From: Glenn Bradford (gmbbradford@netscape.net)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 04:01:10 GMT
ERIN:
>I told you it was silly, didn't bother reading most it after
>grabbing the definition, compared the definition to baby and
>bathwater, reluctantly gave you the site because I didn't want
>to hear your comments on it.....but okay I'll take your
>word that it was unclear whether I wanted a critique of it.
The last thing you said was that you might retract your
low opinion of the site because "abduction" was in quotes.
I found that hard to resist and wanted to nip it in the bud.
ERIN:
>I put linear in the definition because "chain" sounds
>linear to me.
That's obvious enough.
>You are saying its not linear because it is mulitple chains.
I never said it wasn't linear. I'm not denying it's linear *in
some sense*. It's this sense I'm trying to have you clarify.
Your clarification was this author's quote.
>ERIN: well I think the author of the quote
>was allowing the second part of the definition, not
>sure why you think it is not allowed.
Because at the end of the second paragraph the author says:
"This, of course, does not describe causality sufficiently ...
but, for the present purpose, the idea of causality is that one
thing leads to another and another and so on." I take this to
mean that a single chain, as described in the first paragraph,
defines causality, and that this suffices for his "present
purpose", which is to define causality so that it makes "no room"
for "free will, creativity, or synchronicity".
>GLENN: (earlier)
>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.
ERIN:
>Not sure how you jump to "unknown causes have no
>place to run and have to be considered causal".
Why not? Have you thought of a way to sneak them in?
Glenn
WEBSITE AUTHOR (the flaming baby/bathwater crank):
>"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 : Mon Dec 30 2002 - 04:01:50 GMT