MR> MR>> Even if 100% of events I have observed have been "caused" by
MR> MR>> different events (something I would not normally agree with),
MR> MR>> does not mean that all events not observed were "caused".  Dunno
MR> MR>> if anyone was trying to make argument about this but thought I'd
MR> MR>> say it just in case.  Might as well note that even though a
MR> MR>> certain event may have had a cause attributed to it by some
MR> MR>> observer, such a claim of causality does not accurately describe
MR> MR>> "real" Universe. [.......]
MR> TH> What things have happened that do not have a cause?
MR>To be honest, I cannot say with certainty that _any_ event has not had a 
caus
MR>Nor can I say with certainty that any event _has_ had a cause.  I can say 
wit
MR>some confidence that most recent observed events have had causes 
_attributed_
MR>to them by observers (and others who heard of the events).
MR>I refer you to one of my favorite philosophers, David Hume.
I apologize for the fact that I cannot provide provenance for this story,
but here goes.
Mr Hume held a gathering of like-minded philosophers at his home.
They drank and smoked and generally agreed that one cannot directly
know reality and therefore reality may have no traits independent
of the observer, etc., etc.  And then they all went home.
In retrospect, Mr Hume observed that not a single one of them
believed a single word of what he'd said.  Evidence: they all
left by the door, not the window.
 * SLMR 2.1a * .    Wisdom consists in knowing when to avoid perfection.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------