RE: MD "linear causality"

From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 06:52:53 GMT

  • Next message: Glenn Bradford: "RE: MD "linear causality""

    Oops, you're right. That was my rephrasing. I mis-read the old posts
    and attributed that to you. Sorry. The rephrasing was based on these
    two statements of yours (but please double-check :)):

    ERIN 1:
    "Well I put it as acausal because something way
    out there in the universe is supposedly affecting
    my behavior. Acausality is not the opposite of causality.
      +
    ERIN 2:
    "Acausal there is a connection, relationsip but its not A -B causality."

    not =s

    GLENN's rephrasing:
    'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's A -B causal.'

    I can't tell whether you think your rephrasing
    was legitimate or not.
    I said acausality is not the opposite of causality because
    chance is the opposite, and acausality is meaningful coincidence (close
    but not the same thing).
    Your rephrasing doesn't make any sense to me.

    >And who is the *author* of this quote?
    >Glenn

    I just put linear causality into search engine to see
    if anything came up and lots did.
    I can go search for that quote again but
    (lol) i didn't even read the site where i got it
    from because the site had a silly title that will
    immediately set off your crap detector.
    I thought the quote made sense but the title
    even alerted my crap detector so you can imagine
    how silly it was..
    So can you give me the opinion without knowing
    the source first then i will go try and find it.
    Or just tell me why linear is not right to explain
    the relationship of cause and effect.

    erin

    >>>
    >>>"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."
    >>>
    >>>

    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 - 06:46:11 GMT