(May 8, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I don't have to conceive it, it would just mean that what appears to be causality isn't causality. My point is simply that causality itself isn't absolutely proven. David Hume demonstrated that: just because the sun has come up every single time doesn't mean there's any absolute proof that tomorrow it will. It is just simply ridiculous to believe that it won't and I of course believe causality exists.
There is an equivocation between "indeterminism" to mean the opposite of philosophical determinism and "indeterminism" to mean unpredictability. This whole "but quantum mechanics is indeterministic" thing is a red herring and a an equivocation, it's much more helpful to speak of "quantum unpredictability" rather than "quantum indeterminism" for that very reason: to avoid equivocation.
-Hammy
The world as we know it doesn't allow for the absence of causality, so you do have to conceive of non-causality if you're going to claim otherwise(which you can't, of course). Causality isn't meant to be proven, it's the one thing everything else is based on, we just take it as a given and build up from there. It's simply self-evident.
If that's how he demonstrated it then he was obviously wrong and that's a very bad example of causality to showcase its possible non-existence since we already know that the sun won't come up one day. But nevermind that, he set out to show that causality isn't necessarily there by pointing out that everything changes? If anything, that validates it, not throw a doubt on it.
Quantum whatever doesn't affect causality, only our understanding of it.
-Stop,you'rebeinggoofy
