On 11/14/2003 10:12 AM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
>
> Some authors maintain that to establish a cause and effect
> relationship, the cause must precede the effect.
Don't we all agree that effects should not come
before causes?
> It seems to me that very few if any fundamental physical
> relationships are expressed in ways that explicitly incorporate such
> a time delay.
I agree with "few" ... but "few if any" is going too far.
1) The second law of thermodynamics is IMHO a fundamental
physical relationship. It involves a time derivative
and an inequality, so it treats the future differently
from the past.
2) It is known that the solution to an equation can have
lower symmetry than the equation itself. The canonical
example is a Monte Carlo roulette wheel, which is 37-fold
symmetric, yet the ball comes to rest in only one of the
slots, breaking the symmetry.
The universe as we find it today is in a state of broken
symmetry with respect to time. The universe is expanding
not contracting ... even though from moment to moment
the expansion adheres to time-reversible laws. This is
not just a gee-whiz observation; it has consequences
including the fact that the cosmic background radiation
is much colder than the sun (no Olbers paradox). This
in turn allows non-equilibrium phenomena such as
physicists and other living things to exist.
> But would anyone argue that "cause and effect" is nothing more than
> an illusion?
Causation is vastly more than an illusion ... but it is
widely misunderstood.
On 11/14/2003 11:10 AM, Joseph Bellina wrote:
> And if you have a counterexample, then
> there is nothing to prove.
What do you mean, "if"?
I exhibited a counterexample. So we agree I have
nothing more to prove.
> Perhaps, John, you want to rephrase what you wrote?
I see no need to rephrase anything. I have argued
that F does not cause ma, and ma does not cause F.
I have not seen anything resembling a counterargument.