Motion, according to me is cause. That is motion whatever that notion is inheres all the attributes that distinguish cause as an identifiable entity.
Now entity, there is a useful word to hide behind. Of course it sounds like a thing that has intention and will entire to itself. A tautological concept just vague enough to stop one from jumping off onto the spirit or god bandwagon, but rich enough to cover any nameless system, cause or thing that appears to have anthropomorphic or animate attributes. What a mouthful ! And yet it can get even stranger!
When there is a dominant paradigm it does make certain descriptions easier, so things which cannot yet be explained can be tidied away by the gods as an ultimate source of their behaviour. Thus we will find some very rich theoretical explanations of cause written in the paradigm of myths about gods. This is not to say any adult believed them to be the activity of gods, just like every adult knows about father Christmas, rather, it is a convenient way to exposit a theory about cause.
By newtons time a sufficiently rich vocabulary had been established to discus these things as if the supreme gods had handed these matters off to lower daimons or subservient entities, whose very boring repetitive role was to make the ordinances of the supreme gods occur. Thus, gradually these entities or powers became treated with contempt by certain advantaging humans, in the stories called magicians,nwizards, sorceresses etc. who sought to make them not only the slave of gods but of the magicians too.
The stories are always Faustian, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction!
So for Newton causes were these entities, ordained by god to fulfill very specific roles, and the game was to find out what laws they had to obey! The ver first law was they had to embody, they had to reside in and transfer from matter to matter, they had to inhabit corporeal and temporal forms. Thus whirl god was to removed to interact with the material world. The Daimons as some form of lower and disgraced entities were confined to material prisons. However, this is the crazy mix of the western traditions. In some more stable cultures, these roles were respectable and necessary, a functionary position, not a disgraced position. So why all the human misery? That is a different question that has more to do with santanclaus than you might think!
My premise is that I do not accept A and notA to be the same referent, but to be mutually exclusive distinctions. That way lies madness!
That being the case it is very simple to invite you to accept motion as cause, because if it were not then noMotion would be distinct from Motion, but noMotion would be unchanged while motion will be forever changeable. In that case motion could change to noMotion but then it would contradict itself as being Motion,unless it was causative of transformation even to noMotion. Thus to satisfy the distinction Motion is defined to be causative even to noMotion, but noMotion consequently is non causal.
Now I need to identify Motion, and noMotion, and that I do inductively with every experience of movement and change and transformation, while noMotion I inductively identify with every experience of relative rest, and constancy etc.
I can do no more, for I do not live forever or have infinite experience to confirm this identification absolutely, but it is good enough for me and it has some cultural resonance that says it may be good enough for historical cultural reasons.
Most of our fundamental definitions are tautological in any case and subject to fractal review by iterative processes of change, but this seems to be the essence of motion anyway. So it seems it would survive as well as Herakleitos observations.
Now I have just sketched a somewhat mechanical revision of electromagnetism as the cause of motion and the source of density related behaviours but the underlying cause is a fractal entrainment motion that results in expansive rarefaction of fractal, or perpetual condensing of a fractal. These fractals thus exhibit expanding boundaries or condensing boundaries and thus try exhibit dynamic vector motions in space, radially dispositioned, but in no way symmetrical or uniform in general.
The expansive matter always pushes away, and the condensing matter always pulls in. I use matter now to highlight that it is as nebulous a concept as a regional fractal pattern, and less useful!
The observed repulsion of like charges I explain geometrically, in that condensing fractal regions tend to form thin films around expansive fractal regions indeed forming the boundary layers, but thes bubble like regions are dynamic and of course fractal. Thus expansive fractals within thin films of condensing fractals provide the neutral and positive dynamics for all thes different combinations. In particular, expansive fractals and condensing fractals always attract each other, providing additional repulsive force around nuclear fractals!
It is these dipole arrangements that set out the vector paths for motion behaviours that define electrostatic and electromagnetic behaviours.
Now I have spent time developing the notion of Twistors as rotational Paths rather than the common vector notion, and the dipoles are crucial for maintaining and establishing these Twistor paths and for mediating twistorque to regional fractal patterns in these Paths. The centrifugal and centripetal forces are accompanied by twistorque forces which complete my description of the trinity of relevant forces, twistorque may not be an incredibly powerful force, but it operates in a path which has zero friction due to the force equilibrium balances, ans so can accelerate a fractal region to tremendous velocities before spiralling out into the next equilibrium surface, where it my encounter resistance and be knocked unpredictably about.
These descriptions are fractal, and thus occur at all scales, which may account for the differentiation into expanding and contracting fractal regions.
Tangential forces and velocities are viewed as a resolution of these twistorques not as causative of twistorque. Super conductivity is a demonstration of this notion of twistorque, and room temperature material exhibiting this property may require a larger scale than anticipated.
It is always good to have a Bon mot. When Newton defined the quantity of matter, it was clear this was a measure and not matter, but when Newton similarly defined a quantity of force, suddenly it was not so clear in the readers minds! The measure became the attribute. It was always clear to Newton that this quantity of force was not force, or the cause of motion, for that was what Newton referred to a Motive, which was the cause of acceleration. So force was clearly a tricky word in Newtons time, and today. We do not like even the most benign complexity. For Newton, motive was embodied, and the greater the body it had to fill, the greater the motive within that body should be but the longer it took to act. Contrariwise, the same amount of motive put in a smaller body in the same time must act more quickly due to filling the body more quickly, and then more powerfully due to filling the body to a compressed degree! In consequence too much motive would burst the body asunder !
It is when one looks at the metaphysics, that one comprehends the misunderstandings Newton endured. But even today his metaphysics is ignored in favour of his symbolic framework. It was ever thus!
Newtons measures were designed to capture essential qualities and their relationships, not to be the qualities themselves. We have seen that in capturing motive Newton had to account for time in two ways, time taken to move a body a certain distance, and time taken to fill that body with a certain quantity of motive, demonstrated by showing a certain quantity of celerity. Now while a certain quantity of celerity resided in a body without dissipation, it was motive thst Caused it to change within a body. Thus if celerity diminished, it was due to motive removing it, as a causative factor. Thus resistive and frictional motives are equally posited. This is the reason for the sweeping scope of his third law. Having set out the measures, he had to teach his audience how he perceived their correct use to be in terms of cause and effect of the essential attributes and qualities. Of course we largely ignore his advice today.
However, the other implied aspect of embodiment is that volume and thus surface areas as boundaries are important. Thus motive fills a volume usually by crossing a surface boundary. While Newton made the choice to deal with bodies whose centre of symmetry was such that he could ignore volume and surface area, this was a convenience he afforded himself only in establishing the principles. These principles were then carefully applied to bodies which did have irregular volumes and surface areas, something which admittedly it was more complex to do. Thus it is not due to tardiness that Newton chose centres of symmetry as centres of action, but due to the complexities involved in doing anything else. The measure of force, therefore is but one formal way of describing the actions of motive and celerity, and others were devised, the principal one I want to mention being pressure. Pressure is inherent in the description of the force measure, but only needs to be drawn out in a volume which does not have particles that Cohere around a centre of symmetry. In this case the volume and surface areas become useful measures or parameters , as Boyle et al showed when studying "elastic" fluids such as gases. Much later the kinetic theory made use of the chaotic motion of particles to explain gas behaviours, and then surface areas of the containing volumes for the particles became important. By this time however, the notion of motive had been dropped in favour of the measures force and acceleration with heat or energy being a causative agent. Ah, motive by any other name doth smell as sweet!