Apr 9, 2012 -- 1:28AM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

Oh, and there's this -

total causation signifies entity x being the reason for the existence of entity y

First, every cause by its effect creates a new state of affairs, so by your definition every causation is total.  Hence 'total' is redundant.

"Total" here means something being a reason for a thing's existence. Not just being a reason for a mere "change" in an existing state of affairs.

Second, 'reason' here appears to be a complete synonym for 'cause', leaving at large what either word means here.

Indeed, reason here is synonymous with cause. If Hatcher were defining causation, it would indeed have been circular to use "reason" within the definition. Instead Hatcher was defining a subset of causation, namely total causation, while presuming the basic term 'causation' somewhat self-explanatory. Since Leibniz coined the term "sufficient reason" in reference to total causation, Hatcher is simply building on an adequate and logical term coined by earlier scholarship.

Cause is simply something exerting an influence or an effect. Total cause means something exerting the most total of all logical effects -- being existent.

Apr 9, 2012 -- 10:03AM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

Total cause means something exerting the most total of all logical effects -- being existent.

The state of affairs existing as a result of the effect did not exist beforehand.

Again with the time predicate. Your foregoing description applies only to a scenario where time exists and an effect of lesser-order existence occurs within it. But you're still assuming without proof that time is necessary for causation whereas the scenario "G is the cause of T" remains perfectly logical while containing no "beforehand" whatsoever. The statement only discusses a higher-order total causation -- i.e. that something produces the effect of (the existence of) time itself. Similarly, "G is the cause of G" is perfectly logical a scenario if it involves a time-independent causation of the kind "G is the cause of T". Such a self-causation can be more accurately expressed as "G is a sufficient reason for its own existence" or simply as "G is self-sufficient".

Cause is simply something exerting an influence or an effect.

How does a cause A exert an influence on B to produce an effect without transfer of energy to B?

As long as it is logical to set forth the proposition "G is the cause of E (energy)" there is no logical necessity for a cause to involve energy. However, by logical necessity such a cause G of E would have to involve something of higher order than energy while we wouldn't know what that something is.

Apr 9, 2012 -- 11:03PM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

there is no logical necessity for a cause to involve energy. However, by logical necessity such a cause G of E would have to involve something of higher order than energy while we wouldn't know what that something is.

You've already told us that a cause is something exerting an influence.  Your statement above accepts that a cause involves the transfer from A to B or energy or something energy-like (and that this is what is meant by 'exerting an influence').

Read more carefully. The statement above accepts that logically a cause of E cannot be E but rather something of higher order. There's nothing in the statement that implies that this something is "energy-like". That's your own faulty conclusion. The statement only implies that this "something" is nothing of lesser order than energy, but neither is it energy.

Then you went on to attach energy's properties to this "something" G that is the cause of E. However, for something that is not energy but of a higher order it is logically unfounded to deem it bound by properties characteristic to energy-transfer (such as time). This is all the more the case if G happens also to be the cause of T.

Cause A transfers energy to B.

Now you're again advancing energy as a necessary element of causation without any logical proof to demonstrate its necessity.

Energy can be transferred at c.  We have no reason to think it can be transferred faster.  

Change can only occur over time.

Time is therefore essential to causation.

Not only is your foregoing reasoning based on a mere unproven claim (in fact several), but it perpetrates classical circular logic by first postulating time as part of causation (speed is a strictly time-based scalar quantity) and by subsequently concluding that time is essential to causation.

Circularity is a big no-no in logical reasoning.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 1:02AM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

Set out an example of cause and effect that doesn't involve transfer of energy.

The cause of entropy.

Besides, you're still missing the point. Even if there were no such known examples, it would not prove that causality must always involve transfer of energy. Just because all the ravens known to Tom are black doesn't logically imply they all must be. In physics we have found no indication that the cause of entropy increase contains energy (the effect, namely entropy increase, obviously involves energy). Rather, we have every indication that the cause of entropy increase is a law.

"Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension." - Willard Gibbs

Now, if you wish to challenge the rank and file of physicists and claim that there's no objective law but that the inherent properties of each system cause entropy increase, then I have rational grounds to request from you an elaboration. What inherent properties cause physical systems of all sizes to have energy-dispersals towards cooler bodies? And how can energy itself cause energy-dispersal without the absurd scenario of existing before itself (principle of limitation)? I would be much obliged for a straight scientifically grounded answer and not another faith-based claim presented as fact.

As long as the proposition "something G is the cause of both T and E" isn't proven illogical, there's no necessity to involve energy or time in every kind of causality. What Hatcher does is prove that if we accept something exists, as well as certain basic logical principles, then such a self-caused cause G of all things must exist.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 4:39AM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

What inherent properties cause physical systems of all sizes to have energy-dispersals towards cooler bodies?

Energy can't move from the lower to the higher because it would need extra energy to do so. Instead, much more efficiently, it moves from the higher to the lower.

This we all know. But the question was "why?". What causes such a directionality of energy-dispersal towards colder bodies? If you say, "because it can't possibly go the other way without outside energy moving in", then you're inadvertently appealing to an invisible objective law. Such an appeal would, indeed, be the correct conclusion. However, there's no way whereby you can demonstrate that some "energy-transfer", or "time-delay" for that matter, occurs in such a causation between the 2nd law and energy-dispersal towards colder bodies. If, on the other hand, you reject any objective law and make an appeal to inherent properties in the energy itself, you have failed to clarify what those inherent properties, in fact, are.

You also evaded my second question.

Even if there were no such known examples, it would not prove that causality must always involve transfer of energy.

It means you had no basis in reality for asserting it.

Actually I haven't asserted anything. You have. I, or Hatcher rather, have merely defined total causation logically and in a manner which assumes much less than your definition. You are the one who has asserted without any proof or empirical evidence that total causation must always involve time and energy. Not only are you failing to provide a logical proof to support your blanket assertion, but you have failed to demonstrate how, in reality, the causation of entropy-increase involves energy-transfer and time-delay between cause and effect.

Please take your time. I will keep waiting.