well, its not just P(B|A),
its P(B|that u have set A by urself)
the key word is set/manipulate: otherwise u end up with stupid crap like the price of tea in china causes me to explode a lot or something.
but yes, now that u mention it, u r correct and astute, A causes ~A, meaning "setting the variable A has a causal effect on the variable defined as the opposite of A". I was incorrectly interpretting that as "A being true causes A to not be true" which is probably why my brane kept throwing type error at me (but i was ignoring it because i live in dynamic world i thot).
the first quote is tautological (just deductive logic) but the second is impossible (i mean jesus buddha! not even deductive constructive logic makes me tolerate A => ~A). u were probably thinking of the tautological one the whole time and were like "man why dosnt proxy stop being a stup!" but i just kept being a stup haha
of course theres a lot of definitions of 'cause', and each of them sucks in its own way. this one sucks bacause you have to imagine manipulating things that would be difficult or even impossible to manipulate in the real world--like to say the movement of the moon causes tides, jesus, i dont have funding 4 that kind of manip!! "stop wasting all my tax dollars on space mass drivers to change the moons orbit 2 prove ur dum liberal causal ideaz!" thats what rush limbaugh wold say if he were posting here i gues |
