the work. You are leaving out an essential part of the equation, the means by which one form of energy is converted to another, and that is "force". As Newton explained, the billiard ball does not directly cause the other ball to move, it does this through the means (medium) of force. There is activity which occurs in that very short time between one ball moving and the other ball moving, and this activity is represented as "force" which is understood through deceleration and acceleration. The ball applies a force to the other ball, and the force is what causes the ball to move. The fact that the so-called transfer of energy is not one hundred per cent, and some is lost to inefficiencies, is evidence of this activity in the time between. And as I explained to you, in modern physics forces are understood in terms of fields, which represent potential energy, not kinetic energy.
Energy (all kinds, not just kinetic) is equalivalent to potential to perform work. Therefore it can also be expressed as force acted over a distance, or the potential to carry out a force across a distance. Or the amount of heat produced or the potential to do so.
Not arguin', just sayin'.
Yeah, it is the moniker for the moderator of another philosophy online club who is an absolute ruler of that forum. He tramples over other people, he tells everyone what to do, and by george everyone does what he commands, because he is a big BULLY. Consequently his forum is almost entirely dead, since everyone with just a bit of spine has left it, only those who are his lieblings and his vassals remain there.
This is true. Sorta. What you said can be a valid corollary of Hume's claim, although Hume came at it from a different angle.
But Hume's rejection can be rejected, too... on a personal basis, not on a philosophical basis. A person may convince himself that it is seemingly advantageous to accept the assumption on which science is based, and he may convince himself that it is advantageous to suspend acting to the philosophical skepticism of Hume.
This does not negate the validity of Hume's point; it just ignores it, and lo and behold, life is easier to live ignoring Hume's point than to live with it.
Yes, this was Humes point, or one of his many points... that we want to see causes even if they are not necessarily there in world. That's a psychological truth, and not a metaphysical one like the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
I was a Physics major as an undergrad (albeit not a very good one). I can assure you that the expression "Cause and Effect" was never once mentioned in any of my classes. I checked out your link. My eyesight is not what it used to be, but I did not say a single textbook amongst them.
"Cause and Effect" (AKA causality) is strictly a philosophical term that has no place in Physics.
That said, Cause & Effect is a highly useful concept in our day to day lives - I rely on it to keep my pants from falling off.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/#H4
Cartesian physics, in its many errors, nonetheless, does still have one major advantage over that of Newton’s, in not positing any absolute nature of space & motion; so as to be able to understand these in only a relative sense, which can, then, be mathematically calculated & represented according a coordinate system, that Descartes himself created for this very purpose. Which is, ultimately, the foundation & precursor of relativity in German physics, first through Leibiniz (a well-known intellectual opponent of Newton), & then, eventually, through Mach, leading to Einstein’s view (a view that he didn’t make more precise from a previous Newtonian one but was altogether changed [mainly due to his roots in German physics, which stems back to Descartes as was just noted]).
Plus, not to mention that Einstein didn’t merely work on or improve but completely changed the physical explanation of gravity itself, from Newton’s previous one; no longer viewing it as some occult quality, which magically pulls distant matter together (action-at-a-distance, in its own form), but as a warping or modification of the space-time manifold or substratum in which matter is suspended (there being understood direct action [not at a distance] between these [Einstein being entirely against the notion of action-at-a-distance]); despite if the gravitational constant for the “attraction” of matter remains.
why would you accept it between objects?
For, very strictly empirically speaking, in no relation between the states of any objects is there ever experienced one actually producing another (if we understand the effect to involve the cause, & vice versa); in as much as one is self-evidently insufficient to be explanation of the production of another, i.e., one doesn’t involve any other, & so it cannot be maintained as the cause of another (again, if we understand the effect to involve the cause, & vice versa).
Let’s take Hume’s billiards example, in this case, no state of any of the experienced objects, for example, a state of contact between two observed billiard balls, i.e., state A, involves or requires another, such as a state of motion of the two observed billiard balls after contact, i.e., state B, for it to be; such that we cannot hold that state A caused or produced state B, since it’s possible for either one to actually be without the other (observation of their contact doesn’t absolutely involve the observation of their motion upon it, nor does the observation of their motion absolutely involve the observation of their contact); & therefore no state of any of the experienced objects are ever actually observed to produce another, but are only observed to precede or succeed another.