Peter wrote: "At the speed of light, effects precede causes."
P.

Peter, since chronology is a function of time, and time does not exist at the speed of light, in what sense can causes and effects be present? Timelessness is achronological. Aren't you hoisting yourself on your own billiard-ball petard? Diana


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: causality


> Peter,
>
> I do speak of efficient causality, as this is the
> topic of our discussion. You said that Einstein's
> theory as well as the particle-wave duality are
> exceptions in this, and I'd like to know how you'd
> support that (since I don't think that physics made
> any shift from the classical efficient causation in
> this two examples).
> Dfinitions of Aristotelian 4 causes won't help in
> answering my questions.
>
> Dunja
>
> --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > You are thinking only in terms of efficient
> > causality.
> > Of one thing effecting the next. That is what
> > science has limited us to. Actually, in the
> > electronic world in which we now live, effects
> > tend to precede causes.
> >
> > I resist saying the folowing, but:
> >
> > The material cause is the material which composes
> > something.
> > The formal cause is the form of something.
> > The final cause is, in a sense its purpose or the
> > end to which it tends.
> > The efficient cause is how something is made.
> >
> > These are gross oversimplifications but at least a
> > starting point
> > for dicussion.
> >
> > P.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:08 PM
> > Subject: causality
> >
> >
> > > --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > E=MC(2)  refocussed the idea of causality
> > > > in terms of the building blocks out of which
> > things
> > > > are made.
> > > > Matter as both particle and wave.
> > > >
> > > > P.
> > >
> > > But why would this imply (or presuppose) a
> > different
> > > sort of causality? There is a cause, there's an
> > > effect. I don't see any "final purpose" present in
> > > Einstein's theory...
> > > As for the particle/wave problem - how do you
> > relate
> > > that to the problem of causality at all? Besides,
> > > contemporary interpretations of quantum physics
> > still
> > > have a lot of trouble trying to connect this
> > theory
> > > with relativist physics, so I don't understand
> > what
> > > you meant when you said that sentence... :-/
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > Dunja
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/445 -
> > Release Date: 9/11/2006
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006
>
>