4 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 4 '11 at 11:01 comment added Speldosa This seems to be a question of how you should look upon causation. In my view, we have to look upon it as if a certain concept is difference-making compared to if something else would have been the case. Also, to claim that a shadow is something is problematic, since its, by definition, is the absence of something. Also, the fact that the shadow can create a concept in our head (which we then for example get spooked by) shows that there is a causal connection from the shadow back to the object (how else could the object detect this fact?).
Aug 3 '11 at 19:26 comment added stoicfury Yes, you are correct, but this says nothing about my answer. :P If the ground would have received the light, then it would have affected it in a different way. But my example is that ground didn't receive the light, and through this absence of light the producer was not affected in any way. So your statement is mutually exclusive to mine. In other words, the absence of a physical thing cannot be said to be the cause of something else. That said, I can think of ways in which my answer would not work. Say, if the object was a person, and they were afraid of/spooked by their own shadow.
Aug 3 '11 at 18:18 comment added Speldosa I would say that they do. If the ground would have received light (that is, the shadow isn't cast), then this would have affected the object in another way then when the shadow actually is cast.
Aug 3 '11 at 17:17 history answered stoicfury CC BY-SA 3.0