Explain what is the difference between muscles->pushing and pushing->water pushing back.
Why is there information required for the former, but not for the latter?
How is the former temporal but the latter simultaneous?

Maybe that will lead somewhere.

And I don't see how there can be any effect to begin with without any kind of exchange of information.

Between the muscles -> pushing, a new reaction is begun between two previously unrelated entities. Some transfer of information is required; it takes time for the fishes muscles to flex fully, and even then (I assume, based on physics, though I do not know if it has ever been measured) some time before the force from the fishes tail reaches the water.

Between the pushing -> water pushing back, the information exchange has already occurred. Let's say below there are three "instants" in time:

1. Fish flexes muscles
2. Information is exchanged from the muscles to the water
3. Fish begins "pushing" on water

To follow this same model for a temporal causal relationship, we would have to have:

4. ?? Some information is transferred from the water back to the fish ??
5. Water begins pushing back

I don't believe there is any difference between #2 and #4. The exchange of information has already occurred, so there doesn't seem to be any need for #4. I believe the choice whether or not to include it is a philosophical one, depending on which conclusion we would like to reach. I assume most physicists would use these "steps" 1-5 to explain the reaction, while many philosophers might use this:

1. Fish flexes muscles
2. Information is exchanged between the muscles and the water
3. Fish begins "pushing" on water/water begins "pushing" back

In either case, the exchange of information between the fish and water takes place, and the first part of the reaction is temporal because of that exchange of information. Step #4 cannot be experimentally demonstrated since it is such a small amount of time it is not measurable, so we simply choose whether or not we would like to include it. At this point, it doesn't seem that either model could be rejected.

As a disclaimer, my understanding of physics is limited to a science minor in college, so I could be wrong in some of my assumptions, this is just the way I have been thinking about it based on my working understanding of the applicable laws.

And what stops us from considering fish pushing->water pushing back an effect of flexing muscles by a fish as a cause? If both occur at the same time, both can be either effect or cause, it will make no difference, no?

There is no temporal difference, so we can't define causality that way. There is no way to tell which pushing depends on the other - rather they both depend on each other equally, so we can't define causality that way as well.
It's the muscles flexing that allows us to tell what is the cause here - the rest is the effect. If not for the flexing, there would be no fish pushing nor water pushing. There is no cause in between to point to.

That's not quite true by virtue of the definition of Newton's Third Law - for every action (cause) there is an equal and opposite reaction (effect). If the fish just flexed its muscles but something went wrong and it never actually began pushing on the water, would the water still push back? I would argue not. The water pushes back only when the fish actually pushes on the water, beginning in the same instant that the force is applied from the fish to the water.

You're arguing semantics, Newton's third law doesn't differentiate between cause and effect.

If you swap particles...

... absolutely nothing changes.


No need to argue, it wouldn't. And if the water didn't push on the fish, fish wouldn't push back.

If the fish didn't flex muscles, but there was a water current instead, the event (effect) would be exactly the same, only the cause (water current instead of muscles force) would be different.

You said before that causality is defined by dependancy. In the case of action-reaction, you can't define cause and effect using the law of causality.

I think the question of the origin of the universe is less important in a metaphysical sense than the origin of an individual. What does it mean to have consciousness emerge from nothingness, and return there? Who are we before we are the people we are now, and what is a world with someone identical to us but not us in our place like?

Maybe the answers are linked, like the emergence of identity is just an echo of the emergence of reality - after all, each of us forms our own encapsulated reality in a way through experience. Do we originate from a finite point as well, something which is so unlike our ordinary existence that we cannot possibly understand it?

I sometimes wonder if our life just a meaningless consequence of other meaningless consequences, or worse, an unalterable fate chosen for us and somehow coalesced into our identity by chance. Is there even anything to blame? What cruelty forced us to exist, to be and to be defined by such a small existence in which there is no respite bar dreamless sleep. And even death is bitter for the loss of something never wanted in the first place.

Sorry, probably not the right place, but it felt good to say it.

Actually, when you swap particles, you're describing a different event. The concept is that the cause is "ontologically" prior to the effect, though not necessarily chronologically. If you talk about the water pushing the fish and the fish (simultaneously) pushing back, that is a different event than the one I mentioned before.

Sort of. The water and fish would still push on each other simultaneously, just after the current begins to push on the fish. So, you might say it is a compound effect or something of that sort, but it would not be held up by experimentation.

Cause and effect cannot ever be proven, but it is observed by experience. Whenever one event always correlates with another, we assume that the corollary is the effect, and the "other" is the cause. Every time the fish pushes on the water, the water pushes back. The water pushing back does not necessarily correlate to the fish flexing its muscles (as we've already agreed), but it always correlates to the fish pushing on the water. I think this given example is confusing because the opposite reaction is also possible - the water pushes the fish and the fish simultaneously pushes back. Even though these look the same from a chronological perspective, they do not describe the same reaction. We might replace the fish and water with something that can't push back - for example, the fish and a desk. When the fish pushes on a desk, the desk simultaneously pushes back. The opposite reaction (the desk pushing on the fish without cause) can't logically occur. In this case, I think we can agree that the fish pushing on the desk is the cause, and the desk pushing back would be the effect. Just like the fish and the water, they could be argued to occur simultaneously.

I think that Newton's Third Law does differentiate between cause and effect, but we have to keep clear which reaction we're talking about. The cause doesn't always occur chronologically before the effect, but the effect is always dependent on the cause. If the effect could have occurred without the cause, then it is not a cause/effect relationship. If the effect requires the cause, it is. In the case of Newton's Third Law, the opposite reaction requires the original action, or it will not occur. You might switch the particles, but then you are changing the definition so that Particle B is the action, and particle A is the reaction - which is different by definition.



Actually, those are things I hope to address in future threads. I think life can be a lot more than something chosen for us, and the recognition that we have a real purpose changes our perspective on everything. I realize that people will probably take this sentence and quote it to make the case that the "Christianity Delusion" is adopted to make us feel better, but there are of course counter-arguments that the "Atheist Delusion" does the same. Then, of course, this is not the thread for all of that yet. I'll be starting my next thread (about what we can tell about this "entity") soon to move things along, but I'll keep replying in this thread too.

I thought we established that causality is recognized by either chronology or dependancy. Now that both failed, you refer to "ontology"? I mean, what does it even mean, isn't that just a convenient back door for you to pick causes and events in any way you like to support your stand?

You divide that "compound effect" into cause and effect based on the previous (chronologically) cause. So I will ask what is the point of doing that other than trying to hold on to simultaneous causality?

Now, I'm really not big on using that, but it seems to fit the case.



In case of Netwon's third law, both - action and reaction - depend on each other. Therefore, they are both causes and effects to and for themselves. Either that or...

You just proved yourself wrong.



Get some help, it sounds like depression symptoms!

I haven't been paying much attention, but wouldn't a fish swimming be an example of simultaneous effect, not simultaneous cause?

Equal and opposite reaction is equal and opposite effect, not equal and opposite cause.

To have simultaneous causation, you would need an escher drawing, or a chicken and egg situation.

Yes, the "ontological" statement is not a way to determine causation, but a way to think about it. Something can be ontologically prior without being chronologically prior.

I disagree in the application of Newton's Third Law - the action and reaction do not depend on each other. To apply that to this case specifically, you would be saying "if the water did not push back, the fish would not have pushed the water." I do not believe that is true - however, it is true that "if the fish did not push the water, the water would not have pushed back." So, at least the way I see it, the fish pushing is the logical cause of the water pushing back simply because the water pushing back is dependent on the fish pushing; it cannot be turned around the other way without describing a different reaction.




It's not so much about simultaneous causes or simultaneous effects, but I am attempting to make the case that a cause and effect can occur simultaneously. It obviously can't be proven, but I am defending that it also can't be ruled out - there doesn't seem to be any experimental evidence to suggest that it is either possible or impossible. Instead, it seems up to metaphysical discussion (like this one) and personal inclination.

Pish posh, go to Glomdoring and suddenly you're depressed.

Anyway, I don't get the relevance of this causation argument. Isn't intent the real issue you're trying to argue? Again, I look at the development of identity and being as illustrative... you could argue that some prior factor led to its occurance, sure, but that doesn't mean it was 'created' or 'designed' by one's parents when they conceived. Emergence certainly doesn't always imply design. I think its a stretch to get a God from whatever was 'before' the big bang, if anything, regardless of whether it caused the bang or not. Unless you are referring to the entirety of forces present there as 'God', which is just a synonymous duplication of 'Universe'.

So your argument here relies on the fact that fish is a living being capable of action, while the water is not and is only capable of reaction?

Two asteroids collide in space. Describe the event in terms of causality and Newton's third law of motion please.


It's a way to produce over 800 pages mitbulls requested, of course.
Alternative answer would be that we're stubborn, but I prefer the first one somehow.

If the water did not push back, the fish would not have pushed the water. It would be something out of a sci-fi movie: the fish would flail helplessly while freefalling to the ocean floor, unable to generate propulsion, and ultimately die from the force of the impact.

Again, just fact checking. Carry on.

I suppose it doesn't say much that nobody from that forum has actually followed the link and read this thread at all...

In any case, this should be fun! I'm always happy for debates to bleed over to new people!

An object must exist in order for there to be a physical law that governs it. The law of causality governs the universe. The universe had to come into existance before or at the same moment as the law of causality. Thus, the law of causality could not have existed before the universe. Thus, the law of causality only appiles to things after the begining of the universe. Thus, the universe does not need a cause.

There's a much more impressive refutation on the FSTDT forums. Just follow that link. My background is biology, not physics, so I had to stay clear of most of this one, but I'm glad there're people out there who can field the question.