Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site flairvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!flairvax!kissell From: kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.ai,net.books,net.physics Subject: Re: Now and Then Message-ID: <720@flairvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 02:39:09 EDT Article-I.D.: flairvax.720 Posted: Tue Aug 14 02:39:09 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Aug-84 01:22:59 EDT References: <218@imsvax.UUCP>, <716@ariel.UUCP> Organization: Fairchild AI Lab, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 23 (Norm Andrews challenges Ray Chen's agnosticsm on cause and effect) > The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among > other things. This is simply not true. The notion of logical proof involves implication relationships between discrete statements in discourse. This is an agreed upon rule of the game. Causality assumes implication relationships between discrete events in the world. The universe may or may not argue like a philosopher, and it is not always clear what constitutes a "discrete" event. > So what's causality? The law of identity applied to action. Things do > what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are. This is a denial of causality, not a definition. If things do what they do because they are what they are, then they certainly can't be *caused* to do anything by something else. Unless, of course, the only *thing* is everything. uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >flairvax!kissell {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/