[Craig, previously] > But there is a single chain of causality that leads to the ACTUAL outcome.
[Krimel] [Sorry about the double 'm', previously] > How can you possibly see a single chain of causality in a cattle stampede? Because I agree with you that everything in the universe affects everything else. So everything is in the same chain as everything else. We can follow the path of one cow & call it a chain of causality. Or follow the path of another cow & call it a different chain. But what the first cow does affects what the second cow does (even in a stampede). The two cows are in the same chain. [Craig, previously] > How do you distinguish between "lots of chains converging in the present" > & lots of partial descriptions of the single chain leading to the present? [Krimel] > When we attempt to specify causality, we look for properties that are > most likely to influence our outcome. We look for properties that are > constant like the force of gravity and which forces are variable like the > force of the throw. I don't see "the force of gravity" as constant. It varies every instant, at every point in the universe. [Krimel] > The world remains totally deterministic... > What we have found is that much of the knowledge needed > can not be determined even in principle. What reason do we have to think "the world remains totally deterministic", when "the knowledge needed can not be determined even in principle"? Craig Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
