@unseenactive 11 hours, 37 minutes ago
Forum Replies Created
February 21, 2020 at 3:08 am #30283
Or maybe ABduction.February 20, 2020 at 8:01 am #30272
Looking at @popebeanie‘s posted explanation from Quora, I think Wittgenstein was talking crap in this case, because he doesn’t acknowledge that everything has multiple causes, which Buddha knew millennia before.
Looked at that way, the notion of causality seems rather useless due to being unwieldy.February 18, 2020 at 4:58 pm #30238
So why didn’t Wittgenstein just say that in the first place? Why invoke causality as a special case?
Because it IS a special case. Science treats causality as a special kind of knowledge. That’s my guess, anyway.February 17, 2020 at 6:48 pm #30225
Makes sense to me but I don’t know if that covers what you wanted to cover. Before looking that up, my first, pedestrian thought was that facts and causality become accepted as “known” when their circumstances can be reproduced and tested such that the outcome is consistent. And such knowledge is significant knowledge only when it can be communicated precisely enough from one person to another.
Science tends to revere repeatable results and is used to determine “that which is the case.” But if you stop to think about it, it’s a kind of rule of thumb in a sense. What the actual “fact” is, is beyond our grasp.February 17, 2020 at 6:37 pm #30224
I think ultimately, a scientific description of reality leads us to say that X is a cause of Y. We know that action X has consequence Y, as a type, so when X and Y happen together, we assume with a good level of confidence that X is a cause of Y.
You are describing a belief. A fact has long been defined as “that which is the case,” not “that which we believe to be the case.”February 12, 2020 at 7:58 pm #30137
Maybe he couldn’t work out how X causes Y, so he said there is no such thing.
A superstition is not a “no such thing” kind of thing. It is a false or unjustified or unjustifiable belief that could be false despite one’s belief.
Look at several examples of causality:
Heating water raises its temperature.
Cigarettes cause cancer.
I have a wart that’s causing me pain.
Tom Steyer is a self-made man. (He caused his own success.)
These examples of causality are different from each other. They don’t even all obey the temporal succession claim (example: the wart and its pain, as reported, are contemporaneous, not a temporal succession).
So, what do we know about causality which makes it a fact and not just a belief?February 12, 2020 at 6:06 pm #30134
Is what you mean, “what is causality?” If B is a consequence of A, then A helps to cause B.
No, I’m asking What Wittgenstein meant by calling the belief in causality a superstition. How is it a superstition? What could he have meant by that?February 11, 2020 at 4:49 pm #30130
If we bound a time period and have an accurate model of a system we can accurately predict the effects based on inputs (causes). However since we don’t know much about t=0 we end up with randomness (to us) and model complexities that can approach infinity in degrees of freedom and thus we have to resort to probabilities (based on data) to predict effects. With this combination of simpler bounded systems and knowledge of probabilities we can launch a rocket to the moon or derive a vaccine for the coronavirus. Maybe. Sometimes. Etc.
Sounds like your answer is that causality isn’t a fact at all, just a useful way of processing facts and formulating predictions. So, then, there’s no necessity involved.
The beliefs of a metaphysicist are immaterial.
Only if s/he’s an idealist. (philosophy joke)February 11, 2020 at 9:32 am #30128
If A helps to cause B, then the causality is a fact.
If. That’s a big if.February 11, 2020 at 1:47 am #30126
If causality operates with necessity, as most of us probably believe, shouldn’t have more of a reality than just *
If I drop a bowling ball, I expect it to drop. Is causality more than an expectation based on past experience?
So, causal statements aren’t facts. Maybe that is what Wittgenstein meant.February 10, 2020 at 8:26 pm #30121
A cause is an event, and an effect is a consequence of that event. Everything has multiple causes. One event leads to another. A cause precedes an effect. A cause and effect form a sequence of events.
So causality has no ontological status. It’s just a way of looking at two events. Sort of like an opinion. Where then is causal necessity?
February 10, 2020 at 6:37 pm #30116
- This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Unseen.
So, where is Ivy? Do we know why she feels she has little time? (And, no, I don’t have time to read every post in this thread.)
February 3, 2020 at 7:21 pm #29944
- This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Unseen.
You always hear “You libtards (=socialists or ‘commies’) just want free shit (or other people’s money).” Yet, corporations get welfare all the time in the form of tax breaks or, when the time comes, bailouts. You and I are not “too big to fail” so we are expendable.
We are supposed to just go out and work for our wealth while the greatest proportion of the super-rich’s wealth was not worked for at all. It’s either passive income or inherited, two unearned forms of personal wealth.February 2, 2020 at 3:05 am #29908
Sorry man but a 30 minute video is a little long to watch until I know a few things before committing to watching it. What is he referring to by socialism? Modern European socialist states? Or a subset of communist states? Or pseudo socialist states like Venezuela? The idea that socialism always fails is so preposterous. I would invite this guy to walk around the various neighborhoods of Oslo and then walk around the various neighborhoods of Los Angeles and repeat that. If however he isn’t referring to the modern-European-socialist-state then, what he is saying is likely true and already obvious. So which is it?
As Dr. Wolff explains in this video, “Anyone who tells you ‘This is socialism’ is either ignorant or is misleading you,” because while socialism has spread around the world, it has taken many different specific forms. And yet, today, there are three basic types of socialism. If you have the time, he distinguishes between them. In summary, they are distinguished this way:
1) A highly government-regulated capitalist economy. The social democracies of Europe, for example.
2) The government takes over and runs the whole show from the workplaces to even social relations. This is typically called Communism.
3) Workplace democracy, where the workers have a big say in the operation of capitalist enterprises.February 1, 2020 at 4:18 am #29904