3 ms·

To be pedantic, it's more that there isn't enough data to even say that there's any correlation to begin with, and also that our understanding of the origin of

To be pedantic, it's more that there isn't enough data to even say that there's any correlation to begin with, and also that our understanding of the origin of the two quakes refutes a shared cause. A usage note: the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" is usually reserved for the case where two variables A and B have a correlation in the data that isn't just due to sampling accident, and hence are causally connected, but just not in the naive sense of A causing B. It may be that B causes A or that a third variable C causes both. But a true correlation in the underlying process always has some causal explanation.

dogruck 9y ago
That's false, unless you assert the lack of free will.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  Are you talking about the social concept / illusion of "free will", or actual free will? Because actual free will clearly cannot exist. Either your actions are fully dictated by physics and your prior state (meaning know free choice), or your actions are influenced by randomness meaning random choice (but again not free choice). I do agree that the societal illusion of free-will along with associating legal consequences to actions is the only way we can have a functioning society.
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    I think it is somewhat of a grey area if you are free to influence the world, but your choices reflect your preferences. I think it is better to argue about whether consciousness has causal power, since that is semantically clearer.
  - biofox 9y ago
    Free will is a tricky subject. It certainly feels like I can deliberate and come to a free choice, by abstracting decisions from my immediate and prior influences. I have previously tried to come to terms with not having free will, and it left me feeling stripped of any agency / control, utterly depressed, demotivated, and incapable of doing anything. If there is no reason for my actions, other than the initial state of the universe evolving forward in time, then there is no point to anything. Most people can't live like that. Could there be an alternative explanation, based on unknown physics; selecting between different permissible universes? I heard an argument from Terence McKenna that I liked, along the lines of: You should choose to believe in free will, because it appears that we have it. If you choose to believe in it, and it doesn't exist, then you had no choice but to believe in it anyway.
    - nur0n 9y ago
      I think the phrase 'You can do what you will. But you can't will what you will.' is the correct perspective. People are repulsed by the idea of having no free will because of their biology; meaning seems to be what drives our conscious thought. I think Terence's argument can be made simpler: You don't have the free will to choose whether the absence of free will bother you. That being said, I hope this argument nudges you in a better direction: Trying to 'will what you will' only leads to pointless frustration(you can't change the laws of the universe). Accept this, and allow yourself to 'do what you will'. Somehow, we have the power to do this. Give up on free will; the rest of the universe doesn't seem to be bothered over it. Best of luck, fellow lifeform.
  - prmph 9y ago
    But that is a fallacy of excluding the middle; your point feels intuitively true, but is not necessarily the case It is possible for something to not be simply and entirely caused by a prior state, and yet not be random Understanding this does require a kind of thinking that our brains find difficult, though
nonbel 9y ago
>"But a true correlation in the underlying process always has some causal explanation." In the vast majority of cases, A really is correlated with B to some extent. People have done this with large social science datasets since at least the 1960s, they find everything is correlated with everything else. So, whether a correlation merely exists is not interesting to begin with (there are some exceptions in physics where theory really predicts zero correlation). Yes, this means all the people currently plugging away at checking for the mere existence of correlations are wasting their time and (probably) taxpayer money.
- DavidSJ 9y ago
  True. A more useful phrase might be something like, "magnitude (and direction) of correlation may differ substantially from magnitude (and direction) of causation".

dogruck 9y ago

That's false, unless you assert the lack of free will.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
Are you talking about the social concept / illusion of "free will", or actual free will? Because actual free will clearly cannot exist. Either your actions are fully dictated by physics and your prior state (meaning know free choice), or your actions are influenced by randomness meaning random choice (but again not free choice). I do agree that the societal illusion of free-will along with associating legal consequences to actions is the only way we can have a functioning society.
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  I think it is somewhat of a grey area if you are free to influence the world, but your choices reflect your preferences. I think it is better to argue about whether consciousness has causal power, since that is semantically clearer.
- biofox 9y ago
  Free will is a tricky subject. It certainly feels like I can deliberate and come to a free choice, by abstracting decisions from my immediate and prior influences. I have previously tried to come to terms with not having free will, and it left me feeling stripped of any agency / control, utterly depressed, demotivated, and incapable of doing anything. If there is no reason for my actions, other than the initial state of the universe evolving forward in time, then there is no point to anything. Most people can't live like that. Could there be an alternative explanation, based on unknown physics; selecting between different permissible universes? I heard an argument from Terence McKenna that I liked, along the lines of: You should choose to believe in free will, because it appears that we have it. If you choose to believe in it, and it doesn't exist, then you had no choice but to believe in it anyway.
  - nur0n 9y ago
    I think the phrase 'You can do what you will. But you can't will what you will.' is the correct perspective. People are repulsed by the idea of having no free will because of their biology; meaning seems to be what drives our conscious thought. I think Terence's argument can be made simpler: You don't have the free will to choose whether the absence of free will bother you. That being said, I hope this argument nudges you in a better direction: Trying to 'will what you will' only leads to pointless frustration(you can't change the laws of the universe). Accept this, and allow yourself to 'do what you will'. Somehow, we have the power to do this. Give up on free will; the rest of the universe doesn't seem to be bothered over it. Best of luck, fellow lifeform.
- prmph 9y ago
  But that is a fallacy of excluding the middle; your point feels intuitively true, but is not necessarily the case It is possible for something to not be simply and entirely caused by a prior state, and yet not be random Understanding this does require a kind of thinking that our brains find difficult, though

nonbel 9y ago

>"But a true correlation in the underlying process always has some causal explanation." In the vast majority of cases, A really is correlated with B to some extent. People have done this with large social science datasets since at least the 1960s, they find everything is correlated with everything else. So, whether a correlation merely exists is not interesting to begin with (there are some exceptions in physics where theory really predicts zero correlation). Yes, this means all the people currently plugging away at checking for the mere existence of correlations are wasting their time and (probably) taxpayer money.

DavidSJ 9y ago
True. A more useful phrase might be something like, "magnitude (and direction) of correlation may differ substantially from magnitude (and direction) of causation".