So, what is your point? Physicists know how heating affects metal. It expands. And, further, they know why metal expands when heated. Why should they need "connection" with the metal (whatever that might mean)? They observe what happens. They have a theory about what happens. And they have confirmed that theory.

My point, how unexciting it may be, was just that I disagreed with what Hume said about ALL causes having MULTIPLE conceivable effects. But on second thought, ultimately, we dont have control of our thought processes 100 percent of the time. So I guess its possible for a nonsensical image, or idea to enter ones mind upon conceiving possible effects for a given cause, but i would not explicitly conceive the idea as a sensible outcome. Especially in the beheading example.

Physicists know that heating metal causes it to expand, as do I. But what I said was that if one had no knowledge of what metal was, then there would be no way to determine exactly that applying heat to it would cause it to expand. I have no sentiment, or internal impression of what metal is. I have no connection to it.

Furthermore, do physicists really know why the heat causes the metal to expand? They dont understand metal at its most fundamental level. Saying it affects the molecules may not be the precise cause.

There are also forces in the universe physicists dont understand. Gravity for one, its not clear whether its a force or a result of matter warping space. Also on a macro level, how do you know the quantum electrodynamic field in some obscure way doesnt have anything to do with the fact that metal expands when you heat it.

The point is that there is much we dont know, and what we do know for a particular cause and effect may not be the complete answer.

Well, I would agree that people can be ignorant of some things. But I did not think that true was worth noting down.

What Hume said was that "anything can cause anything". (I think those were his exact words). And what he meant, I am pretty sure, is that it is logically possible for any event, x, to cause any event, y. And what that means is that it is never a logical contradiction to state that x causes y. And that is clearly true. A the denial of a true causal statement is never self-contradictory the way, for instance the denial of the statement that all triangles have three angles would be self-contradictory. Don't you agree with that?

What about - Something that never turns into a frog can cause itself to turn into a frog? So, for example my toaster will never turn itself into a frog. Saying that it might is self-contradictory given the meaning of X & Y.

---------- Post added at 12:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

or I can cause/draw a four-angled triangle.

---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

Trying to to draw a four-sided triangle will always result in disappointment.
Trying to cause a toaster to morph into a puppet named Kermit will never happen

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

At least, not by clicking your heels together, patting your head, and reciting "Mary had a Little Lamb, little lamb, little lamb..."

---------- Post added at 12:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

Okay, maybe you could if you had a magic wand or some piece of technology from some super civilization that has developed a keen appreciation of frog/kitchen appliance related pranks. But that should go without saying. I'm saying we only have to work with what we have on our persons now. A rubberband, a paper clip, and a stick of gum. You have to go MacGyver on this toaster.

No, you're right. A frog can turn into a toaster (whatever that means indeed). Just because it has not happened yet does not mean anything necessarily. I mean, after all, I have not yet become older than I am now (that doesn't mean it will never happen!), so you see the past has no logical, necessary, implications on the future.

Frogs can turn into toasters. But what about blenders turning into giraffes. Can this ever happen or is it fair to say that blenders will never, by working on the liquefy setting, produce adult giraffes that have a propensity for cheating at certain poker games? Of course, provided we never have a blender-making factory become contaminated with extradimensional mutagens. That does go without saying. Never. assuming giraffes never degenerate into lying, drinking, using their long necks to look at your cards, cigar-smoking, horse-stealing, no good, low down ...So-and-So's.

In other words - my words - you don't think it is possible, but you think it is logically possible. Is that twisting your words? It does not make sense to me.

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------

Some philosophers argue it is not logically possible to draw a triangle so that the sum of it's angles equal 94 degrees. Would you agree or disagree with them?

Probably a final note on this thread for me. For what its worth:

The original question "What's the difference between causation and correlation?"

My answer is its undefined as it relates to inaminate objects because we dont completely understand the framework in which these cause and effect events occur. Correlation is just the same action producing the same effect over and over, or in a weak correlation like the clock example where the two events can stand independently of one another.

Cause on the other hand requires a explanation of the exact circumstance within the cause that produces the effect, since we dont understand the universe at a micro, or macro level. It would be arbitrary to claim precisely, the workings within it.

As cause and effect relates to animate objects as in the beheading example. I feel more connected to this type of cause and effect, as the cause seems less obscure to me, but this appears to be subjective.

I would agree, but from what ive observed with this thread, and information elsewhere. Its just a strong correlation/practical cause and not an absolute cause.

There are many things that are not in my experience, where i feel 100% confident i could predict the outcome. The beheading example is one. I've never tried to breathe under water, but i know doing so would cause water to enter my lungs and i would drown. Ive never jumped out of an airplane without a parachute, but i know in doing so, the impact with the ground would kill me.

The above seem to be absolute causes, but are really strong correlationgs/practical causes. The beheading example also seems a stronger correlation than last example.

I believe that you are causing a problem through inserting "Absolute" or any other modifier, in front of "Cause", without good justification for it.

I agree tentatively. We really don't know anything exactly about how switches, electrical wiring, electricity, or light bulbs work on either macro or micro levels, so it is difficult to talk of a switch causing a bulb to light up.

Much like beheading, I feel like I have a personal knowledge of kitchen appliances and certain kinds of funny animals whether they be stuffed with fluffy stuff, or just raw love and guts. I only think kitchen appliances won't turn into dogs that wear visors under soft ceiling lights, that hang on my wall; It is subjective. Just so, a light bulb is not necessarily caused by a switch which turns it on. It is a correlation. Different things might happen. It may come on without my having touched the switch. It may come on when I touch the swtich, but not because I did so. I might flip the switch one day whereupon it turns into a stick of cotton candy. Who knows? The future and the past are sequenced, but there are no consequences. So to speak.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

Why is the 94 degree triangle self-contradictory?

Don't get me wrong. It is contradictory. It is physically impossible.
Why is it "self-contradictory" in a way that toaster that turns into a frog is not?
It contradicts the nature of a toaster to turn into a frog. It contradicts the nature of a triangle to have 63 degrees, in sum. I don't see a difference. One is a geometrical figure with angles and other properties. One is kitchen appliance.

Are you thinking of contradictions by definition? I'll agree that if a triangle is defined as a polygon with exactly three sides, then it is plain that a four sided triangle is contradictory, but it is just as impossible (logically) to have a triangle turn into a frog. Polygons don't turn into frogs. It might be easier to say so by definition.

Are you thinking of contradictions by definition? I'll agree that if a triangle is defined as a polygon with exactly three sides, then it is plain that a four sided triangle is contradictory

but it is just as impossible (logically) to have a triangle turn into a frog. Polygons don't turn into frogs.

Thus it is logically possible for a toaster to turn into a frog, but logically impossible for a triangle to do so.

(though physically impossible)

I doubt that 'trying and failing' will do the trick. After all, many times we try to do something, fail at it, and yet - for whatever reasons - do not conclude "I can't do it." (It happened to me recently. I was trying to install a new pump on a dishwasher and was having no success, indeed I was failing miserably. I stopped for a while, tried again, and succeeded.) I am absolutely convinced that there is no phenomenological, introspective, felt (call it what you will) difference whatsoever between failing to do something which is possible (e.g. installing a dishwasher pump) and failing to do something which necessitarians call 'nomically impossible', e.g. flapping my arms and flying.

What do I feel when I find that I repeatedly fail to do something? Disappointment, remorse, anger, sadness, annoyance, irritability, fury, etc. Do I experience (physical or nomological) impossibility? Not that I can tell. I would not know how to recognize it if I did. I can experience that I have not done what I wanted; that I have tried especially hard; etc. But I do not see that I have experienced that I cannot do it. I may say, "I can't do it." But I have not experienced anything more than failure.

This line of reasoning works because triangles have a logical form that is totally known(since it is defined by us humans), and it does not include the possibility of turning into a frog, since a triangle is really just syntax. There is no such thing as a platonic solid as far as physical objects go, the syntax can only be approximated by a visual representation, but since it requires total smoothness, and particles are discrete, it has no true physical representation.

When we compare two objects that are known only empirically, then we have a different problem. There is no all-encompassing set of syntactic descriptors to show us what a frog can logically do, only what we have inductively perceived about the nature of the frog. So saying that a frog cannot become a giraffe is likely true, but unverifiably so. However, a similar thing is true of the fact that it rained where I live yesterday. I can't go back and verify it empirically, yet I can render it highly probable. A.J. Ayer had a suggestion for this sort of thing, claiming it to be weakly verifiable(not directly verifiable, but highly probable). Further, in the case of the frog becoming a giraffe, we could simply apply Ockham's Razor since the possibility has never made itself manifest.

The definition of frog also does not include the possibility of it turning into a......hippopotamus, or several ancient castles.

The point I make is triangles that we imagine are no more perfectly triangular than real triangular shapes. More Englishly said, the lines in our head are (so far as I tell) no more perfectly straight than those on a piece of paper.

Frogs have logical forms too! We've given frogs definitions! I care for my frogs just as much, if not more, than my triangles. The definition of frog also does not include the possibility of it turning into a triangle, hippopotamus, or several ancient castles, since a frog is really just syntax.

Time out! A triangle is really just syntax? I'd like to believe you, I really would. A triangle is really just something. I'm sure of it. But syntax? This is where I lost you.

Triangles are known in a non-empirical fashion. I disagree.