A philosophical thought came to me while I was in the shower of all places, causality might not even be real.

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, all actions/events are relative to each other, there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame. All reference frames are just as real as another. When I throw a ball, I am causing it to move when I push it, right? Well, the reference frame on the ball says the ball isn't being pushed at all, the ball is staying still and the person who is throwing the ball is moving away. Thus, all reference frames cancel each other out, the balls frame of reference is just as real as the ball throwers frame of reference, which means there is no such thing as causality. When we push an object we think it causes it to move forward, but from the reference frame of the object, everything else is moving around it. What do you all think? Am I onto something, or am I just crazy?

Whichever way you look at it there is still movement and that movement is caused by the action of your arm on the ball. I don't see why you think causality disappears.

I vote "crazy"

In spite Regardless of the frame of reference, forces apply and time goes by... causality stands on those.

(May 13, 2014 at 5:08 am)pocaracas Wrote: I vote "crazy"

In spite Regardless of the frame of reference, forces apply and time goes by... causality stands on those.

That's not the point. The frame of reference is the entire point of relativity. You say 'regardless' of the reference frame, but relativity was the main point of what I'm saying. You pretty much had to forget about relativity there to state that causality still stands. In the reference frame of the ball that is being thrown up to the sky, the earth is moving away from the ball. Sure, there's forces between them, that's obvious, but not the point. Also, talking about time, time is relative to the ball and the player.

---

(May 13, 2014 at 5:07 am)max-greece Wrote: Whichever way you look at it there is still movement and that movement is caused by the action of your arm on the ball. I don't see why you think causality disappears.

The forces don't disappear, but our common intuition of causality does. What I was getting at is each reference frame is as real as the next, you can't really say one object is pushing another one, because in the reference frame of the object that is being pushed, it is the other object that pushed it which is moving away, and vice versa if you switch reference frames.

I think that gets you to a perceived difference in effect but not removal of causality itself.

The ball being pushed, is in the same position as I would be were I pushing on a solid wall exerting enough force to push myself backwards.

(May 13, 2014 at 5:45 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 5:08 am)pocaracas Wrote: I vote "crazy"

In spite Regardless of the frame of reference, forces apply and time goes by... causality stands on those.

That's not the point. The frame of reference is the entire point of relativity. You say 'regardless' of the reference frame, but relativity was the main point of what I'm saying. You pretty much had to forget about relativity there to state that causality still stands.

No...

(May 13, 2014 at 5:45 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: In the reference frame of the ball that is being thrown up to the sky, the earth is moving away from the ball.

Now, be a good lad and think that, if the ball is your frame of reference, then it is not an Inertial Frame of Reference (not at constant speed), so all the laws of physics must be reworked to fit that... not an easy task, I'd say.

(May 13, 2014 at 5:45 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Sure, there's forces between them, that's obvious, but not the point. Also, talking about time, time is relative to the ball and the player.

Causality is all about time. And, unless you have a reference moving at the speed of light, then time moves on.
Forces apply, accelerating objects.... just that action is bound by causality: one object acting on another.

Any change in momentum involves an exchange of energy. Find out from which frame of reference the energetic exchange came from, and you've found your cause.

(May 13, 2014 at 4:44 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: A philosophical thought came to me while I was in the shower of all places, causality might not even be real.

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, all actions/events are relative to each other, there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame. All reference frames are just as real as another. When I throw a ball, I am causing it to move when I push it, right? Well, the reference frame on the ball says the ball isn't being pushed at all, the ball is staying still and the person who is throwing the ball is moving away. Thus, all reference frames cancel each other out, the balls frame of reference is just as real as the ball throwers frame of reference, which means there is no such thing as causality. When we push an object we think it causes it to move forward, but from the reference frame of the object, everything else is moving around it. What do you all think? Am I onto something, or am I just crazy?

Ah, No. You are confusing identity of the agent of casuality with existence of casaulity.

In this case, agent of casuality is not frame dependent. Einstein did say an accelerated frame of reference, which is what would surround the ball you throw, is not the same as an inertial frame of reference, which is what surrounds you. So they don't cancel each other out. The ball in an accelerated frame of reference will know it is in an acclerated, and not an inertial, frame of reference. Therefore you throwing the ball does not cause the ball to feel as if it was the ball that is throwing you. There will be no confusion as to the agent of casaulity

(May 13, 2014 at 4:44 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: Am I onto something, or am I just crazy?

To me it simply makes no sense to say that causality is not real. Why? There are a couple of reasons. First, even if one accepts you argument, causality IS real within the frames of reference. ToR is a form of traditional realism, at least when it is generalized into a model of space time structure. And you forget that there ARE objective points of reference (inertial co-ordinates), and is it not the case that fundamentally singularity (Big Bang) is such point of reference? (I am not certain about this) In any case, time has an arrow, it is not reversible, as TD shows; but ToR is reversible... It is not the full view (there's also QM).

In any case, even if you think (like Kant) that causality, space and time are in fact a forms of "transcendental subject", still this form must be real, for you are real.

In any case ToR does not, as far I understand, imply in any sense that causality is not real, but one can make the claim that "time is not real", it is an "Illusion" or whatever. Or at least some make such claims.

So what's the point? Don't take the map (model of physics, which, if ToR is considered alone, seems to imply a kind of non-temporal picture of reality, in which time and space are totally inter-changeable) for reality. In some sense causality must be real, because it makes no sense to say it is an "illusion". I am a realist, but just as reasonable as it is to make these obscure claims that are at odds with all everyday common sense sense of reality, it would be to say reality is what we experience and those nice models of physicists are but instrumental models to predict how things go in this reality. The truth is, I guess, between these extremes.

Your arm is metabolizing carbon (simplifying a bit) to move the ball, and the ball ain't.