From: Glenn Bradford (gmbbradford@netscape.net)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 19:11:02 GMT
>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.'
>
OH! You are right. I said it wrong. I should have said
'In other words "acausal" is causal, except it's not A -B causal.'
Which is what I meant to say but it came out, er, backwards. Sorry,
my mistake.
When you describe acausal as something way out there in the universe,
supposedly affecting behavior, I take this to mean that you think
the behavior is caused, but just by unknown agents. As far as I'm
concerned you are still postulating causality, and so a separate
category seems superfluous. This is why you need a limited kind of
causality called AB or linear causality to make room for acausality.
The acausal cases you sited are probably false-positives. That is,
they can be simply understood as non-causal chance happenings. The
thing that compels you to believe in meaningful but unknown
causes is a surprising effect, but once you realize that surprises
are to be *expected* on a statistically random basis, many of the
stories proffered as acausal lose their punch.
>>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.
LOL. So I didn't coin "linear causality" afterall? Now my
day is really ruined.
You say you don't like "linear causality" because it
sounds like some special kind of causality, but when you
try to pass off a plain old vanilla definition of causality,
you find one by searching on the web for "linear causality".
Isn't that special :)
>I can go search for that quote again but
You should always site the author of a quote or at least
provide a reference (in this case the link to the site).
>(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.
No doubt.
>I thought the quote made sense but the title
>even alerted my crap detector so you can imagine
>how silly it was..
There's hope for you?
>So can you give me the opinion without knowing
>the source first then i will go try and find it.
The definition has to serve what *you* mean by
causality and has to provide room for a notion of
acausality as you've described it, and I guess it does,
but it's really up-in-the-air. The unknown causes may
not be on the same chain as the one the definition allows,
but this begs the question, "how do you know which chain
they're on if you don't know the cause?".
If you allow the second paragraph into the definition (as
the author seems to admit should be done, but doesn't), it
closes the gap by allowing multiple chains, and chains
linked to other chains, and now your unknown causes have no
place to run and have to be considered causal.
I have a few other problems with the definition but
they are a little off topic. Anyway are we on the same page now?
And again I apologize for my gaffe.
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 - 19:12:32 GMT