What's the difference between causation and correlation?

@Satan phil,

Perhaps we should drop the term "physical necessity", as the word "necessity" suggests some kind of absoluteness which is lacking here. Instead we could use some term such as "physical obligation". The only "necessity" would then be logical necessity, which would simplify matters.

@Satan phil,

I really do think correlation implies causation. But correlation does not denote causation. There's a difference.

@Satan phil,

Satan wrote:

We know some things are logically impossible i.e. contradictions but what things are physically impossible? How do you tell the difference between something that never happens and something that is physically impossible? How do you even know there is a difference?

Things that are physically impossible are things that never happen.

Quote:

Just because somethings never happen doesn't mean they can't happen. Sure, we have never seen a block of ice turn into a giraffe and may never see that but that doesn't give us justification for saying that such things can't happen. How could it?

Yes, it absolutely does give us justification for not believing ice will turn into a giraffe. What do you mean, "How could it"?

Quote:

How does that explain why you should have pennies instead of diamonds? All we know is that we have never seen such things happen.

No one can or need explain why there are pennies instead of diamonds. The evidence that the pennies won't randomly transform into diamonds is based on our a posteriori knowledge. That is all the justification we need, and should need.

You cannot deny physical necessity anymore or any less than we can, because you know that in ten seconds a unicorn will not appear beside you. It seems you're playing Devil's Advocate in order to have someone explain to you what you were seeking earlier:

Satan wrote:

All this describes what happens perfectly fine but I don't understand why any of these things happen rather than say, exploding into a mist of confetti.

We call it physically necessity because the knowledge we've acquired from past experience leads us to believe some things are impossible. Our experience and intersubjective agreement (based on other people's experiences) is our justification. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this, or why you are continuing the conversation. It seems you're looking for us to provide some reason that physical necessity exists, when the very thought of it not existing is irrational. It's irrational to everyone in this discussion, including you.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74946 wrote:

Things that are physically impossible are things that never happen.

So, if there never exists a river of cola then a river of cola is physically impossible?

@Satan phil,

Satan;74951 wrote:

So, if there never exists a river of cola then a river of cola is physically impossible?

When we say "never happen" we are saying "can never happen". And much of this, like I mentioned, is based on our a posteriori knowledge. So let me revise my sentence for your clarification: Things that are physically impossible are things that can never happen.

The fact that we can construct a river of cola means that it's not physically impossible; it can happen.

Do you desire a list of all things which are physically impossible?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74955 wrote:

When we say "never happen" we are saying "can never happen". And this, like I mentioned, is based on our a posteriori knowledge. So let me revise my sentence for your clarification: Things that are physically impossible are things that can never happen.

The fact that we can construct a river of cola means that it's not physically impossible; it can happen.

Do you desire a list of all things which are physically impossible?

No, what I would like is a description of how you are able to tell the difference between things that "never happen" and things that "can never happen". They look exactly alike to me. :perplexed:

Both of them "never happen".

@Satan phil,

Satan;74956 wrote:

No, what I would like is a description of how you are able to tell the difference between things that "never happen" and things that "can never happen". They look exactly alike to me. :perplexed:

Both of them "never happen".

The difference you already understand.

Humans don't usually build rivers that are made out of cola. So, we could say, "That would never happen!", which I believe would be classified as a figure of speech. However, we should understand that it can happen, because we are versed in the ingredients of cola, and we know this liquid could be used to construct a river, however small.

What comes before "never happens" denotes it's usage, generally.

Is there anything else you're not understanding?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74958 wrote:

Is there anything else you're not understanding?

Yes, all of what you're saying. Please describe the exact method you use for distinguishing between things that "never happen" and things that "can never happen". Both of them "never happen" so that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Since all we can establish by observation is that things "never happen" the leap to "can never happen" must not be through evidenced based reasoning.

@Satan phil,

Satan;74959 wrote:

Yes, all of what you're saying. Please describe the exact method you use for distinguishing between things that "never happen" and things that "can never happen". Both of them "never happen" so that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Since all we can establish by observation is that things "never happen" the leap to "can never happen" must not be through evidenced based reasoning.

No, by evidenced based reasoning we can establish what can never happen. Remember induction? We have evidence for believing certain things will never happen based on experience, and we are justified for believing in such.

If you disagree with this, I don't know how to articulate the idea further.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74960 wrote:

Remember induction?

We've already covered this. Belief in induction is based on convention not rationality. Read Hume.

@Satan phil,

Satan;74961 wrote:

We've already covered this. Belief in induction is based on convention not rationality. Read Hume.

Yes, we have covered this, and I noted many times that I understand Hume's point about the flaw of induction. That went on for pages.

I, and others, have tried to explain to you how induction can allow justification, though. You don't agree with this. So, we've established that you don't believe we have ability to ascertain what can never happen; you don't believe we have justification. And I, kennethamy, and others, believe we do. I understand you, and I think you understand us.

I'm trying to think of new ways to continue this discussion, but I'm at a loss. We're just reiterating what we've been saying for the past 15 pages. Hopefully someone else can chime in and point out some way we can communicate further.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74965 wrote:

So, we've established that you don't believe we have ability to ascertain what can never happen; you don't believe we have justification. And I, kennethamy, and others, believe we do.

You have no rational reason for your beliefs. You have no evidence.

@Satan phil,

Satan;74969 wrote:

You have no rational reason for your beliefs. You have no evidence.

I consider inductive reasoning to be reasoning, despite the normative influence you noted. Therefore, I consider my beliefs to be rational* (they are reasoned). And I believe consensus on experiential knowledge is evidence enough.

*Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"having sound judgment and practical implementation"

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;74972 wrote:

I consider inductive reasoning to be reasoning, despite the normative influence you noted. Therefore, I consider my beliefs to be rational* (they are reasoned).

*Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"having sound judgment and practical implementation"

Belief without evidence. I would call that a faith-based position.

It's also a red herring since induction does not equal physical necessity.

@Satan phil,

Satan wrote:

Belief without evidence. I would call that a faith-based position.

I consider myself having evidence. (Check the edit to my last post)

Quote:

It's also a red herring since induction does not equal physical necessity.

You love to throw out those logical fallacies. This was not a red herring, as it was not a deliberate attempt to divert the argument. I have repeatedly attempted to clarify and work with you, so for you to accuse me of attempting to divert the argument is a bit insulting.

If I understood your definition of "physical necessity" correctly, "physical necessity" can be ascertained by induction. Prior experience allows us to deem what things can happen and what things can never happen. And, of course, some things we just conventionally believe to be possible or impossible without actually experiencing, as you've already noted. For instance, even if we've never had a penny in our pocket before, we could still infer a penny would never randomly transform into a diamond. This is reasonable, in my opinion; I consider this to be a rational conclusion.

@Zetherin,

I apologize if you're insulted but that's not my attention. I am a bit frustrated that it seems you're taking us back to the very beginning of this debate all over again but very well...

Zetherin;74975 wrote:

Prior experience allows us to deem what things can happen and what things can never happen.

No, even if you assume induction works, it only allows us to predict what will and what will not happen. There is no way that any observation can distinguish between "doesn't" and "can't". Honestly, think about how you would test for that. It's not conceptually possible to me. I can't even conceive of a test like that.

@Satan phil,

Satan wrote:

I am a bit frustrated that it seems you're taking us back to the very beginning of this debate all over again but very well...

We've been back at the very beginning of this discussion (I wouldn't really call this a "debate") the entire time, we just covered the latter notions up with reiteration. You still disagree with everyone concerning the very same point, and throughout the discussion we all just tried differing ways to articulate the same thoughts.

Quote:

No, even if you assume induction works, it only allows us to predict what will and what will not happen. There is no way that any observation can distinguish between "doesn't" and "can't". Honestly, think about how you would test for that. It's not conceptually possible to me. I can't even conceive of a test like that.

Physical laws are generalizations based on empirical observation. Those physical behaviors we observe we deem to be possible, and those physical behaviors which contradict our physical laws, we deem to be impossible (can never happen). We have justification for believing these laws because we have never experienced otherwise. I believe the culmination of our experiences, in addition to the intersubjective agreement of everyone else's experiences, is evidence enough, as noted.

You disagree, and you believe my stance is faith-based and without evidence. Ok, I'm at a loss as to where to go next.

@nameless,

nameless;74716 wrote:

'Causality' is thought interpreting the direct perception of (a linearly, sequentially perceived) 'correlation/context'/pattern...!

Oops, I hit the wrong button.
Please, continue...
*__-

(QFT!)

@Satan phil,

Satan;74961 wrote:

Belief in induction is based on convention not rationality. Read Hume.

So, do you regard induction as a fallacy? (I don't just mean a logical fallacy; I mean a fallacy, period. In the sense of being plain wrong.)

If you believe it is a fallacy, why do you use induction in your everyday life? If you reply "Because I must in order to survive", consider why this is so. The belief that induction is unjustified but that it nevertheless "works" seems like a contradiction to me.

You say induction is based on "convention". Well, so is eating your main course with a knife and fork, or celebrating with champagne. If you think there's no good reason for these things, and prefer to eat with a spoon (at least when alone) or celebrate with gin, then you go ahead and do so. So if induction is based purely on convention, why can't you just give it up?

@ACB,

ACB;75099 wrote:

So, do you regard induction as a fallacy? (I don't just mean a logical fallacy; I mean a fallacy, period. In the sense of being plain wrong.)

No, it's merely a logical fallacy.

Values of right and wrong are not truth evaluable as there is always some sort of subjective emotional component.

Philosophy Forum

What's the difference between causation and correlation?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know