"...'causality' is the
set of necessary relations which occur in the external
world."
What would you
deem "unnecessary" in the natural world? There is a 'set' of necessary
conditions only for a model to occur. Our select 'goals' don't identify the
natural process.
Then again
"external world"? you probably mean 'ambience' which includes ourselves,
especially if considering 2-way affecting. (In some posts I, too, was
negligeant in this).
"the
ambience is not entirely arbitrary or whimsical; there are relations (e.g.,
causal relations) manifest in the world of phenomena)" [LI p.
58].
Is your quote
not edited? I would rather read "entirely not" for the 'not entirely'.
Are these
(ambience
related, ie. wholistic) 'causal relations' - as we spoke here:
'entailment -relations'? unless the 2 words are interchangeable. Did RR
differentiate between them? The "e.g." allows for both versions.
The "world of
phenomena" refers to our observational model, separating the stuff within
our epistemicly
so far disclosed knowledge-base from the still undiscovered. Unless you
read into 'phenomena' the (so far) unobserved as well. You see. every word
implies some mental direction, we have to agree on the meanings to have a
mutual plattform. Think of HP who explained some words differently. I don't
hold "my way" as the truth, I'll change it whenever I get a "better way" - not
in form of a personal opinion, but logically (acceptably for me) supported.
It is so easy
to use multi-meaning words into long sentences to press a point. I think with
much less time and effort spent so far on wordly misunderstandings (and
aggrevations) we could have already compose a RR-glossary to clear the
meanings at least for ourselves.
I was so glad
to detect and settle in my mind "entailment" as consequence, (not restricted
to modeling limitations) and now I see a lot of complications into it.
Thanks for
replying
John