From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 07:44:40 GMT
Dear Glenn,
Causality seems to be about conditionality to me. (A definition of causality
that includes the words 'cause' and 'effect', like the one you gave 9 Dec
2002 23:53:20 -0500, doesn't seem to me to be of much help. It just shifts
the question to 'what is a cause'.)
A is caused by B, or by B and C and D and ..., if A wouldn't happen (or
exist) if B (or B and C and D and ...) wouldn't have happened (or existed)
before IN OUR UNDERSTANDING. If we can't understand A happening or existing
without some conditions being fulfilled first, we don't 'see' causality.
We can distinguish necessary conditions, sufficient conditions and
conditions that belong to neither of these categories.
If A doesn't seem to be caused by B at first sight, but if they often happen
or exist together (maybe the combination can even be reproduced), a possible
way out it to presume a common precondition, even if we don't know what that
would be.
Acausality then simply means that we don't understand how A could happen (or
exist). Even if we do see B, C or D usually accompanying it, we may not
understand how B, C or D can be a condition of A. Or we simply don't
experience a consistent enough pattern of A being accompanied by other (and
preceding) phenomena.
If we don't want to believe in synchronicity (meaningful relations between
phenomena) without causality, we don't have to. That's the catch of
metaphysics. If we presume that nothing exists that isn't caused by
something else, there must exist a cause of everything, even if we don't
know it.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 08:02:15 GMT