I Like this video, Mr. Cohen explained clearly and provided good examples, which are very helpful and easy to understand. Thank you so much. Asha Mehta
Hi Mousus929: I am not familiar with that typology of causal relationships. These labels are more familiar to me as general orientations towards theorizing (or metatheoretical paradigms). Where did you see this typology spelled out?
How to do criteria 2 and 3 without expert logic rules? For example, you have to know that warm weather causes both ice cream and more swimming then know that more swimming causes more drownings. What if you just had a bunch of variables that correlate to an output, how to rank by causality without detailed expert knowledge encoded?
Under those circumstances, I would treat that long list of correlated variables as potential causes, but not treat the correlation table itself as firm evidence affirming the existence of a causal relationship. You should not dismiss the value of seeing a correlation, but should treat is as a lead for further research, rather than a piece of proof that ends a research project.
Causality in Geometry, space-time and consciousness are united by causal set theory Existence is both mental and mathematical. In platonic physics, the mental is the domain of causal sets. One aspect of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason that once puzzled me is that according to the principle, things are as they are only because of a sufficient reason. This caused me to ask, "But isn't a Cause Agent required to bring things about ?" Now, I see that a separate Cause Agent is not required, or that Mind itself (the One) is its own cause agent (is self-causing), following a) Having discovered causal set theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets now used as the basis of a new theory of gravity. b) Having discovered a suggestion that a set owns or "controls" its objects, c) That in Plato-Leibniz, causation is mental , topdown from Plato's One (Mind) d) That there is no separate Cause Agent in Leibniz, not even God, a belief which is backed by Leibniz's denial of God's intervening in the operations of the universe (denying interventionism). e) That the mental, being subjective, in a sense implies that the mental, being First Person Singular, is its own Cause Agent. It is self-causing amd self-organizing. f) Having found that causal set theory, being set theory, has discrete objects as its subjects. This agrees with my discovery that since Plato's One or Mind is timeless and spaceless, time and space and the objects therein must be discrete points (mathematical points). This agrees with the account of causal sets given in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets "The causal sets programme is an approach to quantum gravity. Its founding principle is that spacetime is fundamentally discrete and that the spacetime events are related by a partial order. This partial order has the physical meaning of the causality relations between spacetime events. The programme is based on a theorem[1] by David Malament that states that if there is a bijective map between two past and future distinguishing spacetimes that preserves their causal structure then the map is a conformal isomorphism. The conformal factor that is left undetermined is related to the volume of regions in the spacetime. This volume factor can be recovered by specifying a volume element for each spacetime point. The volume of a spacetime region could then be found by counting the number of points in that region. Causal sets was initiated by Rafael Sorkin who continues to be the main proponent of the programme. He has coined the slogan "Order + Number = Geometry" to characterise the above argument. The programme provides a theory in which spacetime is fundamentally discrete while retaining local Lorentz invariance." Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
I Like this video, Mr. Cohen explained clearly and provided good examples, which are very helpful and easy to understand. Thank you so much. Asha Mehta
That was a good class, thank you, teacher!
Please, would you explain the types of causial relatioship, i.e. behaivoral, structural, constructictive, and radical relativist?
But how did it start? I mean, how did the very first cause came to be?
Unfortunately, those questions are out of my field of expertise. You'd have better luck with a philosopher, astrophysicist or theologian.
GOD✨
Hi Mousus929: I am not familiar with that typology of causal relationships. These labels are more familiar to me as general orientations towards theorizing (or metatheoretical paradigms). Where did you see this typology spelled out?
How to do criteria 2 and 3 without expert logic rules? For example, you have to know that warm weather causes both ice cream and more swimming then know that more swimming causes more drownings. What if you just had a bunch of variables that correlate to an output, how to rank by causality without detailed expert knowledge encoded?
Under those circumstances, I would treat that long list of correlated variables as potential causes, but not treat the correlation table itself as firm evidence affirming the existence of a causal relationship. You should not dismiss the value of seeing a correlation, but should treat is as a lead for further research, rather than a piece of proof that ends a research project.
This was awesome and funny (:
Causality in Geometry, space-time and consciousness are united by causal set theory
Existence is both mental and mathematical. In platonic physics, the mental is the domain of causal sets.
One aspect of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason that once puzzled me is that according to the principle, things are as they are only because of a sufficient reason. This caused me to ask, "But isn't a Cause Agent required to bring things about ?"
Now, I see that a separate Cause Agent is not required, or that Mind itself (the One) is its own cause agent (is self-causing), following
a) Having discovered causal set theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets now used as the basis of a new theory of gravity.
b) Having discovered a suggestion that a set owns or "controls" its objects,
c) That in Plato-Leibniz, causation is mental , topdown from Plato's One (Mind)
d) That there is no separate Cause Agent in Leibniz, not even God, a belief which is backed by Leibniz's denial of God's intervening in the operations of the universe (denying interventionism).
e) That the mental, being subjective, in a sense implies that the mental, being First Person Singular,
is its own Cause Agent. It is self-causing amd self-organizing.
f) Having found that causal set theory, being set theory, has discrete objects as its subjects. This agrees with my discovery that since Plato's One or Mind is timeless and spaceless, time and space and the objects therein must be discrete points (mathematical points).
This agrees with the account of causal sets given in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets
"The causal sets programme is an approach to quantum gravity. Its founding principle is that
spacetime is fundamentally discrete and that the spacetime events are related by a partial order.
This partial order has the physical meaning of the causality relations between spacetime events.
The programme is based on a theorem[1] by David Malament that states that if there is a bijective
map between two past and future distinguishing spacetimes that preserves their causal structure
then the map is a conformal isomorphism. The conformal factor that is left undetermined is related to the volume of regions in the spacetime. This volume factor can be recovered by specifying a volume element for each spacetime point. The volume of a spacetime region could then be found by counting the number of points in that region.
Causal sets was initiated by Rafael Sorkin who continues to be the main proponent of the programme.
He has coined the slogan "Order + Number = Geometry" to characterise the above argument. The
programme provides a theory in which spacetime is fundamentally discrete while retaining local
Lorentz invariance."
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Can be model like this
3Ivs .....Moderator....Dv
thank you :)
hahaha, not your fault but the many subtitiles errors are so funny. Especially the ones at 6:54 and 7:09
+Elaine Sook Tin Chin Oh no! I saw them for the first time!