[extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;)

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 25 09:22:00 UTC 2005



--- Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Well, I think the Bayesian framework is definitely
> on the right track but seriously incomplete.  You
> see, I think *physics* causality is *not* the only
> kind of causality there is!  I've reached the
> conclusion that there are in fact 
> *three different kinds* of causality, and the
> current Bayesian framework only deals with ONE of
> them (the physics kind).  So if I'm right there are
> really three different Bayesian frameworks.  And no
> one has the faintest idea what the other two consist
> of.  

Marc, please explain why you think there are three
kinds of causality. As far as I know, even the
"physics causality" you speak of is contentious in
that temporal ordering of events is dependent on ones
inertial frame of reference in relativity. On the
other end of the scale, there are experiments that
seem to violate causality in quantum mechanics (e.g. ,
EPR paradox, quantum erasure, etc). In light of this,
on what basis do you contend that not only is standard
causality real but that there are two other kinds?
After all any number of angels can be conjectured to
dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn, yet without
proof of angels or unicorns, the conjecture is
baseless. 



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list