Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The first question depends on what you mean by the word “exist”. The category of existence is very often used thoughtlessly and with gross errors.
For the second question, no. Many times in the history of philosophy, starting with Sextus Empiricus, Guo Xiang and Nagarjuna, ending with Hume and the neo-positivists of the twentieth century, it has been shown that causality is a self-contradictory representation that is an ingrained habit or even a necessary a priori form of our thinking. Modern science uses correlations.
In a world where there are no causal relationships, there will be no evidence and no thinking, there is simply no one to ask the question and no one to answer it. In this world, your question has no meaning. This is not a proof in the usual sense, it is an indication that it is impossible to think consistently of either such a world or oneself in it.
Causality is the basis of our thinking. A person records cause-and-effect relationships from the dynamism, variability, and processality of being. Even if they are not an objective property of the world, it is obviously useless for us to speculate on this topic.
On the eve of returning from training, you accidentally heard that rain is expected tomorrow. In the morning before work, you were told on TV that the weather was going to get worse. But you didn't bring an umbrella, so you were soaked to the skin. Do not talk about the fact that the universe did not warn you about the upcoming action. Exaggerated. Answer to the question.
This is a divine law.
The well-known but little-understood “law of karma “is the law of cause — and-effect relations in the formation of destinies (the essence of errors in its understanding is as follows: this is not a” mechanically “operating” principle”, but a manifestation of God's concern for the development of embodied people).
God continues to take care of us — until the “end of the world” — constantly reminding us of Himself through His Messiahs and prophets, through the holy books. It also shows us what it's like to be evil, deceitful, mean, lovers of other people's goods-it shows us people-criminals, ferocious animals… Through this, he wants to explain to us what it means to be in pain, fear, anger, and being robbed… “to teach you not to do it to others.” People call this the “law of karma” — the law of cause-and-effect relationships in our destinies. According to this principle, He will “beat” us until we are cleansed of our vices, until we become what He wants us to be — gentle, caring, altruistic, absolutely honest, without importance and arrogance, not capable of anger, violence. Violence-except to protect other people's good from someone else's evil violence.
Yes and yes. First, you forgot to define these causal relationships. Therefore, I have every right to define them as you like. �And prove it… more precisely, first prove it for any definition, and then I will offer this definition. �I illustrate.
I will determine causal relationships statistically.
PSS = (a=>b),� where event b follows event a in time.
That is, the causal relationship a=>b.
I will call a weak causal relationship one where the probability of its “triggering” is from 50% to 90%. And I will call a strong causal relationship one that “works” with a probability higher than 90%.
Give examples, keep statistics – and you will prove that in our world both weak and strong causal relationships really exist.