On Oct 21, 2:09 am, huge <h...@operamail.com> wrote: > On 10/20/2010 09:24 AM, Huang wrote: > > > To approach the question of causality using logic is a bit ridiculous, > > but here's what you are all missing. > > >  If things are causal, then they are logical. > >  If things are acausal, then they are not based on any logical > > process, it is actually anti-logical. But the discipline of logic does > > not really aknowledge such a thing as "anti-logic" as being anything > > useful, and so you are automatically CRIPPLED if you choose this > > approach. But you are insisting, so I will tell you a few things and > > hope it sinks in. > > > If I flip a coin and it is TRULY random, then this process must be > > regarded as being "anti-logical". If you think about it you will see > > why the concept is useful. If the result were logical then it would be > > deducible a priori in advance of the outcome actually occuring, making > > the whole thing deterministic. It's quite obvious and stupid. You need > > the notion of "anti-logic" but science does not provide you with that, > > so your tools are all broken and this approach is probably an exercise > > in futility because of that. > > > Most perplexing of course is the fact that you can never, ever prove > > that something was logical or not. These things are equivalent in the > > sense of Einstein but you are incapable of comprehending that things > > can be very, very different, and yet at the same time they can be > > equivalent. Once you understand this you will all quit squabbling and > > saying these ridiculous things. The biggest injury you've ever > > suffered was being indoctrinated in the school of Western Steampunk > > math/physics philosophy, and you were allowed to play with Legos. You > > need to understand some Eastern philosophy and then everything will be > > clear. > > I don't think PA and I are on causality at all at the moment. > We are on the existence of inductive logic. >
True in a way. But, it is not entirely unconnected. The whole question of inductive logic is intimately connected to causality. Very intimately connected despite not using the term cause in the discussion much.
The basic and - imo - absurdly false idea of induction is the idea that mere data points all by themselves has some sort of weak or strong logical necessity towards some predicted further data point.
In a machine that is programmed to spit out integers according to any rule, for example, add one each time, predictions can be made. The first five integers will be 1,2,3,4,5 and the sixth will be rightly predicted to be 6. It all makes sense under the assumption of the generator spitting out according to the rule a(n)=n where a(n ) is the number at the nth place in the series. Now here is the connection with causality: if we view the numbers as being caused to appear according to a rule bound generator, we are arguing to the type of cause. Any fool can without reason just geuess a number that he thinks wll be next. But a person who has a good argument is *arguing* for a number and this argument involves having the idea of cause. The concepts here are intimately linked.