You do address my point. This comment helped too. I think I understand better what you’re getting at now. I think you are trying to explain how attempting to trace causation back with the precision of chaos theory is impossible in complex real world situations of limited information and that an alternative definition of causation is necessary to handle such contexts. Such contexts constitute the majority of practical experience.
I no longer believe your argument would selfdestruct if you included a rigorous definition of causality. I understand now that your argument does not depend on human intentionality. Neither is it wrong.
You do address my point. This comment helped too. I think I understand better what you’re getting at now. I think you are trying to explain how attempting to trace causation back with the precision of chaos theory is impossible in complex real world situations of limited information and that an alternative definition of causation is necessary to handle such contexts. Such contexts constitute the majority of practical experience.
I no longer believe your argument would selfdestruct if you included a rigorous definition of causality. I understand now that your argument does not depend on human intentionality. Neither is it wrong.
whow, some Bayesian updating there—impressive! :)