agree or disagree...why?
2006-11-30 02:29:46 · 11 answers · asked by MORBO 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
causality, which demands that even the temporal meeting of two separate causal chains still has a cause. It would nullify the connectedness of things, the oneness of the universe.
2006-11-30 02:38:09 · update #1
A rather black & white kind of assertion.
Every choice one makes involves a level of chance due to variables seen and unseen. Here's a succinct and pithy example:
You're in a canoe going down the rapids. You place your paddle in the water (cause) and that forces you to change direction (effect). There's a huge boulder in the middle of the stream. If the water current increases, or, you underestimate your speed, there's a chance you may run into it.
All three work together with one's will to affect outcome.
2006-11-30 02:36:56 · answer #1 · answered by Finnegan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. Quantum physics has a component that is truly random and can be tapped as a source of randomness. However, just because a photon may either pass through or reflect from a 50% reflective barrier doesn't change the fact that the random option is causal to which of two sensors detects it.
2006-11-30 10:35:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
chance is the part of both cause and effect u can neither control nor predict. it is chance only when there is uncertainity, and uncertainity is a matter of knowledge.
it is an integral part of cause and effect from a human standpoint.
however if u take the universe as an entity with absolute knowledge to it there is no chance, as that entity knows the exact cause and effect with no uncertanity. (i am not refering to god)
thats assuming the quantam particle matters' behaviour is also included in the knowledge.
2006-11-30 10:41:33 · answer #3 · answered by implosion13 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cause and effect is a law of the universe, even from the first cause it was intended, so chance I agree.
2006-11-30 10:35:06 · answer #4 · answered by guidedlight 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. I've heard it said that luck is nothing but the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Therefore what may appear to be "chance" to us only appears so because we haven't perceived the cause or were not able to.
2006-11-30 10:46:09 · answer #5 · answered by s0n.0f.m4n 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
disagree! Because chance is the element which is part of cause and effect. By chance a cause occurs, because of which an effect can occur by chance.
For example: You hit the golf ball and cause it to fly. But by chance a wind can alter its direction!
2006-11-30 10:34:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it wouldnt and doesn't negate cause and effect...
chance describes probability, not an active causal agent.
2006-11-30 10:37:45 · answer #7 · answered by PandaMan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In reality, chance is superstition only.
2006-11-30 10:42:48 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If you really think about it, they are unrelated.
2006-11-30 10:33:00 · answer #9 · answered by DATA DROID 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do not play Monopoly, do you?
2006-11-30 10:33:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋