jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote 

> > > Would you agree that objectivity implies objects, matter, and 
> > > entities that are measureable or potentially measureable (if 
> > > sometimes only in principle) and/or forces that are measureable 
> > > or potentially measureable?  

> > > Causation, therefore, can be simply defined as forces that are 
> > > produced by entities.  Do you agree?

> > > Effectuation, therefore, involves forces produced by causative 
> > > entities that change the position of the effected entity and/or 
> > > that changes the arrangement of particles that comprise an 
> > > effected entity?  Do you agree?

Josh, I think we're, mostly, in agreement with what I quoted 
above (I snipped liberally for emphasis).  Now the big 
questions:

Is chance an entity?

Is randomness an entity?

Is drift an entity? 

If the answer to these questions is no then, in the light of 
what I quoted above, what do you think of the common practice 
of refering to chance, randomness, and drift as being causal?

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/4/03 12:25:27 PM