jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:31 am
@ughaibu,
that's interesting (and also a cause for rejoicing on your part, I imagine!)

The notion of 'statistical causality' is quite different to that of the kind of linear causality that was more typical of the classical era. Yet, when you think about it, many fields of science now rely upon this kind of understanding. Not least QM, which is probabalistic at very basic levels of reality.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:41 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Not least QM, which is probabalistic at very basic levels of reality.
Sure, but in micro-physics there is no notion of cause, any more than there's a notion of cause in 2+2=4. The statements of micro-physics are reversible but causes aren't. So, it's not a simple matter of 'is this notion of cause suitable for science', it depends on which science is concerned.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cause
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 10:24:23