Abstract
The statement jc is cause of is usually taken to mean one of two things either, in common-sense contexts, that occurrence of x is a jointly-sufficient condition x for occurrence of y, where x and y are distinct events (e.g. throwing of a stone and breaking of a window), or, in scientific contexts, that x and y both belong to a causal line 2 and x is antecedent to y, where x and y are states of some system undergoing continuous variation (e.g. position of moon yesterday and its position today). There is, it is true, something odd about saying the moon's being where it was yesterday is cause of its being where it is today, but this way of putting it is generally avoided by saying instead that moon obeys a causal law. Discussions of philosophy of physics tend to take latter meaning as paradigmatic; after all, form of expression of most physical laws is
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
