Am I totally inferring the link between two events? Causation question...

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But why is this an obsession to you?

It points to the substance of time not existing. That I am possibly creating that entire thing in order to make sense of reality.

Amazing that my mind can do that. Fascinating

[Carl-Richard]

Bernardo has takes on causality from an idealistic point of view which you might find interesting:

 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It points to the substance of time not existing. That I am possibly creating that entire thing in order to make sense of reality.

Amazing that my mind can do that. Fascinating

Um hm.  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Carl-Richard NOM

[hyruga]

Causation means one event directly causes another (Action A produces Outcome B). Correlation is a statistical relationship where two variables change together, but neither necessarily causes the other. Coincidence is the simultaneous occurrence of events by pure chance, without any meaningful or causal connection. 

Just use Ai

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, hyruga said:

Causation means one event directly causes another

Just use Ai

Ask AI what a circular definition is.

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, hyruga said:

Causation means one event directly causes another (Action A produces Outcome B). Correlation is a statistical relationship where two variables change together, but neither necessarily causes the other. Coincidence is the simultaneous occurrence of events by pure chance, without any meaningful or causal connection. 

Just use Ai

AI cannot answer this.

[Jirh]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ask AI what a circular definition is.

All language is circular in that sense.

But I agree with you on this topic. Just stating the definition of causation does not prove it exists.

[zurew]

25 minutes ago, Jirh said:

All language is circular in that sense.

Not all definitions are circular in the sense Carl was pointing out. 

If the definiendum (the term that needs to be defined) is inside/part of  the definiens (the group of words doing the defining), then  thats a circular definition and its uninformative.

The point is to provide such a definition for causation, where the definition doesnt include the word "causation" or "cause".

And this is compatible with your claim about the overall structure of language (It may be the case that, once you analyze all the terms and concepts that you end up with a circular structure - but there we are talking about 2nd and higher order analysis, not just 1st order definitions)

Edited 4 hours ago by zurew

[Jirh]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Not all definitions are circular in the sense Carl was pointing out. 

If the definiendum (the term that needs to be defined) is inside/part of  the definiens (the group of words doing the defining), then  thats a circular definition and its uninformative.

The point is to provide such a definition for causation, where the definition doesnt include the word "causation" or "cause".

And this is compatible with your claim about the overall structure of language (It may be the case that, once you analyze all the terms and concepts that you end up with a circular structure - but there we are talking about 2nd and higher order analysis, not just 1st order definitions)

Well in this case, the user @hyruga did provide a definition between brackets:

6 hours ago, hyruga said:

(Action A produces Outcome B).

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

"Produces" is the inference portion to me. 

[Mellowmarsh]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

AI cannot answer this.

Acausal chain has no missing link.

A i cannot answer this either.

[zurew]

27 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Well in this case, the user @hyruga did provide a definition between brackets:

Thats fair, but I dont think that definition is informative. (Someone who doesnt understand what it means for event A to cause outcome B wont understand what it means for event A to produce outcome B).

But I wont be able to provide an exhaustive account of what it means for a definition to be informative.

[Jirh]

@zurew Well, yeah. That's the problem with language. It is limited and circular like that. There's no way around it. (Pun intended)

I asked Google and it gave me the compound "bring about" instead of "produce", which is even worse 😅

Edited 38 minutes ago by Jirh

[Joseph Maynor]

This is why intuition, judgment, and wisdom is higher than reason and language.  You need a higher epistemic rung than reason and language to draw from.