From: Glenn Bradford (gmbbradford@netscape.net)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 04:51:22 GMT
"Erin N." <enoonan@kent.edu> wrote:
>Glenn,
>
>
>I didn't like "linear causality" because it was making
>it sound like I was describing some special kind of
>causality.
But that's the impression you left when you wrote:
ERIN: <earlier>
'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's A -B causal.'
In your next mail I got the impression that AB meant linear. You
said something confusing about dropping the AB and there's no
difference, but this didn't make sense to me, as your sentence
would now say:
'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's causal.'
So I asked for more clarification but you wouldn't give it,
claiming I already knew what you meant.
>Causality seems linear to me...not just "linear causality."
>If doesn't seem linear to me can you explain to me why.
>I thought you were giving me a hard time because i know
>you knew what I meant when I said AB.
I certainly could have guessed what you meant, but I didn't
know if AB meant a one-to-one relationship (one effect/one cause)
and linear meant the same or if linear meant one effect/many
causes in a time-ordered chain of causes. Also, you can get into
more complex cases involving multiple causal chains that converge
on an effect. Are these covered by AB and/or linear causality?
And then there is the question of whether a "cause" far down a
chain of causes deserves this nomenclature, and if not, might
this be what you'd call an acause?
>You were here when we gave the examples when we
>discussed evolution-causal and teleological.
The details of that discussion is a blur to me now. If you
mentioned AB causality then, I don't recall telling you that
I understood it or asking you what it meant.
>If I really thought you didn't know what i meant I would
>have spelled it out for you.
Is that what you have done below? Who are you quoting?
Glenn
>
>"Causality is defined very loosely, as a 'chain of cause and effect.' This
>means a series of links, in which each one is firmly locked into its two
>neighbors so that the whole chanin is able to stretch out indefinitely in both
>directions. In this way, every event in the universe is causally linked to an
>event that comes before it and to one that comes after. There can be no room
>in this 'creation' for free will, creativity, or synchronicity.
>
>This, of course, does not describe causality sufficiently because a single
>event can be at the junction of many interlinked "chains" of causes which all
>act upon the result, or a single event can branch out into many "chains" and
>be at the root of many later and varied events. But, for the present purpose,
>the idea of causality is that one thing leads to another and another and so
>on."
__________________________________________________________________
The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 04:52:54 GMT