An argument against materialsim

[STT]

On the contrary, it is the one and only thing that defines causality. To cause is to produce actuality to an effect. This state of affairs cannot exist without cause and effect existing simultaneously. In fact, I challenge you to give an example from nature of cause and effect not existing simultaneously at the moment of causing.

As I mentioned cause and effect cannot lay at the same point since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. In physics deferential is defined in term of two consecutive points one follows another.

 

[niceatheist]

There is only ONE proper theory of “time”: the concept of STEM (space - time - energy - matter) space-time continuum, which is a mathematical model of reality. The model is substantiated by every experiment we take. Time is not an independent variable, just like space is not. They are inseparable from matter-energy.

Precisely. Time is one dimension in four dimensional space-time. Goodness gracious, this is hardly innovative, we’ve known it since Einstein published his theory of Special Relativity, over a century ago. The implications of that view of the Universe were and remain monumental, that time-space can be warped, that there is no independent non-dimensional clock, any more than there is any independent spacial dimension.

 

[niceatheist]

I am aware of time-space continuum. I don’t understand how that is related to our discussion.

It’s implication is that time is not an independent variable. It isn’t something separate from the three spacial dimensions. It means only interactions happen WITHIN space-time. That’s the nature of thermodynamics, which really is the fundamental principle behind causation.

 

[STT]

Yes, time is related to space. We can talk of two events at the same point in space.

 

[niceatheist]

Yes, time is related to space. We can talk of two events at the same point in space.

Time isn’t merely related to space. It’s one dimension in four-dimensional space-time. It’s like trying to talk about the x axis as being some independent of the y and x axis.

 

[rom]

As I mentioned cause and effect cannot lay at the same point since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. In physics deferential is defined in term of two consecutive points one follows another.

The instant of causing is a point, not a differential. The cause gives being to the effect. At that particular instant, the two are together because being is received only by existing. When a ball in motion hits a ball at rest, and causes it to move, the act of imparting motion happens at one instant – the moment of impact. What other state of affairs do you imagine that is ill-defined?

Also, I challenged you to give me an example in nature where cause and effect do not exist simultaneously at the moment of causing. Where is your example?

 

[STT]

The instant of causing is a point, not a differential. The cause gives being to the effect. At that particular instant, the two are together because being is received only by existing. When a ball in motion hits a ball at rest, and causes it to move, the act of imparting motion happens at one instant – the moment of impact. What other state of affairs do you imagine that is ill-defined?

Does cause exist at the moment it causes the effect? Yes? Then why it doesn’t cause the same effect over and over? To resolve this problem you have to assume that cause must vanish before effect is caused. That is why in physics we use differential to discuss two states of affair one is causing another one. The cause is at now and effect is at infinitisimal future.

Also, I challenged you to give me an example in nature where cause and effect do not exist simultaneously at the moment of causing. Where is your example?

Everywhere. Please read previous comment.

 

[rom]

Does cause exist at the moment it causes the effect? Yes? Then why it doesn’t cause the same effect over and over? To resolve this problem you have to assume that cause must vanish before effect is caused. That is why in physics we use differential to discuss two states of affair one is causing another one. The cause is at now and effect is at infinitisimal future.

rom:

You do not have to assume that a cause must vanish. When a ball B at rest is hit by another ball A in motion, the potency of ball B toward motion is actualized by Ball A. It is the potency of ball B that vanished during impact, because it is now actualized and ball B is now actually moving. Ball A and ball B still exist as entities.

Although the phenomenon of one ball hitting another is a physical phenomenon, the act of causing motion is actually metaphysical rather than physical. It involves the actualization of a potency in ball B, and this actualization is the effect of ball A. There is no time or space differential involved in this process. Ball B at the instant of receiving motion exists at the very same instant when ball A is imparting motion. The differential that you speak about is a figment of your imagination.

Everywhere. Please read previous comment.

Everywhere? In what post number did you give an example in nature where cause and effect do not exist at the same time at the moment of causing?

 

[STT]

This is how physicist calculate change in motion of a particle in term of a force: dp(t)/dt=f(t) where p(t) is the momentum at time t and f(t) is force at time t. dp(t)/dt can be written as a limit when dt tends to zero in this equation: (p(t+dt)-p(t))/(t+dt-t). p(t+dt) then can be calculated as p(t+dt)=p(t)+f(t)dt. In case of two balls hitting each other we have p(t)=0 if one ball is at rest. Therefore, p(t+dt) which is the effect can be calculated as p(t+dt)=f(t)dt where f(t)dt is the cause. As you see cause is at time t whereas effect is at time t+dt.

 

[rom]

This is how physicist calculate change in motion of a particle in term of a force: dp(t)/dt=f(t) where p(t) is the momentum at time t and f(t) is force at time t. dp(t)/dt can be written as a limit when dt tends to zero in this equation: (p(t+dt)-p(t))/(t+dt-t). p(t+dt) then can be calculated as p(t+dt)=p(t)+f(t)dt. In case of two balls hitting each other we have p(t)=0 if one ball is at rest. Therefore, p(t+dt) which is the effect can be calculated as p(t+dt)=f(t)dt where f(t)dt is the cause. As you see cause is at time t whereas effect is at time t+dt.

You are confusing physical reality with how physicists measure physical reality. The motion of a ball is actually a continuous motion. However, physicists can measure this motion discretely, or in smaller increments, called differentials. Then they apply differential calculus to calculate the properties of motion, such as the instantaneous velocity of the ball at any time t. However, there is also such a thing as instantaneous momentum, dp(t)/dt as there is such a thing as instantaneous velocity. The instantaneous momentum is precisely the limit or effect attained as dt approaches zero. This means that during causation the time differential vanishes at the instant of impact, and the so-called momentum effect of the force is not an infinitesimally distant future event, but is the existing effect of the force at the instant of impact.

 

[STT]

All operations which I did was logically allowed.

 

[Vico]

Are saying that C-theory of time resolve the problem raised in OP? I am not familiar with C-theory of time and cannot follow you in here.

It would be helpful then to get familiar with c-series of the unreality of time. You stated: “Future however does not objectively exist.” As McTaggart concluded that “is appropriate to describe the eternal as being future”.

 

[Gorgias]

All operations which I did was logically allowed.

Perhaps. Yet, @rom’s point is that, although your math is OK, the conclusions that you draw from your calculations are flawed.

 

[YourNameHere]

We should strive to build up wealth for the next life and not focus on building up wealth in this life.

 

[STT]

What he is missing is that he set dt equal to zero to get what he want but effect is zero in this limit.

 

[Gorgias]

What he is missing is that he set dt equal to zero to get what he want but effect is zero in this limit.

The problem, I think, is that you’re missing part of the story, too.

If we were to break down the event, we would see that the moving object – let’s call it x – (with some px>0), which is heading toward a stationary object – let’s call it y – (with some py=0), at some point in time – let’s call it t – makes contact with the stationary object.

Object y does not immediately have momentum py>0 at time t.

Rather, at the point of contact – that is, at the point at which the ‘cause’ is beginning to cause the ‘effect’ – it is transferring energy to the stationary object. Object x has to impart sufficient energy into object y to overcome its inertia. Once it does so (at some time t+i ), y begins to move (and have some momentum py>0).

However, in the (small) period of time that x and y are in contact, x is actually doing something. The cause of the motion of y (the contact of x into y) actually does act on y, producing an effect.

Whether or not px goes to zero (or merely becomes a different vector with different magnitude) isn’t relevant to the discussion that x caused y to go from py=0 to py>0.

Strictly speaking, I don’t think that we would say that x transfers momentum into y, but merely transfers force (which, in part, causes motion (and therefore, momentum) in the other object).

In any case, the ‘cause’ doesn’t vanish. There is a transfer of energy, but that doesn’t mean that energy ‘vanishes’ or that the cause itself ‘vanishes’.

 

[STT]

The point is that derivative is defined as a limit dt->0 and not when dt=0.

 

[Gorgias]

The point is that derivative is defined as a limit dt->0 and not when dt=0.

Umm… he talked about approaching zero, not equal to zero.

Anyway, you don’t even want to get me started on what you claimed…

Here goes, though:

Therefore, p(t+dt) which is the effect can be calculated as p(t+dt)=f(t)dt where f(t)dt is the cause.

Actually, momentum is a vector, not a scalar, so no – the momentum of the object that is struck is not identical to the momentum of the object that did the striking. In fact, given that momentum is the product of mass and velocity, and there’s energy lost in the exchange, the magnitude of the struck object’s momentum vector will necessarily be less than the magnitude of the striking object’s momentum vector prior to the moment of impact!

As you see cause is at time t whereas effect is at time t+dt.

No. If, by “time t” you mean the instant of impact, the momentum of the striking object is still the same as in the previous instant. At some instant as the collision takes place, there is both a release of energy (into heat) and a transfer of energy. So, it’s not that in one instant there’s a ‘cause’ and in the next there’s an unrelated ‘effect’. There’s something going on the whole time.

 

[STT]

Could you please point to an error in my calculation? That is how physicist works with the equation while considering the limit.

 

[Gorgias]

Could you please point to an error in my calculation?

The error isn’t in your calculation, per se… it’s in the conclusions you reach and what you think your calculation means.