Lotfi and everyone --
>
> The problem is that causality is not a bivalent concept'as
> it is commonly assumed to be in attempts at formalization. Causality is
> a matter of degree.
I am not sure I agree at all with the four claims you make in these two
sentences. Moreover, your examples do not support them. If one and
only one event A always and inexorably leads to another event Z we may
say that:
A causes Z.
However, if there are multiple events A, B, C, etc, which singly or
together lead to Z, as in your raincoat example, then it's not
necessarily the case that the concept of causality is not bivalent.
Rather, it may be the case that (for example):
A and B and C together cause Z.
The relationship between A, B, C and Z may be any sort of linear or
nonlinear relationship, while the notion of causality in the middle can
still be bivalent: When all the inputs A, B and C have the appropriate
levels, then Z results; when all the inputs A, B and C do not have these
levels, then Z does not. Multiple inputs or relevant non-linear
interactions between inputs are not the same as multi-valence in a
mechanism connecting inputs to outputs.
-- Peter
