williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/14/84)
>> Ahem. Cause and effect may exist, and indeed, in order to function as >> human beings, we seem to need to behave as if it exists, but I don't >> think the principal of cause and effect can be *proved* to exist. The >> association of two events in time does not imply a connection between >> the two. >> >> (For a more detailed argument, read Hume and Kant) >> >> --Ray Chen >The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among >other things. Even the ideas "anything" and "functioning" depend upon >the idea of cause and effect. All of these concepts depend on or are >rooted in the concepts of identity and identification. Here's why: Thank you for your defense, I have something to add: Physicists are discovering that the nature of this universe is uncertain. I tried to emphasize this in previous articles, that cause implies effect, that the effect is not certain. There are just too many uncontrolable variables. There is a fundamental axiom that I believe is the key to understanding this: 1=.999999999999999999999999... That is, in an aware universe, there is a limited degree of resolution in perceptions. Through evolution, the concious is able to resolve reality to greater detail. If you have no way of percieving the difference, or exception, then you are SAFE in assuming it doesn't exist. The likelyhood of a miracle is small, but not impossible. This is a way of communicating ideas with those who might otherwise remain ignorant. ( one thing at a time, PLEASE ) So, even though I understand that my basis for reality depends on the universe behaving nominally, and this nominal behaviour has degrees of certainty, I do not feel compelled to prefix every sentence I state with ``I think''. On the contrary, I use words to communicate a level of confidence. This is a very important protocol, and is in fact, how meaningful communication is achieved. When I say that something IS, I mean that I have not found the exception, that it is not worth, for the purposes of discussion, considering the existance of the exception. Not only do you communicate an idea, you also communicate with it a degree of certainty ranging from absolute certainty to complete ignorance. The statement is a symbolic connection which varies in bonding strength. In mathematics, and in logic, this strength is fixed, and defined. In natural language, however, this strength is not defined, but projected. George Orwell's famous deduction ``Ignorance is Strength'' is a warning that the ignorant are capable of making strong symbolic connections based on a simplified model of reality. I think it is important to use intelligence to guide the ignorant in a manner which does not defile their integrity. The danger of history repeating itself is real. It would serve you well to read Carl Sagan's book, Cosmos. He is frowned upon by the elite, for he dares to consider you capable of understanding science and nature, given sufficient time. The words and context chosen to represent this view were determined on the basis of assertion. Any interpretation not agreeing with my own is subject to discussion.