From: Keth on 24 Dec 2009 04:22 On Dec 24, 9:49 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 5:21 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 24, 12:52 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Dec 24, 1:24 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 7:41 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > ... > > > Well, point out the danger of a person answering "A car knocked her > > > over as she was crossing the road" to the question "what caused your > > > sister's death?" What danger in > > > understanding is it that a philosopher armed with some physics will so > > > greatly avoid? > > > A condition that triggers this tragedy can be analyzed more > > thoroughly than your simple analysis. > > Have I denied this? What is the exact point of doing this, it might > not be relevant, it might not be what the questioner wants to know. > > > I have heard number of cases > > where a person walked across the street suddenly and the driver > > couldnt avoid her or him and caused the accident. Thus the > > condition that causes the accident is mainly the pedestrians > > recklessness and negligence and in this case the driver is not at > > fault. > > You seem not to understand that this further elaboration is not > inconsistent with that a car crashing into her at speed caused her > death. You want to be a causal geek, fine, be one. But don't bore > people who ask causal questions, it might be inappropriate. Causal geek? It is critically important to determine who actually "causes" the accident. It may not matter to you, but it is essential for the driver and the victim's families. You are off again here. > ...> > If two tables are compared and one is a bit wobbly and the other is > > > not and it is due to that one has four well spaced thick legs and the > > > other only 1 (nice and thick but only one!), then it is very true and > > > rather obvious that the stability is due to the one having 4 legs. It > > > is simply not true that unsophisticated and physics-deprived people > > > are wholly ill equipped to understand the basics of causation. My mum > > > knew good enough what caused what in her world. How the hell do you > > > think man ever got to the stage he is at? > > > It is simply not enough to analyze the stable table with common sense. > > Not enough for who and in what context? It is perfectly appropriate > for everyday situations. But not enough in serious discussion. > > > > > > Most of the time your way of thinking works. > > > > > > And what quite is that way? Perhaps you are reading in too much. > > > > > Jumping to conclusions. I simply noted that a table can be caused to > > > > > be stable by having more legs sometimes. It is not a way of thinking, > > > > > it is plain common sense. You do not have to throw common sense out > > > > > when you do philosophy, you have been misled badly somewhere along the > > > > > way. You will learn nothing much here on this usenet group unless you > > > > > get very very lucky. > > ... > > > > No one is suggesting anyone should ignore it full stop. But sometimes > > > it is not relevant. > > > It is very relevant in this case. > > I don't see how it is relevant. I have a jar on my desk, it has a > magnet on the bottom of the jar. The jar is upside down on the desk > and the magnet is therefore on the top. Inside the jar are four > needles attached to cotton, the cotton is jammed by the lid, the four > needles are poised just under the magnet and there is an air gap > between the needles and the glass. It has been undisturbed for years > and continues in its arrangement. The cause of the needles being like > they are is the attraction from the magnet. In its arrangent there is > no obvious series of temporal events one after the other. It is > perfectly still and static. I really cannot see why it *has* to > contain temporally distinct events, from a conceptual point of view. These components are in a state of equilibrium. But whether there are exchange of energy carriers occur continuously between the atoms and quarks are invisible to the bare eyes. There are underlying mechanism at play. > > > But perhaps I should say this to encourage you, at least you are > > > thinking a bit, more than I can say for *most of the baboons* whom I > > > have the terrible misfortune to be dealing with here and am having to > > > constantly club because they are such a crude menace. <g> > > > > Let's go back to the specific issue of can A cause B without preceding > > > B. I have suggested it is not necessary and you are making at least > > > the interesting suggestion that when the situation is fully analysed, > > > it is about things preceding other things. I concede that whenever A > > > causes B, there might well be things that are relevantly precede B. > > > But I am just pointing out that the way we use the notion of causation > > > does not force one to always go for precedence. > > > > There is also a whole field of backwards causation which you are > > > probably unaware of. It has been argued by the philosophers and some > > > cosmologists that a later event could cause an earlier one. > > > Its a theory that no one can prove. Everyone is free to theorize > > anything. In this case, no one has proven that this theory is wrong. > > You misunderstandn. If it is a theory that can be understood, then it > is a theory which shows that there is no logical necessity for a cause > to precede its effect. But I will settle for that that some causes > are contemporaneous with their effects. What is the proof that these theories are correct? It is mere hypothesis at this point. Any deduction based on this theory is prematured.
From: M Purcell on 24 Dec 2009 07:57 On Dec 23, 11:02 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 1:12 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:06 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 3, 5:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator > > > > > "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be > > > > > transformed to one group of four. > > > > > What condition? Equivalence? > > > > A condition is basically a trigger of certain rules. In the time > > > domain, a given condition will trigger certain underlying mechanism > > > and turns one equilibrium state into another state. For example, > > > lighting gasoline creates a condition that triggers explosion. > > > In the time domain, the only condition that will change anything is an > > increase in entropy. Some changes happen faster than others. Do you > > mean some kind of equivalence in an equilibrium state? > > The notion = sometimes means transformation in both directions. For > example, 2+2 -> 4 and 4 -> 2+2 can be written as 2+2=4. The -> and > <- are more in the sense of transformed into than equivalence. > In logic and mathematics, terms are constantly transformed into > different forms. And 4 = 2+2, however in the time domain most transformations are irreversable.
From: Zinnic on 24 Dec 2009 09:04 On Dec 24, 12:11 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 4:44 pm,Zinnic<zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 23, 1:51 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 2:43 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Causation has strict order, > > > > Not really, or not that it is so obvious. A set of table legs can > > > cause a table to be very stable, but they do not somehow act in prior > > > time. > > > The table legs per se do not cause stability. > > Yes they do, as arranged. At last, at last. You agree that the prior arrangement is the real cause of stability! >The whole context is the acting in time and you, naturally, being a baboon, a sexist pig and basketweaver >rolled into one, would not have the least understanding of this! Surely you can do better? Your insults are as infantile as your reasoning is sophomoric. > Now, rack off. Rack off? I see that your obscenity check is now working. Keep it up and I may (no promises) award you an F+. Zinnic
From: Keth on 24 Dec 2009 09:06 On Dec 24, 7:57 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 11:02 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 24, 1:12 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 6:06 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 3, 5:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator > > > > > > "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be > > > > > > transformed to one group of four. > > > > > > What condition? Equivalence? > > > > > A condition is basically a trigger of certain rules. In the time > > > > domain, a given condition will trigger certain underlying mechanism > > > > and turns one equilibrium state into another state. For example, > > > > lighting gasoline creates a condition that triggers explosion. > > > > In the time domain, the only condition that will change anything is an > > > increase in entropy. Some changes happen faster than others. Do you > > > mean some kind of equivalence in an equilibrium state? > > > The notion = sometimes means transformation in both directions. For > > example, 2+2 -> 4 and 4 -> 2+2 can be written as 2+2=4. The -> and > > <- are more in the sense of transformed into than equivalence. > > In logic and mathematics, terms are constantly transformed into > > different forms. > > And 4 = 2+2, however in the time domain most transformations are > irreversable. Very good point. This is the main difference between transformation in time domain and timeless domain.
From: M Purcell on 24 Dec 2009 10:37
On Dec 24, 6:06 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 7:57 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 11:02 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 24, 1:12 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:06 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 3, 5:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator > > > > > > > "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be > > > > > > > transformed to one group of four. > > > > > > > What condition? Equivalence? > > > > > > A condition is basically a trigger of certain rules. In the time > > > > > domain, a given condition will trigger certain underlying mechanism > > > > > and turns one equilibrium state into another state. For example, > > > > > lighting gasoline creates a condition that triggers explosion. > > > > > In the time domain, the only condition that will change anything is an > > > > increase in entropy. Some changes happen faster than others. Do you > > > > mean some kind of equivalence in an equilibrium state? > > > > The notion = sometimes means transformation in both directions. For > > > example, 2+2 -> 4 and 4 -> 2+2 can be written as 2+2=4. The -> and > > > <- are more in the sense of transformed into than equivalence. > > > In logic and mathematics, terms are constantly transformed into > > > different forms. > > > And 4 = 2+2, however in the time domain most transformations are > > irreversable. > > Very good point. This is the main difference between transformation in > time domain and timeless domain. Irreversability is a consequence increasing entropy. Physical processes can be mathematically modeled and I realize physicists sometimes represent actions with mathematical operators but the interpretation of these mathematical models after various mathematical transformations is very much an art. |