Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Post History
Consider the following claim: In any causal relationship X -> Y, it is always possible to find an intermediate effect A such that X -> A -> Y. This is a claim about nature, not our c...
#3: Post edited
by
Peter Taylor
·
2024-03-27T15:44:59Z (about 2 months ago)
This must have been a typo because otherwise it's not an example of the title
Can you always interpose an intermediate effect into any causal chain?
- Consider the following claim:
- >In any causal relationship X -> Y, it is always possible to find an intermediate effect A such that X -> A -> Y.
This is a claim about nature, not our currently available scientific theory about it. So for example even if current physics claims a neutron decays directly into a proton, my claim would imply that the proton decays into some third particle, which is unknown to science and undetected by the experiments done thus far, and this particle decays into a proton. It would also imply an infinite regress with yet more particles decaying into each other. Note, I am talking of "effects" - so the intermediates need not be particles, but could be some other phenomena that is beyond our current understanding, but is able to mediate causality.- This reminds me of Zeno's paradox about dichotomy, where to walk across the room you must first walk half way across, but first half of that, etc. Except we are inserting intermediate links into a causal chain, instead of walking.
- Are there any rigorous arguments that try to demonstrate this claim is true or false? I'm sure it's tempting to provide an original answer, but I am mostly curious about published literature.
- Consider the following claim:
- >In any causal relationship X -> Y, it is always possible to find an intermediate effect A such that X -> A -> Y.
- This is a claim about nature, not our currently available scientific theory about it. So for example even if current physics claims a neutron decays directly into a proton, my claim would imply that the neutron decays into some third particle, which is unknown to science and undetected by the experiments done thus far, and this particle decays into a proton. It would also imply an infinite regress with yet more particles decaying into each other. Note, I am talking of "effects" - so the intermediates need not be particles, but could be some other phenomena that is beyond our current understanding, but is able to mediate causality.
- This reminds me of Zeno's paradox about dichotomy, where to walk across the room you must first walk half way across, but first half of that, etc. Except we are inserting intermediate links into a causal chain, instead of walking.
- Are there any rigorous arguments that try to demonstrate this claim is true or false? I'm sure it's tempting to provide an original answer, but I am mostly curious about published literature.
#2: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2024-03-24T05:44:12Z (about 2 months ago)
- Consider the following claim:
- >In any causal relationship X -> Y, it is always possible to find an intermediate effect A such that X -> A -> Y.
This is a claim about nature, not our currently available scientific theory about it. So for example even if current physics claims a neutron decays directly into a proton, my claim would imply that the proton decays into some third particle, which is unknown to science and undetected by the experiments done thus far, and this particle decays into a proton. It would also imply an infinite regress with yet more particles decaying into each other.- This reminds me of Zeno's paradox about dichotomy, where to walk across the room you must first walk half way across, but first half of that, etc. Except we are inserting intermediate links into a causal chain, instead of walking.
- Are there any rigorous arguments that try to demonstrate this claim is true or false? I'm sure it's tempting to provide an original answer, but I am mostly curious about published literature.
- Consider the following claim:
- >In any causal relationship X -> Y, it is always possible to find an intermediate effect A such that X -> A -> Y.
- This is a claim about nature, not our currently available scientific theory about it. So for example even if current physics claims a neutron decays directly into a proton, my claim would imply that the proton decays into some third particle, which is unknown to science and undetected by the experiments done thus far, and this particle decays into a proton. It would also imply an infinite regress with yet more particles decaying into each other. Note, I am talking of "effects" - so the intermediates need not be particles, but could be some other phenomena that is beyond our current understanding, but is able to mediate causality.
- This reminds me of Zeno's paradox about dichotomy, where to walk across the room you must first walk half way across, but first half of that, etc. Except we are inserting intermediate links into a causal chain, instead of walking.
- Are there any rigorous arguments that try to demonstrate this claim is true or false? I'm sure it's tempting to provide an original answer, but I am mostly curious about published literature.
#1: Initial revision
by
matthewsnyder
·
2024-03-24T05:43:13Z (about 2 months ago)
Can you always interpose an intermediate effect into any causal chain?
Consider the following claim: >In any causal relationship X -> Y, it is always possible to find an intermediate effect A such that X -> A -> Y. This is a claim about nature, not our currently available scientific theory about it. So for example even if current physics claims a neutron decays directly into a proton, my claim would imply that the proton decays into some third particle, which is unknown to science and undetected by the experiments done thus far, and this particle decays into a proton. It would also imply an infinite regress with yet more particles decaying into each other. This reminds me of Zeno's paradox about dichotomy, where to walk across the room you must first walk half way across, but first half of that, etc. Except we are inserting intermediate links into a causal chain, instead of walking. Are there any rigorous arguments that try to demonstrate this claim is true or false? I'm sure it's tempting to provide an original answer, but I am mostly curious about published literature.