B Causation: substance or event?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter sayetsu
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between "substance causation" and "event causation" in the context of a car hitting a pedestrian. It questions whether the car itself or the transfer of kinetic energy is responsible for the pedestrian's death. A forensic pathologist is suggested as a more appropriate authority for determining the cause of death, emphasizing the role of energy transfer and bodily stress in fatal injuries. The conversation also touches on the philosophical implications of causation, though it notes that discussing philosophy may violate forum rules. Ultimately, the thread concludes with a reminder that the topic is complex and may not be suitable for further exploration in this context.
sayetsu
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
If a car runs into a pedestrian, does the car kill them, or the kinetic energy?
A philosopher makes a distinction between "substance causation" and "event causation." If a speeding car (substance) hits a pedestrian, does the collision with the car (touching it while it's moving fast) kill the person, or does the transfer of kinetic energy or something - what, exactly, causes them to die, and how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sayetsu said:
TL;DR Summary: If a car runs into a pedestrian, does the car kill them, or the kinetic energy?

A philosopher makes a distinction between "substance causation" and "event causation." If a speeding car (substance) hits a pedestrian, does the collision with the car (touching it while it's moving fast) kill the person, or does the transfer of kinetic energy or something - what, exactly, causes them to die, and how?
Assuming the person does die - which is by no means certain - you'd be better off asking a forensic pathologist than a philosopher to ascertain the cause of death.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Dale, russ_watters, Ibix and 1 other person
I would say that the transfer of energy and momentum to some parts of the pedestrian's body and not others leads to stresses inside the body which are too great for the elasticity of some part(s) of the body and they break. That breakage may be fatal.

I don't think trying to fit this into what sounds like a knock-off of Aristotle's four causes is a good idea, not least because discussing philosophy is against forum rules.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and vanhees71
sayetsu said:
TL;DR Summary: If a car runs into a pedestrian, does the car kill them, or the kinetic energy?

A philosopher makes a distinction between "substance causation" and "event causation." If a speeding car (substance) hits a pedestrian, does the collision with the car (touching it while it's moving fast) kill the person, or does the transfer of kinetic energy or something - what, exactly, causes them to die, and how?

As a poor layman of philosophy, I should appreciate it if you could provide simple definition or show weblinks to get idea of event causation and substance causation to understand your discussion better. I found another word agent causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation. Is it also involved in ?
 
Philosophy is out of bounds here. Thread closed.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Bystander, anorlunda, Ibix and 2 others
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'

Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'

I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
View full post »

Thread 'Why is the 3 body problem unsolvable? And what will happen if someone solves it?'

I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
View full post »

Similar threads

I No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
Replies
37
Views
3K
I Car Accident Physics - Are Wheels/Tires Good or Bad Energy Absorbers?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I How Feynman proves momentum is conserved in this example?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Understanding dissipation of energy in a resistor through the Drude model
Replies
1
Views
2K
Can heat flow into a body without increasing the mean kinetic energy?
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Mobility in a Strong Gravity Environment vs. Moving Mass?
Replies
10
Views
1K
B Filming a passing road sign: speed vs bumpiness
Replies
16
Views
2K
B Theories about light and time near a black hole
Replies
20
Views
2K
I Photon behaviour across EH threshold
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Could cosmic rays induce a vacuum decay in the future?
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top