Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Quantum Causation
Message-ID: <911@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 19:26:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.911
Posted: Fri Jul 19 19:26:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 01:03:07 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <1148@pyuxd.UUCP> <405@spar.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Followup-To: net.philosophy
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 20
Keywords: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism

In article <405@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>	[...] It appears that causal explanations are possible only
>	if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. John Forge
>	seems to evade the issue by suggesting that "a causal process is one
>	which is governed by scientific laws (theories)" (1982). On this
>	account of causality, every QM process becomes causal by definition
>	simply because QM is a scientific theory. 
>
>    (from _Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World_
>     Wesley C. Salmon, Princton University Press, 1984.)

I don't think John Forge is "evading" the issue.  Quantum processes 
involve causation, all right; it is just that the causation is 
probabilistic rather than "deterministic".  It is not the case that
things happen entirely haphazardly.  The impact of one particle on 
another will influence it -- will *cause* it to do something -- even
though there are several possible effects.

Any objections?
				--Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink