Further to my previous post on Causality forms, here are comments from Ed Dellian (my points are italicised) .<\/p>\n
Basically these comments lead me to a conclusion that Natural Philosophy cannot explain cause-effect relations between events\u00a0taking place in electromagnetics!<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ed: <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n The requirement of causality is to distinguish between cause (A) and effect (B) being quantities of physical entities (A, B)\u00a0 differing in kind (lat. genus)\u00a0<\/span>like apples and pears<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>Whether physical entities differ in kind can be found by analyzing their dimensions. Cause A (dimension A) and effect B (dimension B) are entities with different dimensions (different entities).\u00a0<\/span>Consequently a mathematical law of causality (generation of effect B by a generating cause A) cannot read B = A. The only reasonable mathematical relation between such different quantities (if there is any) is\u00a0a geometric\u00a0proportionality\u00a0according to A\/B = C = constant. The dimensions of the constant C accordingly will be given [A\/B].<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Alex:<\/span><\/p>\n What about causality of the same kind (species) – parent to child?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Ed:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Ed: <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n So your “form 1” where you deal with two “events” of a same kind has nothing to do with causality.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n Alex:<\/p>\n So, what is this? Clearly the event B that is further from the source of the step – it cannot happen before A. In fact it can only happen after event A, and moreover this “after” happens L\/c\u00a0 time units later – where L is the distance between points A and B in the transmission line.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Alex:<\/p>\n And we can’t deny this effect because this is what we see\u00a0in the experiments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Alex:<\/p>\n I can interpret this as geometric proportionality with coefficient k, which is\u00a0dimensionless in your terms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Alex:<\/p>\n But, incidentally, who said that geometric proportionality should be defined by the algebraic\u00a0division operator?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Ed:<\/p>\n It is Euclid who says it, in “Elements” book V, definitions of “logos” (ratio A = B) and “analogos” (proportio A\/B = C = constant). And, it is Newton who also says it, in his second law (a chagne in motion is proportional to the impressed force), and in his Scholium after Lemma X (proportionality of heterogeneous entities).<\/p>\n Physical world can suggest us other forms of proportionality – for example, we can define proportionality in the form of a time-shift operator?<\/p>\n Physical world can of course suggest us other forms of interrelations, but so long as causality is defined according to natural experience and in my Newtonian context as a proportionality of force and motion (change of motion), that is, as generation of some effect by a generating cause, we cannot define it otherwise at will. By the way, just drive a nail with a hammer, and you will learn the law of proportionality of cause and effect.<\/p>\n Alex:<\/p>\n Please not that I am not dismissing your definition of causality as being limited. I am just looking for a form of expressing the event\u00a0precedence effect in transmission line, which is what we see in our experiments. Ivor’s theory underpins it with the notion of “Heaviside signal” (aka “energy current”).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Ed:<\/p>\n Please see that I do not propose “my” definition of causality. I just refer to what natural philosophy knows under this technical term since the time of Galileo and Newton, who derived it from natural experience and experiment only. May I, by the way, recommend reading my essay “The Language of Nature is not Algebra”, which essentially is a criticism of Judea Pearl’s famous book “Causality” (Cambridge University Press 2009) ?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n My last response was:<\/p>\n Alex:<\/em><\/p>\n Basically, you undersigned the following:<\/em><\/p>\n Natural Philosophy cannot define what Form 1 (in my earlier email is).<\/em><\/p>\n I would however claim that this effect:<\/em><\/p>\n (A) Physical and geometric. Why? Because we *experience*:<\/em><\/p>\n –\u00a0the source event (step of ExH at point A)<\/em><\/p>\n – the result event (setp of ExH in point B)<\/em><\/p>\n – there is a geometric link between point A and B in the direction of distance and time, and those are related by speed of light c.<\/em><\/p>\n (B) Present in nature (changes in light intensity travel from stars to earth)\u00a0and is used (we record those changes in light intensity – in cameras and telescopes, we use radio signals, we communicate in computers)<\/em><\/p>\n What does natural philosophy have to offer to us then?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Further to my previous post on Causality forms, here are comments from Ed Dellian (my points are italicised) . Basically these comments lead me to a conclusion that Natural Philosophy cannot explain cause-effect relations between events\u00a0taking place in electromagnetics! … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\n