From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 22:28:08 MST
Chris writes
> Lee wrote, in a public message directed to John Clark:
> > Do you at all remember your 1996 contention that is the
> > subject of this email? You and I had a long drawn out
> > argument about that, and I ended up admitting, after about
> > twenty emails, that you were right.
>
> Hmmm. I believe that 'A causes B' *implies* 'A always comes before B',
> but not that the first "means the same as" the other. Which of these
> did you intend?
I did mean "means the same as"! Indeed, that for A to *always*
come before B means precisely that A causes B.
> The sound of the power coming on always precedes my monitor displaying
> pixels. I deny that they have any causative relationship.
Since J.C. brainwashed me, I have since been able to see clearly
that for them not to have a causative relationship means that it
is possible to have the sound of the power coming on and not have
the monitor displaying pixels. Hence, yes, A in this case does
not cause B.
Being a devout follower of J.C. in this case, (though hardly a
worshipper), I see that A can be arranged to occur without B
in precisely those cases where A does not cause B. Hence A
causes B means A always precedes B.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:15 MST