Where 'cause and effect come from'

[Luweewu]

Vicarious..

I'll get to the intervening posts soon enough.

TIme. [duration and processing] has no beginning or end.
You are are one of the few who have suggested this.
That reality is only. 'cause and effect' in the systems made by it.. not reality as a thing in itself.

Who says time has a start.. or an end,, ? The preconception that cause and effect is law... well it may be.. but
the law is made by those who MAKE IT..

ie
; will reality end because the laws of reality say it has an end... pull my d**k

 

[Prolescum]

You might want to lay off the peyote for a time 'cause its effect on you is detrimental.

 

[lrkun]

Vicarious..

I'll get to the intervening posts soon enough.

TIme. [duration and processing] has no beginning or end.
You are are one of the few who have suggested this.
That reality is only. 'cause and effect' in the systems made by it.. not reality as a thing in itself.

Who says time has a start.. or an end,, ? The preconception that cause and effect is law... well it may be.. but
the law is made by those who MAKE IT..

ie
; will reality end because the laws of reality say it has an end... pull my d**k

It is a man made concept. Whether or not there is a beginning or an end is something that we don't know for the moment.

 

[borrofburi]

Asking "where do cause and effect come from?" is equivalent to asking "what caused (cause and effect)?" which is really the same as "what cause had the effect of creating cause-and-effect?" It's a silly question because it presumes cause and effect in its phrasing...

 

[Luweewu]

You might want to lay off the peyote for a time 'cause its effect on you is detrimental.

PERSONAL ATTACK.. and no relation to issue...
League of reason?

 

[lrkun]

What are the laws of reality?

 

[Prolescum]

You might want to lay off the peyote for a time 'cause its effect on you is detrimental.

PERSONAL ATTACK.. and no relation to issue...
League of reason?

It's not an attack, it's a suggestion. You'll also not that the words time, cause and effect all make an appearance in my post in a coherent fashion. It shows how seriously I take this thread.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't know where to start here, if there is a place to start. You seam to to be labouring in a convoluted idea of reality. Time is in a way none existant, it is merely an ilusion caused sucessions of states with memory. To say that time is duration and process is meaningless realy because duration requiers the definition of time to exist first, duration is simply the ammount of time it takes to get from one specific state to another non contiguous.

And you seam to be labouring under a false conception of Law, the laws of physics has nothing to do with judicial laws (which just limits the options from a group of things you can do) but it is rather a description of what things are. When we call something X and that X for being the way it is must follow the Law Y, then if you get something Z if it doesn't follow the Law Y then it can not be X but it is rather something else (it maybe that X doesn't exist, but that is something else altoghter). In a way there are no correct Laws of physics that can be broken, because things are the way they are, if something violates a Law Y then the Law is not correct.
There isn't such a thing as a law set in stone and that if something violates it then it is supernatural, simply due to the fact that we work from the bottom up and not from the top down, we don't know what "laws" are the correct ones (and we work from what we know and not from what we don't know) all we know is that they must conform to reality, and we work them out from observations of reality because that is what we know. There isn't such a thing as someone who decrees the "laws" of physics, that is simply absurd just by knowing what the "laws" are.

And who determines what? Well it is a tricky subject, but we can demonstarte step by step by following the natural implications of things how things are with a great degree of certainty with the scietific method, very few solutions can actualy conform with reality compared to what we can formulate, and we have academic ways to demonstrate how acurrate we are regarding those solutions. There is a very extense body of knowledge dedicated to the understanding of how right we are.

The last point should be self answered by now.

I will only develop more when clear up your subject. What do you realy want?

 

[monitoradiation]

OP,

I know what the words mean individually. They don't make sense when you put it together the way that you have. Please rephrase in a way that I can understand then we might begin to have a coherent discussion.

 

[Paulhoff]

A simple idea, at the start of the universe all was at one point, everything was the same, no distance to travel, and everything was just the one event, so there was no time. Has things cooled, the universe was not just a point, size increased so there was distances to travel, everything was not just one event, things where not the same everywhere, so time started.

Paul

 

[Jaguar]

Greetings:

I think the so-called "principle of cause and effect" merely comes from deterministic philosophy, in which nothing is random and there is a will behind every single thing that happens in the universe. I disagree with determinism and I especifically have a problem with looking at the universe in a "cause an effect" fashion.

I feel it limits the range of knowledge, for example, if you are really close minded, you might want to see the universe as a chain of cause and effects and you disregard multiple effects or multiple causes, or eliminate chance from the equation completely.

Also, looking at the universe as entirely a "cause and effect" field limits you in the sense you can't go beyond the possibility that all existance is either the cause, and we don't know the effect, or the effect and we don't know the cause.

Again, cause and effect eliminate the possibility for infinity, since all things must have a beginning or/and an ending.

- The Jaguar

 

[Deleted member 619]

Again, cause and effect eliminate the possibility for infinity, since all things must have a beginning or/and an ending.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

I see this thrown around a lot, but nobody has yet come up with a decent justification for it. What is the barrier to infinity? What is the barrier to infinite regress, in fact?

More importantly, if all things must have a beginning and an end, what does that say about the first law of thermodynamics?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Greetings:

I think the so-called "principle of cause and effect" merely comes from deterministic philosophy, in which nothing is random and there is a will behind every single thing that happens in the universe. I disagree with determinism and I especifically have a problem with looking at the universe in a "cause an effect" fashion.

I feel it limits the range of knowledge, for example, if you are really close minded, you might want to see the universe as a chain of cause and effects and you disregard multiple effects or multiple causes, or eliminate chance from the equation completely.

Also, looking at the universe as entirely a "cause and effect" field limits you in the sense you can't go beyond the possibility that all existance is either the cause, and we don't know the effect, or the effect and we don't know the cause.

Again, cause and effect eliminate the possibility for infinity, since all things must have a beginning or/and an ending.

- The Jaguar

What about apparently uncaused events? Like virtual particles, or isotope decay?

 

[lrkun]

What about apparently uncaused events? Like virtual particles, or isotope decay?

Upon what do you base this assertion?

I see this thrown around a lot, but nobody has yet come up with a decent justification for it. What is the barrier to infinity? What is the barrier to infinite regress, in fact?

More importantly, if all things must have a beginning and an end, what does that say about the first law of thermodynamics?

If you read what he says, his position is the opposite of what you guys think he's saying.

Greetings:

I think the so-called "principle of cause and effect" merely comes from deterministic philosophy, in which nothing is random and there is a will behind every single thing that happens in the universe. I disagree with determinism and I especifically have a problem with looking at the universe in a "cause an effect" fashion.

I feel it limits the range of knowledge, for example, if you are really close minded, you might want to see the universe as a chain of cause and effects and you disregard multiple effects or multiple causes, or eliminate chance from the equation completely.

Also, looking at the universe as entirely a "cause and effect" field limits you in the sense you can't go beyond the possibility that all existance is either the cause, and we don't know the effect, or the effect and we don't know the cause.

Again, cause and effect eliminate the possibility for infinity, since all things must have a beginning or/and an ending.

- The Jaguar

 

[Deleted member 619]

Nope. I read it very carefully, as I always do, and my question stands.

 

[Aught3]

More importantly, if all things must have a beginning and an end, what does that say about the first law of thermodynamics?

OMG, hack is right - one day the first law of thermodynamics will end! By my meticulous calculations I put T-day on January 2nd 2012, fortunately the world will have ended by then. Phew!

 

[borrofburi]

More importantly, if all things must have a beginning and an end, what does that say about the first law of thermodynamics?

As much as I think I agree with you, this seems to me to be no more valid than saying that the second law of thermo proves that infinite regression is impossible, because if we had infinite regression then the universe should have maximized in entropy by now...

 

[Deleted member 619]

More importantly, if all things must have a beginning and an end, what does that say about the first law of thermodynamics?

As much as I think I agree with you, this seems to me to be no more valid than saying that the second law of thermo proves that infinite regression is impossible, because if we had infinite regression then the universe should have maximized in entropy by now...

Not really, because cosmic expansion increases the maximum value that entropy can reach. Besides, entropy probably already was at maximum in the beginning.

Anyhoo, the impossibility of the creation or destruction of energy seems to be a barrier to any kind of beginning.

Not to mention the 2LT is an experimental law, and may not hold in all cases. Not only that, there is no requirement in the 2LT for entropy to increase, it just can't decrease. Finally, it isn't clear that the 2LT does prohibit infinite regress and, until we understand the dimensional manifold better, not much can be said about the input of energy into the cosmos.

Edit: That's probably a little woolly, but I've been up all night and the noggin's not working properly.

 

[Zetetic]

Vicarious..


ie
.... ... pull my d**k

I'm not sure fruitful conversation can be had here.