| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"knucmo" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2007 10:06:51 AM |
| Object: |
On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
On this website here: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
.
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 12:50:04 AM |
|
|
"knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191424011.973564.90270@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On this website here:
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
The only cause is that which drives each one of us to find out what's going
on.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
03 Oct 2007 05:25:36 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 11:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Implicit in the idea of causality it that some events are agents and
other events are results; e.g. the glass broke *because* I dropped
it. An alternatve view is that: I dropped the glass and then the
glass broke; i.e. two events in sequence without the implication that
one is a result and the other an agent. If we drop a great many
glasses we notice that the sequence seems invariant, the glass always
breaks after I drop it. We then assign the dropping as the "cause" of
the breaking. But, really, all we know is the sequence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 12:52:26 AM |
|
|
"Ed" <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1191450336.537716.185740@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 11:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Implicit in the idea of causality it that some events are agents and
other events are results; e.g. the glass broke *because* I dropped
it. An alternatve view is that: I dropped the glass and then the
glass broke; i.e. two events in sequence without the implication that
one is a result and the other an agent. If we drop a great many
glasses we notice that the sequence seems invariant, the glass always
breaks after I drop it. We then assign the dropping as the "cause" of
the breaking. But, really, all we know is the sequence.
Apply that principle to the interaction of people, and you can learn to
recognise the dance of synchronicity.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 02:03:20 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 7:25 am, Ed <solon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Implicit in the idea of causality it that some events are agents and
other events are results;
The "idea" of causality can be changed at the next wind-shift, as
Kantians show time and time again with any and all concepts, its
called the stealing and bastardising of concepts, a desperate trait of
Kantianizzzm.
No matter however much stealing and fucking of concepts by the
Kantians, they cant change what happens in sensory reality, an event
is nothing more simple to explain than "two or more entities acting
according to their own unique nature".
Causality is only the symbol which sums up what is actually observed,
"entites have their own unique nature and act according to it" soooooo
you can seeee, "causality" saves a lot of time and energy, eh?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
03 Oct 2007 12:02:11 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause, "it follows" that
causality cannot be derived, is non-sequitur when compared to the
conclusion about causality, necessity and contingency, "implied" by
the meaning of the premises.
The Problem Of Induction
Simple induction: a large proportion of our beliefs are obtained by a
process of projecting from observed (past or present) events to cases
that are either unknown, unobserved, or in the future, e.g.:
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
---------------------------------------------
The old problem of induction (David Hume): what reason do we have to
believe that simple induction is rational?
The new problem of induction (Nelson Goodman): which inductive
conclusion is the right one to make from a particular set of
observations?
---------------------------------------
Hume and the problem of justifying induction
Hume divides human reasoning into two categories :
(1) reasoning based on matters of fact: particular empirical (e.g.,
from memory or the senses) claims about the world (propositions whose
denial are not contradictory)
and
(2) reasoning based on relations of ideas: propositions which can be
known a priori--without dependence on matters of fact (e.g.,
mathematics and logic)--and can be proven by demonstrative reasoning
(propositions whose denial involves a contradiction)
Hume's argument:
1. The justification of induction must occur in one of these two
ways.
2. Reasoning based on relations of ideas is deductive reasoning. We
can't use deductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning, because
the conclusions of inductive inferences go beyond the premises given.
3. Reasoning based on matters of fact is inductive reasoning. We can't
justify induction with an inductive argument, because that would be
circular reasoning.
-------------------------------------------
If induction cannot be justified by either matters of fact or
relations of ideas, it cannot be justified.
With characteristic psychologism, Hume argues that we feel compelled
by the vividness of repeated experience as we do any other feeling or
emotion--our expectation is "custom" or "habit".
Hume's point is not that our inductive inferences are wrong, just that
we don't have the slightest rational basis for thinking they are true.
Induction explains our inferences, it doesn't justify them.
--------------------------------
Responses to Hume
1. just assume induction is rational
2. Thomas Reid: reject Hume's skeptical conclusion on the grounds that
it conflicts with common sense, which is prima facie justified.
3. argue that we need induction to make use/sense of our experience.
4. Hans Reichenbach and Wesley Salmon: show that inductive reasoning
gives true conclusions more often than other methods of reason-ing
from the known to the unknown (e.g., guessing).
5. Hilary Kornblith: argue that induction works because our native
cognitive abilities appropriately dovetail with the world's causal
order.
6. Argue that probability and statistics "solve" the problem of
induction by making it more like deduction.
Statistics: reasoning about a population on the basis of a sample.
Probability and statistical formulae give you a priori mathematical
rules that tell you how confident you can be in projecting from a
sample to the population. Isn't this deductive?
Given complete a completely representative sample, statistics and
probability give you a rule that will tell you how confident you can
be in projecting from the sample to the population, i.e., the rule
tells you your chances of error.
7. Nelson Goodman's dissolution of the old problem of induction
If there is a problem with induction, then there is a problem with
deduction. After all, how do we justify deduction?
Either deductively, inductively, or on the basis of intuition alone.
If we accept deduction for any of these reasons, we can accept simple
induction for analogous reasons.
-------------------------------------
The New Problem of Induction
Simple induction projects certain predicates, that is, we say for some
object
x that it will have predicate (property)
y in the future:
------
All observed x's have been y
The next x will be y
------
The sun has risen every other day of my life.
Things continue in the future as they did in the past.
The sun will rise again tomorrow.
However, we don't want to project every predicate:
The sun has risen every other day of my life.
The Earth has got to be winding down by now._____________________
So every morning the chance increases that there won't be a sun rise
at all.
Goodman's problem: when there is more than one inductive conclusion
that is consistent with our observations, which one should we chose?
Goodman wants to find a general rule which will tell us what the
appropriate conclusions are to draw from any given set of experiences--
a general difference between projectible predicates and unprojectible
predicates.
Example: Grue
Consider the following predicate, "Grue":
An object X is grue if X is examined before the year 2000 and found to
be green, or X is not examined until after the year 2000 and found to
be blue.
Now consider our past experience:
Every emerald I have ever seen is green.
Every emerald I have ever seen is grue.
All we know up to now equally confirms green and grue hypothesis.
Which conclusion shall we draw:
The next emerald I see will be green, or
The next emerald I see will be grue?
Why chose green?
---------
Bleen: X is examined before the year 2000 and found to be blue, or X
is not examined until after the year 2000 and found to be green.
Green: X is green if examined before the year 2000 and found to be
grue, or X is not examined until after the year 2000 and found to be
bleen.
-------------------------------------------------
Underdetermination: Experience can't uniquely determine which
inductive conclusion one should choose.
A finite sequence of events or observations or items of evidence can
always be taken as conforming to a great many--in fact, infinitely
many--different incompatible general pat-terns.
This is related to the problem of theory-ladenness of observation: how
do we know when a particular observation is evidence for one
hypothesis, and not another? If observations are made in light of
certain beliefs about the world, we have already decided what is true
in advance of looking.
--------------------------------------------
Responses to Goodman's Problem
Philosophers have noticed some aspects to human reasoning which as a
matter of psychological fact get us around Goodman's problem. But are
they justified?
1. "entrenchment" (Goodman): we tend to favor the patterns we have
already projected. We often try to find a way to make a new
observation fit the old pattern.
2. Rudolph Carnap: even before considering any evidence, we are more
inclined to believe some hypotheses than others.
3. W.V.O. Quine: when we make an inductive inference, we do so against
a background of a large number of beliefs besides the observations
themselves. These beliefs help us to select the conclusion which is
supported by our observations from among those which our observations
do not support.
------------------------------------------
Epistemic Values
The absence of strict empirical constraints may be interpreted to mean
that the conclusions we choose is a matter of social and personal
beliefs.
But this extreme conclusion is based on fallacious reasoning. Just
because induction doesn't completely dictate the choice of a
conclusion doesn't mean there are not more or less rational choices.
But what makes one choice "more rational" than another choice which is
equally compatible with the evidence cannot be in virtue of that
evidence.
Philosophers of science have suggested other non-empirical "rules" or
"values" by which we can choose one inductive conclusion over the
other:
1. Generality: choose the conclusion which allows you to make sense of
a wider variety of observations than just those used in the induction
itself.
2. Fecundity or fruitfulness: choose the conclusion that seems
promising--that is, that seems as if it might help you make sense of
future observations, even if it doesn't make sense of very many you
have already had.
3. Coherence: choose the conclusion that is most compatible with (and
least contradictory to) your other inductive conclusions.
4. Simplicity: choose the conclusion that uses less terms or relies on
less assumptions.
http://www.grossmont.edu/johnoakes/s110h/Induction%20and%20Confirmation.ppt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 01:48:14 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found at www.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Breaking down the Importance of Philosophy.com #3. |
04 Oct 2007 05:51:22 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found at www.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Hey shagger, after you've explained how metaphysics is root and branch why
not have a crack at explaining how the LoI , which is a concept, manages to
apply itself over time? Do concepts float around in space? If not how the
***** does a concept apply itself over time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaking down the Importance of Philosophy.com #3. |
04 Oct 2007 05:59:21 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 7:51 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Hey shagger, after you've explained how metaphysics is root and branch why
not have a crack at explaining how the LoI , which is a concept, manages to
apply itself over time? Do concepts float around in space? If not how the
***** does a concept apply itself over time?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dream on ewe simpleton, not even your god knucmo gets it right, ewe
got no show.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaking down the Importance of Philosophy.com #3. |
04 Oct 2007 06:56:35 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191495561.825822.37720@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:51 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of
an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not
an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot
derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found
atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Hey shagger, after you've explained how metaphysics is root and branch
why
not have a crack at explaining how the LoI , which is a concept, manages
to
apply itself over time? Do concepts float around in space? If not how the
***** does a concept apply itself over time?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dream on ewe simpleton, not even your god knucmo gets it right, ewe
got no show.
MG
Hey dodger, wake up, it's clear from what your boyfriends have written that
they are confused. Why not answer the question? How does a concept apply
itself over time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaking down the Importance of Philosophy.com #3. |
04 Oct 2007 07:00:33 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 8:56 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191495561.825822.37720@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:51 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of
an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not
an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot
derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found
atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Hey shagger, after you've explained how metaphysics is root and branch
why
not have a crack at explaining how the LoI , which is a concept, manages
to
apply itself over time? Do concepts float around in space? If not how the
***** does a concept apply itself over time?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dream on ewe simpleton, not even your god knucmo gets it right, ewe
got no show.
MG
Hey
epistemology, get a dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Breaking down the Importance of Philosophy.com #3. |
05 Oct 2007 04:09:44 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191499233.139919.307290@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 8:56 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191495561.825822.37720@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:51 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is
analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes
an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this
were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept
of
an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have
a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there
is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is
not
an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does
not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot
derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found
atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen,
a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have
relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each
object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Hey shagger, after you've explained how metaphysics is root and branch
why
not have a crack at explaining how the LoI , which is a concept,
manages
to
apply itself over time? Do concepts float around in space? If not how
the
***** does a concept apply itself over time?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dream on ewe simpleton, not even your god knucmo gets it right, ewe
got no show.
MG
Hey
epistemology, get a dictionary
So according to randroids a concept applies itself overtime via a theory of
knowledge? What type of drugs do you need to take to become a randroid?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 05:42:52 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found at www.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Wow, even more fucking horse *****! So according to your boyfriends Induction
= abstraction and metaphysics is the root and branch of philosophy. That's
real deep, shagger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 06:13:52 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 7:42 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Wow,
I knew your head would hurt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 06:54:50 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191496432.521359.298860@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:42 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of
an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not
an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot
derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found
atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Wow,
I knew your head would hurt
And I knew that you would drop context and evade the issue, for there is
nothing in your head to be hurt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 02:43:59 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 8:54 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191496432.521359.298860@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:42 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of
an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not
an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot
derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found
atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Wow,
I knew your head would hurt
And I knew that you would drop context and evade the issue, for there is
nothing in your head to be hurt.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Timmmmmm, ewe have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you are
incapable of comprehending past the first sentence of anything ewe
have ever pretended to read, i.e. the second sentence of anything ewe
have ever read is totally unrelated to the preceding sentence, I cant
help such a simpleton, its one word at a time for ewe from now on.
today's word
"epistemology"
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
05 Oct 2007 04:10:23 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191527039.205422.99120@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 8:54 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191496432.521359.298860@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:42 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191480494.089701.139470@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website
here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is
analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes
an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this
were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept
of
an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have
a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there
is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is
not
an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does
not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot
derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
As the thread is about what can be found
atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen,
a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have
relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each
object's
nature is omitted.
MG
Wow,
I knew your head would hurt
And I knew that you would drop context and evade the issue, for there is
nothing in your head to be hurt.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Timmmmmm, ewe have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you are
incapable of comprehending past the first sentence of anything ewe
have ever pretended to read, i.e. the second sentence of anything ewe
have ever read is totally unrelated to the preceding sentence, I cant
help such a simpleton, its one word at a time for ewe from now on.
today's word
"epistemology"
Today's word"
"Dodger"
MG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 08:45:36 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 11:48 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:02 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On this website here:http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
I found an interesting view, namely that all causality is analytic,
and thought through identity:
"Causality is the Law of Identity applied over time. It is the
identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an
entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no
"floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity."
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause". If this were
analytic, then the concept of an event would contain the concept of an
effect. If it were analytic also, saying "an event does not have a
cause" would be contradictory, as this would be like saying there is
something that is caused that is not caused.
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused. The idea that "Every event has a cause" is not an
analytic proposition simply because the concept of an event does not
contain that of being an effect. This means causality cannot derived
from logic, since it is synthetic.
Gordge might wisely respond that the cause,
Dont kid yourself, wisely and your trash dont mix.
Every swan I have ever seen has been has been white.
(likely) the next swan I see will be white.
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
Then you can eliminate the possibility that a swan is a different
color than white?
As the thread is about what can be found atwww.importanceofphilosophy.com
then read what they have to say on the subject of induction compared
to the piffle you sent.
Induction/Abstraction
Induction is the mental process of taking particular facts or
instances and generalizing them to form new ideas. It is also called
abstraction. The process omits particular details of the instances,
and integrates based on a criteria or set of criteria. A yellow pen, a
blue pen, and a red pen can all be integrated under the criteria of
being a pen. The colors are omitted, since they don't have relevance.
A black book, a black sofa, and a black telephone can be integrated
under the criteria of being black. The other aspects of each object's
nature is omitted.
MG-
I accept both views of, deduction and induction, as historical trends
in customs and both have their place in reference to logic.
View 1: conclusion;
Deduction = infers particular from general truths
Induction = infers general from particular truths
View 2: conclusion;
Deduction = follows with absolute necessity
Induction = follows with some degree of probability
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.misc/msg/d55108c0ba7d042e
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
05 Oct 2007 02:23:19 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 10:45 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
Then you can eliminate the possibility that a swan is a different
color than white?
The colors of swans weren't even considered by me in making my
comment, I was talking about the retard who would even give a flying
***** what color swans are.
I accept both views of, deduction and induction, as historical trends
in customs and both have their place in reference to logic.
Logic is only a concept Mortal, its the symbol which ignites inside
your mind the simple fact that, contradictions dont exist in reality
and therefore *non-contradictory identification* is a pretty cool
method to determine the real from the imagined, fact from fiction,
good from evil, right from wrong, up from down cat from dog carrot
from elephant, i.e, logic is the ignition in your mind that two
seperate entites cant both have the same identity. A is A
That entire process (non-contradictory identification) summed up in
the symbol recognized as logic.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
06 Oct 2007 12:20:22 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 12:23 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:45 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's the regurgitation of a retard not the mind of reason.
Then you can eliminate the possibility that a swan is a different
color than white?
The colors of swans weren't even considered by me in making my
comment, I was talking about the retard who would even give a flying
***** what color swans are.
You have talked with people in the past about the possibility of
different Swan colors?
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
Hume's problem is very simple, he asks why we should have the right to
believe conclusions that we arrive at through inductive logic. He
claims that nothing can be proved in an accurate and undenaible way
through induction, and therefore he claims that we have no reason for
beliving that the sun will rise tommorow, or that radioactive dating
technics will absolutely hold tommorow, etc.
By introducing assumptions we go beyond the given evidence our
experience affords: generally what we assume as cause is not fully or
not at all given in experience, and neither are many of the predicted
effects we deduce from these assumptions.
I accept both views of, deduction and induction, as historical trends
in customs and both have their place in reference to logic.
Logic is only a concept Mortal, its the symbol which ignites inside
your mind the simple fact that, contradictions dont exist in reality
and therefore *non-contradictory identification* is a pretty cool
method to determine the real from the imagined, fact from fiction,
good from evil, right from wrong, up from down cat from dog carrot
from elephant, i.e, logic is the ignition in your mind that two
seperate entites cant both have the same identity. A is A
That entire process (non-contradictory identification) summed up in
the symbol recognized as logic.
Logic is believed by most people to be the study of the principles and
criteria of valid inference and demonstration. ...As a formal science,
logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and
arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and
through the study of arguments in natural language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
06 Oct 2007 12:37:51 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 2:20 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have talked with people in the past about the possibility of
different Swan colors?
Not likely, perhaps you were pissed that day.
Logic is believed by most people to be the study of the principles and
criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
Shrug, once upon a time most people in Germany voted for Hitler.
Logic is an art, or a process - its a tool of cognition, it cant be
studied or it'd be like studying a paintbrush, hammer or a screw
driver.
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification and like a
hammer, the more you use it the better it gets.
MG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 01:39:20 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 12:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause".
Where in www.importanceofphilosophy.com does it state that "Causality
is the idea that, "Every event has a cause?""
You're trying to mix oil (Kantianizm) with water (reason).
Why didn't you quote what www.importanceofphilosophy.com does say, so
as to keep the context of your thread in tact and therefore honest?
Causality is only a concept, its a symbol, the trigger word;
"Causality is the term used to describe this dependence of an action
on the identities of the entities involved."
However, this will not do. An event is simply an event, whether
caused or uncaused.
That tells nothing of what an event actually is.
Duration is an event, you cant tell me it doesn't have a cause.
Time is a concept it has a meaning and that meaning involves a cause
of sensory matter acting.
"Event" is only a concept, its a man made symbol, its the trigger-word
which ignites inside your mind all of the information sensed and known
by you of the observations of sensory evidence that two or more
entites are acting in association with each other and each is acting
according to its own individual unique nature.
HINT do yourself a favour and also read
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
Which wil help you to keep what you found at
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
in context.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 07:11:19 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct, 07:39, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:06 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Causality is the idea that "Every event has a cause".
Where inwww.importanceofphilosophy.comdoes it state that "Causality
is the idea that, "Every event has a cause?""
I do not agree with their definition, precisely because causality is
not logical: You do not "sense" validity: You do sense causality, on
the other hand. Or, you do not "sense" logical laws, but you do sense
one billiard ball hitting another. Hence, causality is not the law of
identity in action, or the result of any logical principle.
HINT do yourself a favour and also readhttp://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
I've already dealt with this: If there is a cat, then it is a cat. It
does not imply the existence of a cat thereof.
Which wil help you to keep what you found athttp://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html,
in context.
I know exactly what you are getting at: Causality is a logical
consequence of the law of identity. But it is blatantly not because a
change in the course of nature is logically possible and not
contradictory. If it was logical, then a change in the course of
nature (a reaction against an action) would be contradictory, which it
is not, and we see all the time. A reaction is a response, caused by
some event.
Why did you not read my sentence, which clearly said: "The concept of
an event does not contain that of being an effect", as it can be a
cause or an effect. And it does not. Hence, it is not logical, nor
analytic.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 07:26:26 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 9:11 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do not agree with their definition, precisely because causality is
not logical:
Reality has no contradictions, logic is a tool of reason,
specifically, its the tool of non-contradictory identification.
You do not "sense" validity: You do sense causality,
No you dont, causality is not an event that can be sensed, thats
silly, its ONLY an explanation of an event, its a concept, a man made
word, its only a symbol used to save time and energy.
In reality (its all that matters) you can only sense matter knucmo,
you feel touch see smell hear matter, you sense events e.g. two or
more entities of matter each acting according to its own unique nature
and your mission is to identify the nature of an entity and to include
its nature in its identity, in order to help you make further
predictons.
Each entity has its own nature, read A is A Aristotle's Law Of
Identity.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 10:13:17 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191500786.832270.192400@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:11 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Each entity has its own nature, read A is A Aristotle's Law Of
Identity.
Which, according to Aristotle, resides in the unmoved mover -- God.
Have you been saying your prayers?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 03:04:15 PM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 12:13 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191500786.832270.192400@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:11 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Each entity has its own nature, read A is A Aristotle's Law Of
Identity.
Which,
ewesimpleton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 05:52:28 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191528255.080250.67920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 12:13 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191500786.832270.192400@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:11 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Each entity has its own nature, read A is A Aristotle's Law Of
Identity.
Which,
ewesimpleton
Son, you are a spineless dodgy *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
05 Oct 2007 03:48:59 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 7:52 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191528255.080250.67920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 12:13 am, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1191500786.832270.192400@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:11 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Each entity has its own nature, read A is A Aristotle's Law Of
Identity.
Which,
ewesimpleton
Son,
Dreamer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 03:26:05 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct, 13:26, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:11 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do not agree with their definition, precisely because causality is
not logical:
Reality has no contradictions, logic is a tool of reason,
specifically, its the tool of non-contradictory identification.
The laws of nature are not deductive, they are inductive and
universal. The denial of the laws of nature, or even of causality,
imply no contradiction, and their contrary is logically possible.
That is why they are "synthetic".
You do not "sense" validity: You do sense causality,
No you dont, causality is not an event that can be sensed, thats
silly, its ONLY an explanation of an event, its a concept, a man made
word, its only a symbol used to save time and energy.
Then you agree causality is not a posteriori, and hence a priori. Or
maybe you are a Humean, and can find no rational justification for it
at all.
In reality (its all that matters) you can only sense matter knucmo,
you feel touch see smell hear matter, you sense events e.g. two or
more entities of matter each acting according to its own unique nature
and your mission is to identify the nature of an entity and to include
its nature in its identity, in order to help you make further
predictons.
Each entity has its own nature, read A is A Aristotle's Law Of
Identity.
And as I've already told you, causality is not logically derivable,
because a change in the course of nature does not imply a
contradiction. Saying that "its sunny" when its raining is not a
contradiction, though it is false: We need to refer to the world
around us to verify the proposition that it is sunny. This is not
like claiming A is not A, because nothing in the world can prove it is
true. The claim, that "It is sunny", conversely, may have been true
under different circumstances and this particular claim must be
compared with reality
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
04 Oct 2007 04:06:18 PM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 5:26 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The denial of the laws of nature, or even of causality,
imply no contradiction, and their contrary is logically possible.
"The laws of nature", is a series of man made symbols laid out in a
manner in such a way to explain as a concept, that which can be
observed as existing and happening in sensory reality.
Try as hard as you like, but the nature of your body and the nature of
space are both as such that you can not survive in what man calls the
vacuum of space without wearing a specially designed suit or being in
a space-craft.
You're allowing man made symbols and concepts and not what they
represent in sensory reality to be the primacy of your knowledge.
Rand identified that problem as The Primacy of Consciousness.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: On The Logical Derivation of Causality |
05 Oct 2007 05:28:07 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct, 22:06, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 5, 5:26 am, knucmo <stevejoua...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The denial of the laws of nature, or even of causality,
imply no cont | | | | | | |
