How many times do we have to test bread before we know infallibly what bread is?

Hume is also the better scientist because he takes what the world does. He allows for instances of the world breaking our expectations. When it happens, he won't get caught rejecting. He hasn't predismissed the possibility of such a state. If the world we observe happens to break a law, so much worse for the law.

There is a third thing or quality which explains how one ball causes the other to move. It is the transfer of kinetic energy. Whenever you see an object in motion, you are looking at kinetic energy. — Ron Cram

Actually, in Newton's terms we would call this third thing a "force". But "force" is arguably entirely imaginary. Just like Hume said, its a concept devised to account for changes in momentum.

There's no 'force of gravity' or "masses attracting eachother"... gravity is the curvature of space. — ChatteringMonkey

This is what happens when you take Newton by his words. We have to account for the real existence of what he calls "force". Ron Cram refuses to do this. The modern trend in physics seems to be to relocate "force". Instead of being completely conceptual and therefore independent from the thing (as per Newton), the trend is to make force a natural property of an object. This is somewhat problematic, making Einstein's gravity a natural property of space, rather than a "force". So space must be a real substance to have this property.

False. Cause and effect are directly observable. I've given a number of examples. — Ron Cram

What you have done is substitute Newton's term "force", with the concept of "cause and effect". But force is not directly observable, it is deduced through the application of principles like Newton's laws.
Are you ready to discuss Newton's laws without substituting "force", and address directly what Newton meant by this term?

Cause and effect are directly observable. — Ron Cram

Great! What colour are they? DImensions - large? Small? Rough? Smooth? Opaque? Translucent? Anything at all?

Observe: Newton's first law, a body will remain at rest, or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force.

Therefore, when we observe that a body's motion changes, we can conclude that it was acted upon by a force. Notice that we conclude deductively that a force acted, by applying Newton's first law as a premise. We do not observe that a force acted.

Science has worked so far, but so far we haven't seen the argument that it will continue too. — Gregory

It is irrational to argue that science will not continue to work. You have no evidence to support that view.

How many times do we have to test bread before we know infallibly what bread is? — Gregory

What does that even mean? We make bread. If we use the ingredients to make bread, then we know it will provide nourishment.

Hume is also the better scientist because he takes what the world does. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Hume has no idea what the world does. He admits that he doesn't understand motion. He's the opposite of a scientist.

Are you ready to discuss Newton's laws without substituting "force", and address directly what Newton meant by this term? — Metaphysician Undercover

Everyone knows that Newton uses the term "force" to mean "kinetic energy" and "impulse" to mean "transfer of kinetic energy."

Great! What colour are they? DImensions - large? Small? Rough? Smooth? Opaque? Translucent? Anything at all? — tim wood

You are asking the wrong questions. Why not try to find an argument that will refute the examples I've given instead of trying to change the subject?

Notice that we conclude deductively that a force acted, by applying Newton's first law as a premise. We do not observe that a force acted. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are thinking about this wrong. We observe cause and effect directly. We come to understand the physical necessity involves. This leads us to understand the natural law at work. The physical law then allows us to make inductive inferences. This is how science works. Modern philosophers of science understand this, but Hume and his followers are still living in the Middle Ages.

I've already quoted Newton's Principia. I've already proven what Newton said. — Ron Cram

You quoted some stuff about the Laws of Motion. What I am questioning is the connection between this and supposed laws of cause and effect. Your quotes do not show any such connection.

Newton did not write a specific law of cause and effect; in particular, the law "To every action there is always opposed an equal action" is not a law of cause and effect.

Everyone knows that Newton uses the term "force" to mean "kinetic energy" — Ron Cram

Well, no. He used the word "force" to mean force.

Force is the product of mass and acceleration. Kinetic energy is, in contrast, half the square of the velocity, times the mass.

Cause and effect are not directly observable. One might be able to observe a sequence of events, and then to claim that one is the cause, another the effect; but that claim, while perhaps guided by observation, is not something one can see.

You're ignoring the important point, that Hume didn't say what you think he said.

The words "fundamental level" refer to quantum scales. Hume was not aware of quantum mechanics so don't try to force him to take a position he never took. In the video you linked, Sean Carroll admits that causes and effects are known on the classical scale. — Ron Cram

Hume only made a sceptical argument about Causation, namely that (on a macro-level) we don't see anything like a mechanism or law of Causation, which was inferred by others at the time. For Causation to be true metaphysically it has to be true on a more fundamental level too, or what would 'metaphysical' mean otherwise?

On a classical scale means on the surface, emergent... that is not fundamentally or metaphysically. Causes and effects only emerge from more fundamental properties of the universe, like those described in particle physics and the fact that the universe happened to start out low entropy.

Edit: The point is not that Hume took a modern physics point of view, but that he was sceptical of people inferring something they had no evidence for. And as it turns out modern physics seems to justify his scepticism.

Newton did not assign a cause for gravity, he simply described it as a centripetal force without being able to assign a cause for the attraction. Einstein came with a deeper and more precise theory which explained the cause of the attraction as the warping of the spacetime continuum. — Ron Cram

I don't think causes (and effects) are the best vocabulary to use here, the curvature of spacetime doesn't exactly 'cause' attraction... Edit: ... and although some of the math stayed the same, the whole paradigm has changed.

Newton did not write a specific law of cause and effect; in particular, the law "To every action there is always opposed an equal action" is not a law of cause and effect. — Banno

Every physicist in the world has been taught that Newton's third law of motion is also called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. How can you verify my claim that Newton's third law is commonly called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect? Let me Google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Newton%27s%20law%20of%20cause%20and%20effect%22

Cause and effect are not directly observable. One might be able to observe a sequence of events, and then to claim that one is the cause, another the effect; but that claim, while perhaps guided by observation, is not something one can see. — Banno

You keep making that claim. I've already given you four examples where we can see cause and effect. Please explain to me what we are seeing in these four examples that could convince you we are NOT seeing cause and effect.

Hume only made a sceptical argument about Causation, namely that (on a macro-level) we don't see anything like a mechanism or law of Causation, which was inferred by others at the time. For Causation to be true metaphysically it has to be true on a more fundamental level too, or what would 'metaphysical' mean otherwise? — ChatteringMonkey

False. What is true on classical scales does not have to be true on quantum scales. Also, Sean Carroll didn't mention this, but Einstein was correct when he said that GR and QM will never be unified because the spacetime continuum cannot be quantized.

On a classical scale means on the surface, emergent... that is not fundamentally or metaphysically. — ChatteringMonkey

The term "fundamentally" and "metaphysically" are not synonymous.

Edit: The point is not that Hume took a modern physics point of view, but that he was sceptical of people inferring something they had no evidence for. And as it turns out modern physics seems to justify his scepticism. — ChatteringMonkey

False. Sean Carroll is a modern physicist. He knows that we live in the classical scale universe and the video admits that cause and effect play a role in our everyday lives.

I don't think causes (and effects) are the best vocabulary to use here, the curvature of spacetime doesn't exactly 'cause' attraction... Edit: ... and although some of the math stayed the same, the whole paradigm has changed. — ChatteringMonkey

The use of "cause and effect" to describe the warping of the universe causing the attraction of gravity is exactly right. And someday we may learn why massive objects warp the spacetime continuum. The math between Newton and Einstein is very, very close. Newton's equations are much easier to work with and precise enough on smaller astronomical scales, that NASA used Newton's equations to plan the manned flight to the moon instead of Einstein's.

Yes, that would be weird and not what I'm doing at all. It is a logical fallacy to think that because separating a head from a living body would cause it to die that sewing the head back on would cause the body to come back to life. — Ron Cram

I think you slightly misunderstand the point of the example. It's about why cutting of the head can be labeled a "cause" even though it's only one element among many of the system. I turned your examples around to show that your "cause" is not sufficient.

False. Cause and effect are directly observable. I've given a number of examples. You have not attempted to refute the examples and so I am under the impression that you agree that cause and effect are directly observable in these cases. — Ron Cram

I think what I have written already hints at the refutation, but I can make it explicit. Let's take the example of the brick. You say that the brick shatters the window, but that's not actually a property of the brick. Rather, what shatters the window is the movement of the brick, only the movement is also not sufficient. So the moving brick must also encounter the window, which occupies the same space at the same time. But the Pauli exclusion principle says that it is impossible for the brick to be in the same place.

So it must be the moving brick approaching the window. It must be that the brick, in some instant, while on a certain vector through spacetime, is just about to occupy the same space and time as the window, on a different vector through spacetime. But that is a description of a state, followed by another state, where various particles are now on different vectors. We might call the transition from one state to another an "interaction", but where, precisely, is the cause? Is the entire state of the universe that cause, and the entire next state the effect?

Everyone knows that Newton uses the term "force" to mean "kinetic energy" and "impulse" to mean "transfer of kinetic energy." — Ron Cram

No, there's a very big difference here. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. And momentum is equal to mass times velocity. "Kinetic energy" was developed from Leibniz' "vis viva" (living force), which was expressed as mass time velocity squared. This was later modified in the concept of "kinetic energy" such that kinetic energy is half of the vis viva

You can see that "force", as mass time acceleration is quite different from "kinetic energy" as half of mass times velocity squared. Kinetic energy refers to a simple property of a body in motion, the capacity to do work. "Force" was meant by Newton to refer to the means by which a body's motion is altered; this is quite clear in Newton's first law. The capacity to do work (kinetic energy), as a potential which a moving body has, is quite distinct from a 'force" which is actively doing work, changing a body's motion. This is why the "force" of gravity, as something actively doing work, must be expressed as potential energy, the capacity to create motion (kinetic energy) in a body, rather than as kinetic energy. So you'll find that in field physics, forces which are actively doing work, are expressed as potential energy.

You are thinking about this wrong. We observe cause and effect directly. We come to understand the physical necessity involves. This leads us to understand the natural law at work. The physical law then allows us to make inductive inferences. This is how science works. Modern philosophers of science understand this, but Hume and his followers are still living in the Middle Ages. — Ron Cram

Despite your claim that I am thinking wrong, you clearly have this backward. The "physical law" is an inductive conclusion, produced from descriptions of natural occurrences. Any "necessity" which is apprehended is a logical necessity dependent on acceptance of the inductive law. This is the necessity which Hume questions. The physical law does not necessarily represent any "natural law" at work, as the physical law is merely inductive conclusion produced from our observations. So the validity of the physical law is supported by the probability of correctness of the inductive conclusion, and has the possibility of being inaccurate, due to the role of probability in inductive reasoning. Therefore your claim that we observe the natural law at work is false. There is no necessary relationship between the physical law and any "natural law".

I think you slightly misunderstand the point of the example. It's about why cutting of the head can be labeled a "cause" even though it's only one element among many of the system. I turned your examples around to show that your "cause" is not sufficient. — Echarmion

No, you turned around my example to no point at all. If you want to refute my point, then you would have to explain how the body could continue to function and live when the neurological pathway between the brain and the heart are no longer functioning. There is a physical necessity that the head and body be connected. There are many physical necessities that must be present in order to allow for the possibility of life. I'm simply pointing to one.

So it must be the moving brick approaching the window. It must be that the brick, in some instant, while on a certain vector through spacetime, is just about to occupy the same space and time as the window, on a different vector through spacetime. But that is a description of a state, followed by another state, where various particles are now on different vectors. We might call the transition from one state to another an "interaction", but where, precisely, is the cause? Is the entire state of the universe that cause, and the entire next state the effect? — Echarmion

This is not a refutation. It is not even a positional statement about what happened.

No, there's a very big difference here. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. And momentum is equal to mass times velocity. "Kinetic energy" was developed from Leibniz' "vis viva" (living force), which was expressed as mass time velocity squared. This was later modified in the concept of "kinetic energy" such that kinetic energy is half of the vis viva — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Leibniz did not invent the term "kinetic energy." The term was not coined until the mid-1800s. And this really has nothing to do with the vis viva controversy between Newton and Leibniz. Newton clearly understood that an object in motion is a force, a term later seen to be equivalent to the term kinetic energy. Newton talked of this force being communicated to another object by "impulse" or "the shock of impulse." Today we speak of the transfer of kinetic energy. This is the same thing.

Despite your claim that I am thinking wrong, you clearly have this backward. The "physical law" is an inductive conclusion, produced from descriptions of natural occurrences. Any "necessity" which is apprehended is a logical necessity dependent on acceptance of the inductive law. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, a law is not declared based on frequentism. This is a mistake philosopher's sometimes make based upon Hume's errors. No natural process can be called a law unless the physical necessity is understood.

There is no necessary relationship between the physical law and any "natural law". — Metaphysician Undercover

For this discussion, physical law and natural law are equivalent terms. Laws of physics are laws of nature.

This is not a refutation. It is not even a positional statement about what happened. — Ron Cram

It's a question. Given that you claim we can directly observe causation, you should be able to tell me what the actual cause is, in physical terms.

No, you turned around my example to no point at all. If you want to refute my point, then you would have to explain how the body could continue to function and live when the neurological pathway between the brain and the heart are no longer functioning. — Ron Cram

It could be kept alive by machinery. That's not difficult to imagine given we can stop people's hearts for surgery.

There is a physical necessity that the head and body be connected. — Ron Cram

Can you point out to me what physical laws make this a physical necessity?

There are many physical necessities that must be present in order to allow for the possibility of life. I'm simply pointing to one. — Ron Cram

So, if there are multiple, which one is the cause? Are all together the cause?

No. Leibniz did not invent the term "kinetic energy." — Ron Cram

Did I say that? It seems you do not know how to read.

Newton clearly understood that an object in motion is a force, — Ron Cram

Either you haven't read Newton's laws, or you're just demonstrating further, that you do not know how to read. A body in motion will exert a force on another. The body in motion is not the force itself. This is very clear in Newton's writing. A body in motion moves uniformly, according to the first law, and it has momentum according to its mass and velocity. If a force acts on a body, its motion changes. So "force" is understood through change in motion, not as the property of an object in motion. This is clear from the fact that gravity is a force, and it is not an object in motion.

No, a law is not declared based on frequentism. — Ron Cram

OK, then when someone like Newton declares a law, what is it based on?

False. What is true on classical scales does not have to be true on quantum scales. Also, Sean Carroll didn't mention this, but Einstein was correct when he said that GR and QM will never be unified because the spacetime continuum cannot be quantized. — Ron Cram

How could you possibly know this, are you a theoretical physicist? Even they don't know if unification is possible or not. Sean Carroll thinks "quantizing" is a wrongheaded approach because you are starting from a classical framework and trying to incorporated quantum mechanics. He thinks QM is more fundamental and we should start from there and try to find space, time and gravity in QM...

Anyway, if unification is not possible, one theory will have to be revised. That's what they do agree on, and the non-compatibility can't just be waved away with things behaving differently on smaller and larger scales because in some cases the smaller and the larger scale coïncide, i.e. black holes and the big bang.

The term "fundamentally" and "metaphysically" are not synonymous. — Ron Cram

Alright, what does metaphysical mean then, if it doesn't include the fundamental?

False. Sean Carroll is a modern physicist. He knows that we live in the classical scale universe and the video admits that cause and effect play a role in our everyday lives. — Ron Cram

But nobody believes that we shouldn't divide things up into causes and effects in our everyday lives, not even Hume. The point is that cause and effect are just conveniences, for our understanding, not a fundamental law of the universe, which was what Hume was arguing against.

The use of "cause and effect" to describe the warping of the universe causing the attraction of gravity is exactly right. — Ron Cram

No it's not, that's a Newtonian way of speaking about it. There is no attraction, mass curves spacetime, and the curve of spacetime determines how masses move. Singling out causes and effects to describe a proces where everything influences everthing else seems to only complicate the matter unnecessarily.

The math between Newton and Einstein is very, very close. Newton's equations are much easier to work with and precise enough on smaller astronomical scales, that NASA used Newton's equations to plan the manned flight to the moon instead of Einstein's. — Ron Cram

Sure, Newton's equation works in most cases, but Einsteins is more accurate and general because it also works in extreme cases. And even if it's only a refinement in math, it's a paradigm shift in what kind of worldview it gives rise to. A physics equation often can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, like for instance QM-equations now. Usually one only starts to make progress again if one changes the way one interprets things… like it was the case with the devellopment of QM.

It's a question. Given that you claim we can directly observe causation, you should be able to tell me what the actual cause is, in physical terms. — Echarmion

I have. And I have asked you to refute me. You have not.

Can you point out to me what physical laws make this a physical necessity? — Echarmion

It is the physical necessity that points to the laws, not the other way round. Are you doubting that it is physically necessary for the head to be attached to the body for a person to be alive?

It could be kept alive by machinery. That's not difficult to imagine given we can stop people's hearts for surgery. — Echarmion

Machines can keep the heart pumping and keep air going into and out of the lungs, but that isn't enough to sustain life for a person without a head.

So, if there are multiple, which one is the cause? Are all together the cause? — Echarmion

The cause of the death is separating the head from the body. This separation cuts off many physical necessities for life. If you cut off one physical necessity and not the others, death would take longer. By separating them all at once, death happens immediately. It's an interesting question why this accumulative effect brings immediate death and not slow death, but that is not really the subject before us.

I have. And I have asked you to refute me. You have not. — Ron Cram

No, you!

It is the physical necessity that points to the laws, not the other way round. Are you doubting that it is physically necessary for the head to be attached to the body for a person to be alive? — Ron Cram

Yes. I doubt that even having any biological body is necessary, given that "a person" is really just a mind.

Machines can keep the heart pumping and keep air going into and out of the lungs, but that isn't enough to sustain life for a person without a head. — Ron Cram

Right. And why would you? After all a body is not the person. What about the other way round though? Head without body.

The cause of the death is separating the head from the body. — Ron Cram

Really? Not the loss of blood pressure to the brain, or lack of oxygenation, or some form of trauma shutting down the nervous system?

This is clear from the fact that gravity is a force, and it is not an object in motion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Objects in motion possess (or are) kinetic energy. Gravity is not a kinetic energy. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces in nature. The other three are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. Kinetic energy is not a fundamental force but a force that is bound to objects.

OK, then when someone like Newton declares a law, what is it based on? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a good question. One element Newton and others look for is physical necessity. They also look for the ability to model the action mathematically. Newton used geometry in the Principia. Math can show that a physical necessity is at work, even if the physical necessity is not clearly understood. Newton also had the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Kepler's laws of planetary motion provided important insights for Newton as he did his work.

No it's not, that's a Newtonian way of speaking about it. There is no attraction, mass curves spacetime, and the curve of spacetime determines how masses move. Singling out causes and effects to describe a proces where everything influences everthing else seems to only complicate the matter unnecessarily. — ChatteringMonkey

If an apple drops from a tree, it still falls to the ground. It does not go into orbit following a curved spacetime. Attraction exists. The warping of spacetime explains planetary motion precisely, but I don't see that it is explains gravitational attraction on the surface of earth. Causes and effects are necessary due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

If an apple drops from a tree, it still falls to the ground. It does not go into orbit following a curved spacetime. Attraction exists. The warping of spacetime explains planetary motion precisely, but I don't see that it is explains gravitational attraction on the surface of earth. — Ron Cram

I'm pretty sure this is just wrong, the apple does falls to the ground because of curved spacetime. The surface of the earth is not excluded from Einsteins theory of general relativity. It's only on the very small scales that it breaks down.

Causes and effects are necessary due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. — Ron Cram

I don't wholly buy into the Principle of Sufficient Reason either.