Cause & Effect

Printable View

September 26th, 2001, 08:10 PM
SHATOUSHKA

i am just about willing to submit to the idea of C&E...but one thing always gets in the way:

C&E is not infinite. should it be?

------------------
General Philosophy
September 27th, 2001, 12:11 AM
Hannibal

How is C&E not infinite? Explain behind that a tad would you please Shat? I think I understand the basic concept of C&E *as who can not, something happens, then an effect, etc..*
but that in itself is infinite, as the question "which came first, chicken or the egg?"
one of which is cause, one of which is effect, either side you could argue to infinity correct? Thus implying the infiniteness of C&E,
Or perhaps I've missed the entire point http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
in which case "TO THE GALLOWS!!!!!"

------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.
September 27th, 2001, 12:46 AM
TastinGood

Cause and Effect. Chain of events. All of the chaos makes perfect sense. When youre spinning round things come undone. Welcome to earth, third rock from the sun.

------------------
"If Lincoln had thought being the President was such a longshot, we'd have nobody's picture on the one dollar bill" -Arthur Fonzerelli (The Fonz)
September 27th, 2001, 10:38 PM
SHATOUSHKA

hannibal--
i'll let you ponder it more.

------------------
General Philosophy
September 28th, 2001, 02:05 AM
zelazny

couldn't withold my funny ideas about cause and effect http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
what shat probably means is that for C&E you need an infinite chain of C&E just because there has to be something that starts the next chain.
Otherwise you'd have to invent some moveless mover, something which has no cause that starts the chain of cause and effect.

That's where i had the funny idea that if you take the big bang theory is that you start with a finite universe, there has to be a time before it, and since a universe encompasses all there is, that means that there was nothing before that universe.
no nothing, no rules, no time AND no cause and effect http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
just my 2 Eurocents.

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
September 28th, 2001, 04:14 AM
SHATOUSHKA

congratulations! it was on sale this week!
here's your change. thanks for shopping!

http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif *ding*

------------------
General Philosophy
September 28th, 2001, 05:52 AM
state_vector

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Otherwise you'd have to invent some moveless mover, something which has no cause that starts the chain of cause and effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This "moveless mover" is what I call "stillmover" (like the aristotelian "kinoun akineton"). Damn you, Zelazny, I feel we're too close in some fields (betta watch out your postings, cuz the ones I love I keep em only for myself - in my hard drive). http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/eek.gif

------------------
September 28th, 2001, 05:57 AM
state_vector

Cause and effect? Well, alright! The child is a mother's cause, and the mother is a child's effect. Or: What I make makes me. No dualism involved.

------------------
September 28th, 2001, 01:03 PM
empiricyst

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SHATOUSHKA:
i am just about willing to submit to the idea of C&E...but one thing always gets in the way:

C&E is not infinite. should it be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello. What kind of sense of "cause and effect" are we talking about here? Empirical or logical? The kind that says my ass just produced something noxious or the kind that says "left" and "right" arise together in causal relation?

The Cyst
September 28th, 2001, 09:04 PM
Sapius

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Shatoush: C&E is not infinite. should it be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have already concluded in the first have of your sentence that C&E is NOT infinite, without giving any explanation. Please justify your conclusion.

Answer to your question: Yes, C&E is Infinite, which means no beginning, no end. Which is a difficult concept to comprehend, because we are used to the understanding that Everything we perceive has a beginning and an end.

You will realize that I will say nothing new as far as our collective knowledge has reached up until now. It is very simple if you can see it.

Cause and Effect is nothing more than Energy changing its form from one thing to another. Every Cause is an Effect of a previous Cause, and every Effect acts as the Cause of a future Effect. This chain is Infinite with no beginning or end, and has not been started by any external or supernatural force.

Reason, simple, some crazy scientist said that Energy never dies, but simply changes form, so where does the question arise of it coming into being at any point? Or someone creating it and putting it into motion. The motion never "started" at any point, and will never end. Infinitude?

------------------
....just IMHO though.
September 28th, 2001, 10:10 PM
SHATOUSHKA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hello. What kind of sense of "cause and effect" are we talking about here? Empirical or logical? The kind that says my ass just produced something noxious or the kind that says "left" and "right" arise together in causal relation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it makes no difference what sense of the word i am referring to. i am tired of having to direct people to discuss shit.
if you want to talk about any type of C&E, then do so. do not look to me for direction for argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You have already concluded in the first have of your sentence that C&E is NOT infinite, without giving any explanation. Please justify your conclusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have concluded nothing. this was a topic starter.

to go further, it seems that online forum members just about ignore simply inquiries. instead, they prefer personal 'stands' as threats on others beliefs.
the above appears to be true.
if i had come on this thread and simply asked someone to explain something i was curious about, no one would post--save the disenchanted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You will realize that I will say nothing new as far as our collective knowledge has reached up until now. It is very simple if you can see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is what i am interested in, sapius.
i know it may sound strange--but i am interested in everyones idea on this subject, including yours. i remeber well what you have previously said, but i think it may serve a better purpose to disclose information thoroughly here, for some may not be familiar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Cause and Effect is nothing more than Energy changing its form from one thing to another. Every Cause is an Effect of a previous Cause, and every Effect acts as the Cause of a future Effect. This chain is Infinite with no beginning or end, and has not been started by any external or supernatural force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

how do you know that? http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Reason, simple, some crazy scientist said that Energy never dies, but simply changes form, so where does the question arise of it coming into being at any point? Or someone creating it and putting it into motion. The motion never "started" at any point, and will never end. Infinitude?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this would just about answer my previous question. how do you account for entropy? is this energy 'becoming another form'?
isn't it similar to an idea of reincarnation?

speaking of religion--

couldn't all of this view or that view sum up to faith (in that view)?
like you said, sapius, some crazy scientist said it...does this mean that you are siding with his view and all the rest are siding with another's view?

this is what i want to know:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>C&E is not infinite. should it be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

someone please do this.

------------------
General Philosophy
September 29th, 2001, 01:44 PM
empiricyst

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SHATOUSHKA:
it makes no difference what sense of the word i am referring to. i am tired of having to direct people to discuss shit.
if you want to talk about any type of C&E, then do so. do not look to me for direction for argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You asked the question! Are you expecting other people to define the terms of your own question? Do you understand your own questions?

Damn, you are a worry.

The oooooozzing Cyst
September 29th, 2001, 01:50 PM
empiricyst

Name me something without empirical or logical relation to what it is not.

The Csssssyt
September 29th, 2001, 05:51 PM
SHATOUSHKA

let see if i can help.

lets just pretend that the starter question was placed by someone that knows nothing of what he asked. he is asking in the way a person would ask if he just happened upon the subject.
suppose that the question was asked by a 15 year old. would you have to question his previous knowledge in the subject area in order to determine where he stands? i doubt it.
what if you were walking down the street and you happened to see this question posted on a tree? again, you have no idea of the person whom asked this question.
you simply respond to the question.
that is all.
if you wanna answer the question from a religious stand-point, as ek3 does--fine. if you want to answer the question from sheer impulse the way tastingood does--fine. if you want to answer the question from an empirical/logical position--fine.

it doesn't matter.

its best to lay out your ground work of an argument--AND to allow others to do so prior to waging war.

this is what i hope to accomplish.
mmmkay?

------------------
General Philosophy
September 29th, 2001, 07:26 PM
Sapius

Shatoush,

SH: i have concluded nothing. this was a topic starter.

>>>I'm sorry, I didn't know it is done that way.

SH: to go further, it seems that online forum members just about ignore simply inquiries. instead, they prefer personal 'stands' as threats on others beliefs.

Is that what you think? just because I did not add a http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

SH: the above appears to be true. if i had come on this thread and simply asked someone to explain something i was curious about, no one would post--save the disenchanted.

>>>Humm......

SH: (C&E) how do you know that? http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif

>>>Playing monopoly. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif Please look up some of my previous posts on the subject, including the one talking about a dice.

SH:this would just about answer my previous question. how do you account for entropy? is this energy 'becoming another form'? isn't it similar to an idea of reincarnation?

>>>Entropy is a different topic I think, and I'm not a scientist trying to measure it. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

>>>Yes Energy 'becomes another form', just like you see lightening coming out of water vapour, which is also a different form of Energy.

>>>Reincarnation? No. And I don't see the connection.

SH: speaking of religion--

>>>Sure.

SH: couldn't all of this view or that view sum up to faith (in that view)?

>>>Yes of course, all views are subjective, and all could be faith based.

SB: like you said, sapius, some crazy scientist said it...does this mean that you are siding with his view and all the rest are siding with another's view?

>>> I don't know about others, but to make it very clear if you have not understood earlier, I side the view that E=MC2. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
....just IMHO though.
September 29th, 2001, 09:32 PM
SHATOUSHKA

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SH: i have concluded nothing. this was a topic starter.

>>>I'm sorry, I didn't know it is done that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is fine. i don't think anyone suspected it. i wanted to find a new (old) approach to discussion. it is not intended to be brash.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SH: to go further, it seems that online forum members just about ignore simply inquiries. instead, they prefer personal 'stands' as threats on others beliefs.

Is that what you think? just because I did not add a http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

again, this was a general observation. not intended to single any one person out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SH:this would just about answer my previous question. how do you account for entropy? is this energy 'becoming another form'? isn't it similar to an idea of reincarnation?

>>>Entropy is a different topic I think, and I'm not a scientist trying to measure it.

>>>Yes Energy 'becomes another form', just like you see lightening coming out of water vapour, which is also a different form of Energy.

>>>Reincarnation? No. And I don't see the connection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no problem. i think this thread is too involved to get into such an area. i am thinking of starting a newer thread for this subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SH: couldn't all of this view or that view sum up to faith (in that view)?

>>>Yes of course, all views are subjective, and all could be faith based.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thank you for this, sapius. it is nice to know some people do not have thier heads in the clouds. (this is a compliment, mmmkay??)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SB: like you said, sapius, some crazy scientist said it...does this mean that you are siding with his view and all the rest are siding with another's view?

>>> I don't know about others, but to make it very clear if you have not understood earlier, I side the view that E=MC2. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it is good to know that. we shall continue this discussion on another thread. (hopefully)

------------------
General Philosophy
September 30th, 2001, 02:32 AM
empiricyst

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SHATOUSHKA:
let see if i can help.

lets just pretend that the starter question was placed by someone that knows nothing of what he asked. he is asking in the way a person would ask if he just happened upon the subject. suppose that the question was asked by a 15 year old. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it wasn't; it was posed by you. I presume you actually have some genuine interest in the topic? If you do, you will find that the answer to your original question is in the challenge I just offered: name me something that does not exist relative to what it is not.

Anyway, I would fully expect a 15 year old to be able to reason that one out.

The Cyst
September 30th, 2001, 10:57 AM
Sapius

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Shatoush: no problem. i think this thread is too involved to get into such an area. i am thinking of starting a newer thread for this subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem here too, but please, try to be explicit when asking questions.

...and please don't think that there are all kids around except you.

If you believe in "subjectivity", thats all right with me, but remember, do not live your entire life in that subjectivity, because your trust in subjectivity is also subjective after all, and cannot be an absolute.

So basically, nothing is absolute, including subtivity. confusing eh?

You see, where I come from, (and I don't mean my nationality), one has to take a very long trip in logical understanding to Actually understand what "subjectivity" means, otherwise it springs from ignorance of the Nature of Existence, and ends up in pride.

Please don't read into my words, I don't mean any insult. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
....just IMHO though.