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

[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 June 25 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 June 25 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 June 25 by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Jirh said:

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

 

And in that case (assuming "produces" is in any way more illustrative than "causes" and doesn't merely function as a synonym which also needs to be explained, which he didn't explain), the sentence before that was completely dead weight.

[Ziran]

On 6/19/2026 at 9:52 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

when I feel like I am close to some certainty it all unravels again just as rapidly as I weave it together 🤯😜

The material construct is stable.  Departing from it isn't.  I'll comment more once I've finished reading the replies.

[Ziran]

On 6/23/2026 at 0:36 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

Is causation so tricky to understand?  

If eternity is real, yes.  Eternal means:  lacking any beginnings and lacking any endings.  In this state, time isn't flowing.

Edited Tuesday at 03:37 PM by Ziran

[Ziran]

On 6/23/2026 at 2:20 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

One event happens. Then another. 

I can notice a pattern between the events.

But in reality - there is no direct connection (happening in reality).

They are seperated. 

The noticing is my own interpretation added onto reality. 

Where does one event end, and one begin? It becomes an infinite regression all the way down trying to find the time point one thing happens and, in reality, directly caused the other.

For me it's because time isn't real.

This is how I make sense of time:

1)  The fundamental unit of time, the smallest unit, is called a moment.  A moment possesses attributes:  A collection of observers,  participants,  a specific location,  a specific set of significant circumstances which trigger the event, and a specific set of significant outcomes.

2) From the finite perspective, moments occur one after another in a nearly endless sequence of events.  Each moment from this POV is distinguished from the others by other moments based on the corresponding significance.  Each moment is lined up, one after another, like a deck of cards set out in order in a line.

3) From the infinite perspective, lacking any beginnings and lacking any endings, each moment is eternal.  Time stops flowing.  Each moment is stacked on top of each other, co-existing, omni-present, and concurrent like a deck of cards gathered up into a cube.

4) When the mind's eye pivots from the finite towards the infinite perspective, the significance of each moment becomes hyperbolic.  They're both extremely significant and simultaneously void of significance.

This is how I make sense of choice/causation:

1)  All of reality is composed of seven types of events: 

• Events that happened
• Events that are happening
• Events that will happen
• Events that didn't happen
• Events that aren't happening
• Events that won't happen
• Events that may happen

2)  Each event possesses attributes which include sequencing and organizes the events into time-lines.   

3)  From the finite perspective, only one time-line is in focus.  From the infinite perspective, there are no time-lines.

4)  All events excluding could-be events are locked.  Causation occurs only within these could-be events. 

5)  From the finite perspective, the causation can be described as branches sprouting from the events.

6) From the infinite perspective, all events co-exist in an endless sea.  When a choice is made from the finite perspective, all that's happening from the infinite perspective is a pivot of focus towards the corresponding events ( which possess observers, participants, relative location, relative sequence, relative significance ).

7)  Both the finite and infinite perspectives are true.  Reality is a sort of funnel.  It's cone shaped.  Triangular.  Considering it from the finite perspective is like looking up at the pointy end of an infinitely large cone.  Considering it from the infinite perspective is like looking at the same infinitely large cone from the top open end.

8)  In like manner, there is both 1 time-line which includes each individual soul, and nearly infinite time-lines with nearly infinite replicas of each individual soul, and all of it is happening at the same time.  Reality includes both, a realm with causation and a realm without.   The mind's eye can easily focus on one, and is able to approach the other but can never apprehend it.

 

Edited Tuesday at 05:30 PM by Ziran

[Jirh]

It's interesting to notice how animals believe in causation. They act as if it's absolutely true. No questions asked. They even do nonsensical things and stupid behaviors to preserve that belief despite the reality.

Quote

Here is a classic, well-documented example from psychology that perfectly fits your description:

B. F. Skinner’s “Superstitious” Pigeons.

The Experiment:
Skinner put hungry pigeons in a cage and set a food dispenser to release a small amount of grain at regular, fixed intervals (every 15 seconds), completely regardless of what the pigeon was doing.

The Behavior:
Within a few minutes, the pigeons started acting like they were performing rituals.
One pigeon learned to turn counter-clockwise two or three times between food drops. Another thrust its head into a specific corner of the cage. A third developed a "tossing" motion, bobbing its head and swinging its body as if pushing an invisible barrier.

The Belief in Causation:
The pigeon noticed that right after it turned around, food appeared. Therefore, the pigeon concluded: "Turning around causes food to appear."

The Nonsensical Behavior to Preserve the Belief:
Here is where it gets irrational. When Skinner slowed the feeder down to release food every *60* seconds instead of 15, the pigeon didn't think, "Hmm, maybe this isn't working." Instead, it danced harder. It turned faster, pecked the corner more violently, and repeated the motion more frantically.
When Skinner stopped the food entirely (extinction), the pigeon didn't give up after a few tries. It kept performing its little ritual for over 10,000 times before finally stopping.

The Conlcusion:
The pigeon completely ignored the reality that time was the only factor, not its dance. Instead of adapting to reality, it doubled down on the nonsense behavior to protect its belief in its own control. It would rather exhaust itself dancing than accept that the universe is random and it has no power over the food.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jirh