As I said before, the simple concept of cause and effect, once explored carefully, leads to certain inbred truths or “sub-laws” that we must understand if we are to gain the best understanding of the universe around us.
The Sub-Laws of Cause and Effect
- No effect can occur without a cause
- No effect can be its own cause
- Every cause must produce an effect
- Every effect becomes the cause for another effect
- Cause and effect can not happen simultaneously
- The exact same cause will produce the exact same effect
- The more different the causes, the more different the effects
- Seemingly different causes can produce the same effect
These laws, once examined, lead to certain ideas we’ll look at later. I may build upon these sub-laws or adjust them later as needed (based on what we can learn), but these are the basic foundations I base my personal beliefs and ideas upon. If an idea is presented to me, which somehow fails to meet the above law/sub-laws, I place in the “possibly incorrect” section. This is the first major hurdle I place in front of any ideas I’m exposed to or come up with. If they pass this basic test, I allow myself to consider it based on other criteria.
dude, these are like, so basic.
)
And yet, almost no one’s really ever put them together like this.
But then, to have a philosophy that covers everything, the foundation needs to be basic, simple and useable for all situations.
You seem to think like me.
I would simply put it: R=sC+sE. Cause and Effect being functionally equivalent. And ‘s’ for simplification, since one cause can have multiple direct effects. And of course ‘R’ for Reality or Result.
It is basically what the scientific method boils down to.
Be very careful when using math to describe Cause & Effect. In math the numbers are interchangeable. (I.E. 1+2 is the same as 2+1) However, C&E can not be reversed. An effect cannot precede its own cause. A tree can’t make the seed it grew from. It can only make seeds for new trees.
I can’t assert the “No effect can be its own cause”, since that is an unknown. There is no evidence for it. How would you go about prooving that?
The assertion ‘R=sC+sE’ only assumes: Reality is, and Reality causes effects. Where you put the ‘events’, ‘objects’, ‘ideas’, ‘numbers’, ‘actions’, etc. does not matter in this abstraction. Reality is both the group and its parts.
From a human emotional perspective linear time matters, as it provides a feeling of being in control. While in my opinion ‘time’, like many other absolute-words, is just a description for ‘the unknown’. Thereby marking our gaps in knowledge of causality using these soft wordings.
In my opinion, this is the very reason why all these gods have these nice absolute properties. Because we don’t know much and are often saturated or overwhelmed by Reality.
Stress causes denial, repetition, addiction, believe and such, which creates order again. Or does so seemingly. Not really.
“I can’t assert the “No effect can be its own cause”, since that is an unknown.”
====================
Actually, it’s quite known. I invite you to give me any known occurrence of that law being broken. If you understand and believe in the basic concept of cause & effect, you’ll find those laws essentially impossible to find fault with.
As for your issue with time, that’s another subject. One I touch briefly on in the linked post.
It is the assertion of it that is faulty. Unless these sub-laws are not absolute statements.
You are asking me to prove a negative. That is impossible. If you claim some thing, you should bring the evidence yourself.
I brought up time specifically because of your example “A tree can’t make the seed it grew from. It can only make seeds for new trees.” with the underlying assertion “No effect can be its own cause”.
With just the two assumtions Reality is, and Reality causes effects, there is no reason why things could not happen again and again and again. However unlikely that currently may seem.
Adding the assertion like you did limits the possibilities unsupportedly. Excluding many possible unknown variables not uncovered yet.
On the subject of my issue with time being another subjects. No subject is unrelated to another
Quote: “But then, to have a philosophy that covers everything, the foundation needs to be basic, simple and useable for all situations.”
I never said things can’t happen over and over. In fact I state so expressly. “The exact same cause will produce the exact same effect.”
This philosophy comes from a simple premise: Cause produces Effect. If you can prove that wrong, let me know. From that simple premise, I figured out these sub-laws, as one leads smoothly to another. Again, if you can find fault in any single one of them, I’ll be happy to learn. However, try watching Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. The part where he admits he was wrong about time going backward is especially instructive.
Thanks, I will see this documentation film.