
#1
May1206, 11:07 AM

P: 1,011

A causes B, and B causes A.
A changing electric field generates a magnetic field. An electric field whose change is changing generates a changing magnetic field which itself generates an electric field. An electric field whose changing of change is changing generates a magnetic field whose change is changing which itself generates an changing electric field that generates a magnetic field. If this change is infinitely rough, this pattern extends endlessly. If A causes B, and B causes A, then is it possible for: inf...... >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> B >> A >> ......+inf The only way the change can be infinitely rough is for the pathways of energies to be infinitely rough, which require infinetesimal forces and accelerations, and hence infinitesimal energies. The largest possible thing is something that cannot change, something that is not subject to acceleration, or a change in path  that would have to be infinity (nonobject). Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves? 



#2
May1206, 06:33 PM

P: 341

What do you mean by 'infinitely rough'?



#3
May1206, 09:42 PM

P: n/a





#4
May1306, 05:40 AM

P: 904

Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves?
It would also be useful to know what 'things like themselves' actually consist of. Most people think that all things consist of one basic somethingness.




#5
May1406, 06:12 AM

P: 1,011





#6
May1406, 01:23 PM

P: 341

"if you take the derivative again, again, again, again, again, ag... etc." you'll have a constant at each and every step. The question is, exactly who or what is the "you" who is taking all these derivatives? If it is literally you, or me, or any other person, then I think you would agree that any of us could only take a finite number of such derivatives, in which case we'll always have a constant. If the "you" is a computer, or any other mechanism you can think of which is capable of taking derivatives, it too will only be capable of doing a finite number of iterations and will only produce a succession of constants. What else could you mean? Of course, mathematicians will quickly point out that infinities occur in mathematics, and I agree that the "concept" of infinities occur in mathematics. The "concept" of unicorns also appears in literature. I just happen to disagree with most mathematicians that a consistent definition of infinity can be made. The typical approach is to accept the Axiom of Choice, or some equivalent axiom, which in essence posits the existence of some kind of agent which can carry out your sequence of "again, again, again, again, etc." to "infinity". In the views of Kronecker and Brouwer over a hundred years ago, and in my opinion now, the acceptance of such axioms leads to contradictions, and thus should be disallowed. Kronecker and Brouwer lost the argument and are now dead. In the meantime, Goedel proved that any axiomatic system robust enough to contain the infinite set of integers, must either be incomplete or inconsistent and you can't tell which. To me, that theorem should have been interpreted as vindication for Kronecker and Brouwer, but it wasn't. In my view, physics and philosophy would be better served by a "grainy" mathematics with no infinities than with the continuous math of Cantor et. al. (See www.paulandellen.com/essays/essay089.htm ) Paul 



#7
May1406, 05:43 PM

P: 1,011





#8
May1506, 03:27 AM

P: 1,603

At the quantum level, it seems that there may be no "cause and effect", and what we interpret in the macroscopic world as "cause and effect" may be an (intuitive) illusion. Best Regards MF 



#9
May2006, 03:31 PM

P: 60

The Universe appears to be 'acausal'...
Sufficient Reason reveals itself to be Insufficient..... Cause is an assumption.... : ) I am not sure but Bells Theorum comes into play somewhere about now.. 



#10
Jun806, 10:02 PM

P: 114

Only the uncaused can cause the caused.




#11
Jun906, 12:22 PM

P: 482

causal networks of arbitrary structure and complaexity can arise from causally invariant algorithms http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CausalInvariance.html
so there is nothing that requires causality be fundamental 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
fundamental things, emergent things  General Discussion  47 