Change produces increase and decrease, +/-

With causality, one thing (energy, state, potential, accumulation) is increased while another thing is decreased. The thing increased will be that which is acted upon or emerges as the consequence of a causation; the thing decreased will be that which is acted from or is that from which emerges the consequence of a causation.

For “causality” to take place there must be some mutuality to the two systems A and B, where A is the affecting system and B is the affected system. Mutuality means that A and B must have something in common (probably many things, most likely) through which change-influence (“force”) occurs. This “something in common” would be defined with respect to properties of both A and B, but also as a combination and +/- outcome effect. It is a combination because the interaction requires both A and B to take place; it is a +/- outcome effect because A will experience a decrease while B experiences an increase, as causality moves from A to B.

The +/- is defined with respect to the “something else” by which A and B are able to enter into causal relation with each other. As change takes place, +/-will increase (+ becomes ++, - becomes --) and if change continues this is compounded. As +/- increases thusly a reverse “drag” effect takes place, wherein ++ is pulled back to + and – is pulled back to -. This drag occurs because cause and effect exhaust resources, namely: for A to participate in a causality it must have a store of energy, for B to participate in a causality it must have a store of space/negative energy. As the energy of A is depleted in causality, and as the space/negative energy of B is depleted in causality A and B naturally fall back toward their initial conditions prior to when causality occurred, with respect to that “something else” they have in common.

Changes will have taken place, and A and B will no longer be what they were before causality occurred. But now A and B return to a state of "rest’ as drag catches up to force (force value starts high and grows, but its rate of growth begins to decrease almost immediately as drag value continues to increase). Eventually force shrinks and meets with drag, at which point causality ceases. Also important to note is that cause and effect must “move” (take place) in a certain “direction”, from cause and to effect. This vectoring will take place as velocity in both space and time, although the space vector and the time vector do not necessarily need to be aligned/in agreement as to direction or velocity.

I keep thinking of things like us and flowers. Where whole systems are unfolding as it were. I suppose this might all break down into billions of Little systems (or ‘things’) doing what you are saying. But then I wonder why I must go to the level of physics (?) to decide what change is. IOW perhaps the higher levels are ‘causal’ or where the action is, and at that level things change via themselves - I mean, of course one sweats and gives off heat and takes in O2, so I am not denying exchanges with the Environment, but even counting all those processes/Changes/ causes, there is still what I termed unfolding. A shift in mood. A leaning toward the sun while opening the bloom.

Note: I am not presenting this as an argument against your position. There probably is some way my examples would be reduced - key Word - to something like your model of causation.

Still I balk at it. I don’t know what to do with it. I mean, I can see what to do with it in many fairly simple newtonian situations. I mean, I am not sure what this gives me as a philosophical suggestion. I did mull on the increase decrease, which I Think might hold, but again, it makes me Think soon I will be uploaded onto the internet only it won’t be me. To dramatize a bit.

I can see where this might be a tangent, and if this seems problematic, I still want to ask - what are you getting out of this concept? How is it important to you?

I am re-defining causality as nothing but an exchange of substance. When it can be said that one thing caused another thing, what really occurred is the literal exchange of some substance from the causing thing and transferred to the caused thing. So in this model “causality” itself does not really exist and is more like a place-holder term with no real meaning.

The benefit or value in this perspective is that it allows one to see things without the distorting glasses of “causality” and “natural laws”. One does not subject a system/components in operation to vague notions of causality or fields/conditions of “natural law”; one merely observes what is occurring and makes inferences or deductions accordingly and directly.

Thus if it can be said that a cause has taken place, we CANNOT merely rest satisfied with this “explanation”, because in fact nothing has been explained. To say a cause has occurred is merely to raise a question: something has been changed and exchanged, but what, and how-why? Thus the model I propose here is a means to always digging deeper into things to comprehend more completely their nature and the nature of their interactions with other things.

If a substance is always exchanged when causality occurs, then we must ask what that substance is. Physics says this is energy, either in actual or potential form. But this explanation of also mystifying and not really explaining anything, but rather has only created another place-holder term with which we can feel justified to stop thinking on the matter.

It seems to me that you are just exchanging “Causality” with “Affectance” (and won’t get any complaints from me. 8-[ ).

But it is improper to say that a principle such as causality doesn’t exist merely because it isn’t substance specific. Choose your ontology (entities to declare as existing) and let the others be as useful as they can eventually manage.

And at the bottom of that “what has changed?” question is always merely the potential for changing the potential (“PtA”).

Which often is the right thing to do. IOW the idea of refraction may be sufficient information, even at a merely implicit level, for the spearfisherman. In some other instances going deeper may be the right thing to do given goals and needs,etc. I do dislike causal models, not in and of themselves, but the way they are religious models. To question causality means you find the face of Muhammad in your soup everyday. Further the idea of natural laws, Another ‘bedrock’ of science, have been coming against some serious counterevidence lately. The universe may get into habits, but laws (and constants) may not be laws (or constant).

Still interested in events like those I described where unfolding may be a better model than Exchange.

Unfolding speaks more to what is described by chaos theory, and is indeed a very good conceptual model for what is often going on. Things “unfold” only when there is an absence of stronger/more forceful concerns, thus determination is allowed to descend many orders of magnitude downward into tinier affective movements, relative to the size and scope of the system itself. If we talk about the movement of a flock of 50 birds, we must speak of determination as unfolding because the single bird’s own determinations are significantly many orders of magnitude and quantity below the level of sum effect of the flock itself. A single bird is able only to simulate a small amount of the flock itself, and thus participates only minimally in the flocking that occurs. In other words the flock is not reducible to the sum of all individual birds nor to a sum collection of all “unconscious” behavioral algorithms of all individual birds. There are secondary (or tertiary, if you view the bird’s own unconsciousness as the primary to the secondary of its “consious” behavior) levels of reality at work that neither the birds consciousness or unconsciousness is adequate to simulate and respond to.

Unfolding calls upon the only true meaning of randomness; when two or more system’s causalities are sufficiently different and distant from each other in both kind and degree, then if these systems are placed in a situation in which they can interact the result will be “random” to some degree, which is to say it will be irreducible to either system individually AND irreducible to the sum of both systems together.