(January 17, 2022 at 11:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(January 17, 2022 at 9:45 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Okay. Then explain to me how we know that ice cream trucks don't cause drownings?
Well, what is the data that suggests that they do? How localized is the correlation? How good is the correlation? Does it work at the level of individual ice cream trucks? How far away are the drownings and the trucks?
More specifically, suppose that I hypothesize that ice cream trucks cause drownings, what sort of data would e that hypothesis? And have we collected data in that context?
How does any of that matter? Every summer drownings correlate with ice cream trucks being in the neighborhood. It being local or not is irrelevant because the speed of light need not be violated by the causative effect of ice cream trucks. QM postulates statistical effects so the idea that ice cream trucks correlates with drownings need not occur at the individual level. Additionally, that assumes that 100% of drownings are caused by ice cream trucks and that there is no delay, fixed or random, in the mechanism. It hypothesizes exactly what we see, a rise in frequency of nearby ice cream trucks correlating to a rise in drownings. The fact is things correlate with other things regardless of how near or far, aggregate or individual, or any of this other crap. You're trying to add other factors on top of correlation as being necessary to establish causation, but your prior argument doesn't allow for that. Your Humean skepticism has led you to a dead-end in which you can't rule out anything as a cause of anything else. I just burped. Somewhere in the world, somebody fell off a building. And according to you, I caused that, because my burp correlated with them falling off a building.