Can each event in the world be
-
attributed conditions under which it occurs (actually under coditions there’s possibility of occuring)
-
and
-
attributed this possibility/probability that this event will happen under those conditions? When event is caused by another it’s for sure ok. I think also that no matter how random and "strange" (e.g. quantum physics) the event looked like we’d still be able to assign this two things. For example even though there were completely random and "strange" events like some truly self-causing (just) flashes in part of galaxy it would still be possible to determine conditions (e.g. location range, temperature range, maybe frequency) under which these occur and attribute probability that this event will happen under those conditions (e.g. 85%). Can’t image any event that could not be put into those criteria since the borderline case would be 0 conditions and complete unpredictability (but above 0%). What do you think? (For me it sounds obvious and have tried to refute it and had read about it but I have still felt I needed some sort of social proof from LW community. Strange feeling.)
Well, the partitioning of time and space (or of experience, if you prefer) into "events" is already a modeling choice. The underlying reality seems not to care—it’s just a configuration of elementary particles which changes according to simple rules (but complicated state—there’s really quite a lot of it).So, yes, a modeler can attribute whatever they like to whatever they like. Depending on the fidelity of the model, they may even be able to predict future abstractions over configurations (or localized configurations) with a limited precision. Whether you call this "causality" or just "consistency" or "correlation" is up to you.
Your questions seem quite unclear to me. Does...
..mean that it can only occur under certain conditions, or it must occur given certain conditions, or it just happens to occur under certain conditions, without their being particularly relevant?
Comment
Hi TAG, thanks for the comment, I meant the first and ?third? one but I’m also sure if I understood you correctly. I meant that each observed event can be assigned some events/states etc. that had appeared before/ were happening parallel to the event and be assigned probability of happening this again. (Have you seen the content of my question? Title contained only my first thought for simplicity)
For the first one I think we can assign such conditions when there’s >= 0% chance of occuring and when it isn’t. So I’d say there are some particular conditions (>=0%) under which event *can only have a chance *to occur.
Surely I didn’t want my post to be interpreted that every event must occur given certain conditions.
I’m not sure of the third, but I think I resolved your question? I’ve changed my post accordingly.