I don’t know. I don’t understand pearl’s reduction of causality. I just know it’s there.
Mathematical relations like “hydrogen properties are dependent of electron mass” might not fit the causality concept. Or maybe I just can’t make the math jump.
Anyways, what are you gaining by these questions? Do you have some grand solution that you are making me jump thru hoops to find? Do you think I have some grand solution that you are jumping thru hoops to squeeze out of me?
Anyways, what are you gaining by these questions? Do you have some grand solution that you are making me jump thru hoops to find? Do you think I have some grand solution that you are jumping thru hoops to squeeze out of me?
I’m trying to show you that materialism in the sense you seem to mean here is ultimately incoherent.
You’ll have to explain your position. I can’t see it. To clarify what I think, take “me” as a node, and recursively build a causality graph (Pearl’s thing) of all the causes that lead into that node. By some theorem somewhere, that graph will be connected. Then label that graph “my map of the universe” and label it’s compressing model “physics”. That is what “materialism” means to me.
I’ve just realized, tho, that the rest of you might attach a different concept to “materialism”, but I don’t know what it is. Can you give me a steel-man (or a straw man (or a nonmaterial entity)) version of what “materialism” means to you?
To clarify what I think, take “me” as a node, and recursively build a causality graph (Pearl’s thing) of all the causes that lead into that node. By some theorem somewhere, that graph will be connected. Then label that graph “my map of the universe” and label it’s compressing model “physics”. That is what “materialism” means to me.
I think you are making a category error with respect to what Pearl’s theory actually does.
So how would I use this description of “effect” to taboo the word in the following sentence?
Or would you argue that the above sentence is incoherent.
It’s not incoherent.
I don’t know. I don’t understand pearl’s reduction of causality. I just know it’s there.
Mathematical relations like “hydrogen properties are dependent of electron mass” might not fit the causality concept. Or maybe I just can’t make the math jump.
Anyways, what are you gaining by these questions? Do you have some grand solution that you are making me jump thru hoops to find? Do you think I have some grand solution that you are jumping thru hoops to squeeze out of me?
I’m trying to show you that materialism in the sense you seem to mean here is ultimately incoherent.
You’ll have to explain your position. I can’t see it. To clarify what I think, take “me” as a node, and recursively build a causality graph (Pearl’s thing) of all the causes that lead into that node. By some theorem somewhere, that graph will be connected. Then label that graph “my map of the universe” and label it’s compressing model “physics”. That is what “materialism” means to me.
I’ve just realized, tho, that the rest of you might attach a different concept to “materialism”, but I don’t know what it is. Can you give me a steel-man (or a straw man (or a nonmaterial entity)) version of what “materialism” means to you?
I think you are making a category error with respect to what Pearl’s theory actually does.
care to expand? His bayesian networks stuff is for modelling causal relationships. Am I confused?
This comment by Argency explains what I mean by causality being incompatible with pure materialism.
I suspect you mean “affects.”