From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 23:36:25 MST
Lee,
It seems you passed over my last message to you in this thread. Do you
consider this statement of mine below sufficient proof that event A does
not always cause event B even when A always precedes B?
"One cannot see the stars (event B) unless one first opens one's eyes
(event A), but
opening one's eyes does not cause one to see the stars. (i.e., A does
not cause B.)"
If you don't see this then I think you are suffering from a slight
illusion:
Given our incomplete knowledge of the universe, we cannot prove this
statement false:
"If event B always follows event A, then A causes B."
We can however prove this statement false:
"If event A always precedes event B, then A causes B."
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:15 MST