Lessons on Causality

Enough of the squabbling and ego-seeking James, this thread is not about you, time to get it back on track:

Blaming individuals for actions and events is a very confrontational activity, which requires courage. So when a society becomes cowardly, and fears blaming the perpetrator of a crime, then he has advantage and leverage over others. Also it is dangerous to blame the ‘privileged’ members of society, as privilege entails an air of authority and degree of prestige such that normal rules and laws do not apply to the upper class (elites). However blame still exists. And there are many social functions in society operating to blame somebody, or something, if not the perpetrator of a crime.

What the West lacks, in my opinion, is morality, wisdom, and justice, lacks maturity which older or ancient countries and nations sometimes retain. Many cultures throughout the world approach the topic of morality differently, according to customs, social hierarchy, traditions, religious mindsets, how to approach life, how to think about the world, etc. Thus one society will find ‘blame’ in ways that other countries will not. The same applies for individuals. While one person maybe very courageous and outspoken, quick to point the finger and blame somebody, others will be less courageous, silent, and “keep their opinions to themselves”. However that doesn’t change the fact that person X caused harm Y to person Z. And because people can harm each other so grievously, systems of “justice” and law are put into place and enforced, to prevent the widespread manipulation of harm. If some people are allowed to harm others with impunity, then they will, and so society will become held hostage, captive, to the cruelty of those who are blameless for their crimes and harm of others.

I would like to go much more in depth into thoughts like this, but, this forum really lacks the interaction I require.

Thus I conclude this thread. You can find me elsewhere, if you have the drive and curiosity to do so.

Good riddance.

Says the conspicuously defeated egotist.
:laughing:

Although I wouldn’t argue with that.

Systems of “justice” are not assembled to prevent harm to the populous nor establish any kind of actual justice. They are constructed entirely for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining power and control over the populous. The idea of such systems existing solely to protect the weak or abused is merely a part of its construction. Minority and feminist outcries are the obvious evidence. Long after the minority is no longer the minority and the feminine is no longer at any disadvantage, the outcries continue on and on, because power over all things is their goal, nothing at all to do with justice.

Get your actual causes straight from institutional rhetoric and appearances.

What does “all points on the circumference” mean?
You need to ask yourself this question.

What it means is “all the points on the circumference you are focusing on”.
You might be focusing on 16 points.
Or you might be focusing on 1024 points.
It is your choice.

This means that polygons can meet the definition of circles.
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center.
If you’re focusing on these points and ignoring all other points then they will pass the test.

That’s what you are PRETENDING is not the case.

Nothing can be resolved if people you are talking to do not know how to think.

The distance between any two points is infinite. This means that there is no such a thing as zero distance which in turn means that there are no points that are adjacent to each other which in turn means that all action is an action at a distance which goes against your pseudo-scientific theory which is based on the principle of locality.

More of your pathetic pedantry.
Any set of adjacent points that share the same slope can ne considered a straight line.
In this sense of the word, real life polygons DO have straight lines.
Noone cares about PERFECT straight lines in the same exact way that noone cares about PERFECT circles and in general PERFECT ANYTHING.
The concept of perfection, if taken literally, is meaningless and only utter retards are seduced by it.

That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre
There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle although they are finite in size. In the same
way that there are an infinite quantity of numbers between any two numbers which is also a finite space

That’s not how things work in reality. In reality, we only check that a number of points on the boundary of a shape is equidistant from the center. This means that exceptions are permitted. You can have points that are at a different distance from the center and the shape would still be considered a circle. That’s how we determine whether any given shape is a circle or not. That’s how things work in reality.

What you’re saying, or at least what I hope you’re saying, because otherwise there would be no meaning to what you’re saying, is that the greater the number of points on the boundary of a shape the more circular that shape is. And I agree with that.

I don’t understand, what your post have to do with causality. Perhaps causality Points to an endless series of Events. With monads this is nested. Perhaps causality expells to monads.

The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality

Although directly related to the cause of conflict. :sunglasses:

It has to do with people who are active in this thread. The nature of circles isn’t really the point. The point is how people think. In other words, logic. You can’t discuss the nature of causality, circles, infinity, etc if we do not agree on how thinking works. If people are illogical then the first thing to do is to discuss logic before proceeding to discuss more complex subjects. If people think that words are more important than reality or that words are permitted to have no reference point in reality then we have a SERIOUS problem that has to be tackled BEFORE we can proceed to discuss the subject of the thread.

Words are not more important than reality even though they can describe reality
And when they are used for such a purpose they need to be as precise as possible

Imagination is a rearrangement of what was previously experienced. When we speak of zombies, for example, we are speaking of things we have experienced in the past but in a different arrangement. The concept of zombies is meaningful even though we have never experienced a zombie as a whole. We have experienced every single element zombies are made of but we haven’t experienced these elements in the arrangement that defines zombies. It is a meaningful concept because it is possible for us to experience zombies. At the present date, we only have an experience of their imitations. Imitations being objects that have a number of features but not all of the features that the object they are imitating – the original – has. It is rightful to say that when you see a zombie on a computer screen or at a halloween party you are seeing an imitation of zombies and not real zombies. But there are also words that are meaningless in the sense that they do not refer to anything that can be experienced. The concept of perfect circles, for example. It is meaningless because it is not something that we can experience. It is neither something we have experienced in the past as a whole nor a rearrangement of what we have experienced in the past. You cannot imagine a perfect circle. You can only pretend that you can. And because of this, there can be no approximations of perfect circles. You cannot approximate what the word refers to when the word does not refer to anything. I can be proven wrong, sure, but this would require that someone demonstrates to me that it is possible to experience perfect circles. If you DENY that words are meaningful only if they refer to something that can be experienced then we have a serious problem. A very serious problem.

Another word that most people throw around without understanding what it really means is “universe”. The word, if it means anything, means a model of reality or quite simply a theory. Or it might mean whatever set of assumptions one holds to be true. Assumptions being guesses regarding something we haven’t experienced. A theory is nothing but a set of instructions on how to calculate (or determine) what’s going to happen next based on what happened in the past. In fact, it is a broader concept than that. It is quite simply a formula i.e. a set of instructions on how to calculate (or determine) some output values based on some input values. A theory can be quite simply a mathematical function that relates a point in time with a set of events that happen at that point in time. Now, when people speak of “the universe having a beginning and an end” they are in fact speaking about theories that have a specific feature. Namely, they are speaking of a category of theories that calculate events only for a finite range of points in time e.g. a theory that takes a point in time as an input but only within a specific range. Say if time is measured relative to some event, the function may accept only real numbers between -6000 to +billion where 1 represents a single day, positive numbers days after the pivotal event and negative numbers days before the pivotal event. So far so good. What they are saying is meaningful. What these people are doing is they are asking a very simple question that has the form “if there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works, does this theory have a time limit?” Let us acknowledge that these people do make a difference between what people think is how the universe works (i.e. theories that people have that do not necessarily exactly represent how the universe works) and how the universe REALLY works independently from what anyone thinks. The problem is that they IGNORE how humans create theories. In other words, they ignore EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES. They are stuck speculating about what’s possible i.e. they are stuck exploring possibilities. In this particular case, exploring all the possible theories that can exist. They never, for example, ask whether the theories they come up with can be INFERRED from any kind of evidence that is imaginable. Why bother exploring “what ifs” that can never be proven? For example, suppose that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works, how can we determine which one of the infinitely many theories is the one that represents exactly how the universe works? There is no way to do so. We don’t know what we HAVE to do because the procedure is undefined. Basically, such a theory cannot be inferred from any kind of evidence we can imagine. The actual theories they come up with are not meaningless. What is meaningless is the assumption that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works. It’s a meaningless phrase.

The problem with the universe having a beginning and an end is not merely that there is no evidence to back it up but the fact that no evidence can back it up.

The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS and although it is just three words is absolutely true. And as far as theories are concerned not every single one is testable
but it does not stop physicists from speculating about what could be true. Now strictly speaking they cannot be regarded as scientific but long as they are treated
as purely hypothetical then there is no problem. There will always be a limitation on how much knowledge science can be in possession of at any time but it does
nonetheless increase over time and so this could lead to a more accurate model of reality and more specifically in areas where hypotheses can actually be tested

I don’t care what words you associate with the word “universe”. When you explain “universe” in terms of “all there is” what you are doing is you are replacing one meaningless phrase with another. Show me this “all there is”. Tell me what kind of experience it refers to. Don’t just bombard me with words.

It obviously does not stop them. My point is that it is pointless to explore “what ifs” that cannot be proven.

The problem is that they are not honest about what they are doing. They are ignoring the reason humans create theories. They do not want to admit that theories are merely instruments that humans use in order to predict the future to the best of their ability. People who say that the universe might have a beginning and an end do not understand that there is no evidence that can put a time limit on our theories. This is because the purpose of theories is to help us determine the set of best guesses regarding any kind of unknown event we are interested in. For example, I might be interested in what’s going to happen tomorrow or I might be interested in what’s going to happen 1,000 years from now on. Maybe even a billion years from now on. Or a quintillion years from now on. There is no limit. No evidence can impose such a limit. Evidence only limits what counts as the best guess regarding any given unknown event.

I have a feeling that you’re not listening to what I am saying. There can be no productive discussion between the two of us if one of us does not listen to what the other is saying.

My point is that it is meaningless to say that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works. This is because such a theory cannot be found. There is no test that can separate such a theory from all the rest.

Yes, surreptitious, explain the universe but DO NOT use words.
:confused: :laughing:

It means any point you pick, so long as it is a certain distance D away from the center C (another point you can pick), that point will be on the circumference of a circle with radius D and center C.

It encompasses more than just an arbitrary number of points you may be focused on, but yes, the points you are focused on will be part of the total set of points.

Well, this is why I say it must encompass more than just the points you are focused on. I don’t think we should be calling a pentagon a circle just because we are only focusing on five points that happen to be equidistant from some center point and each of their immediate neighbors.

Pretending?

Well, first of all, that was a joke. Second, this point is reminiscent to Ur’s point that we must exercise our rational thinking skill by trying to resolve (and come to consensus on) the problem of whether circles are made of lines or not, to which I responded: why that problem? Why not the problem of cause and responsibility itself? Kill two birds with one stone?

But then again, do people really learn anything about how to think rationally in these kinds of debates? Or do they just learn how to defend their erroneous (or roneous) views better, using whatever sophistical tricks they can?

He may just have to paint a picture.

Theories are mathematical models and so are only representations of how the universe works. The only thing that represents exactly how the
universe works is the universe itself. But that is not very practical as a model which is why other means have to be used instead. Because the
model is not perfect the map should never be mistaken for the terrain. One might be a representation of the other but they are not the same

Theories cannot be representations of “how the universe works” because “how the universe works” is a meaningless phrase.

As I’ve said earlier, you cannot imitate, approximate or represent what the word refers to if the word does not refer to anything.

We can approximate zombies because we know what zombies are i.e. it’s a very well defined word even though we never observed zombies, real zombies, in real life.
This is NOT the case with “how the universe works”.

So basically, you are running in circles.

He is allowed and is in fact encouraged to use words but not meaningless words i.e. words that do not refer to something that can be experienced. This is a forum after all. We can only use words. But that does not mean there is no difference between meaningful and meaningless words and that anyone can use words any way they want.

How can we experience how the universe works?
We can’t.

People are protective of meaningless words and phrases merely because they are used to them i.e. because their bad habits are too strong.

How can you test (i.e. verify or falsify) that any point (that you can pick) that is at a certain distance D away from some fixed point C is on the boundary of the shape?

But in order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must focus on a finite number of points. Otherwise, you cannot determine whether any given shape is a circle or not because you would be testing an infinite number of points which means you would be running your test infinitely i.e. forever. You will never be able to complete it.

That’s what we do in practice but not exactly in the manner that you describe here. We focus on a larger number of points. Five isn’t enough. This is why a pentagon is not perceived as a circle but a hectogon is. Roughly speaking, we are checking at least 50 points on the boundary of the shape before deciding whether it is a circle or not.

Yes. In other words, you are dishonest.

You can pick any problem you want. If one does not work then you can pick another.