I am trying to understand ...
The idea of asteroids acting like billiard balls under collisions is the "efficient cause" conception of causation, and Objectivism has a better approach.
It seems the approach is the answer to the question "why" in a restricted way. The ball is rolling.
Let us say Billard Ball A was moving and collided with Ball B.
A change in some of the balls' attributes, its position and particular changes in its appearance as it is changing its location.
Are the two billiard balls considered an entity?
Is the system, the who billiards table the entity?
Is an action colliding?
Is an action being hit?
I am trying to find out how to explain, using Objectivist terminology, why did ball B move when it was hit by ball A?
Was ball A, the cause of the motion of ball B?
Is the connection seen between ball A's motion and ball B's motion purely inductive? That ball A's motion did not cause ball B's motion?
Another example ...
My car is not running, the mechanic might say that the wearing out of a part caused it to die. Here is a an action causing an action "wearing out" and "dying". Most people would understand that explanation. We can object and say what was the entity that wore out and he will say the alternator. And we can correct him by saying that we have to change the attributes in the alternator to fix the car. Is that correct?
He will say we will cause the car to run by fixing it. So fixing it will be the cause of the car running. Two actions "fixing" and "running".
I am just trying to learn, how would you show causality in the objectivist way?
