Please feel free to be more specific. Causality as a consequence of Newtonian mechanics or Special or General Relativity is not an explanation in itself, but just that a consequence. It is also a (mostly valid) observation.
On the second thought, this is turning to be a dialog, which is more appropriate for a chat room, than for a public forum, so I will stop here.
We seem to have fans so I’ll trying to go into it later today. But you and anyone else interested in scientific explanation should start by reading or at least browsing the SEP article.
And that is where we disagree. To me, without a better predictive power explaining is just a feel-good exercise and has little to do with science.
You think causality is just a feel-good exercise and has little to do with science?
Please feel free to be more specific. Causality as a consequence of Newtonian mechanics or Special or General Relativity is not an explanation in itself, but just that a consequence. It is also a (mostly valid) observation.
On the second thought, this is turning to be a dialog, which is more appropriate for a chat room, than for a public forum, so I will stop here.
If this string of comments is much upvoted, then it would certainly be appropriate for here, despite there being only two people in the discussion.
I have to say this discussion has me intrigued. Feel free to post the results of the discussion here. I am interested in hearing how it all turns out.
We seem to have fans so I’ll trying to go into it later today. But you and anyone else interested in scientific explanation should start by reading or at least browsing the SEP article.