Example of Indeterminism?

This is a thought I've tossed around other forums, but would like to pose here.

Indeterminism: A doctrine that holds events are not wholly the result of antecedental cause.

Sufficient causation.

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. (However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.)

Then I thought of a car accident.

Driver A enters a 4 way intersection on green. "X1"

Distracted Driver B runs red light. "X2"

Collision in intersection "Y" for both.

Did anything Driver A do cause Y apart from entering an intersection on green?

Same for Driver B.

My question is this an example (from Driver A's perspective) of "Z" causing "Y"?

Does it all come down to a police like establishment of fault?

I'm seeing how the situation translates from a certain perspective, but it think driver B is the 'Y' is this scenario. A merely proceeded is a normal action, and could be interchanged for a C, D or E transiting the X1 point, but B transiting X2 against the signal would seem to be 'X', the necessary variable to prove the question.

a reply to: DefaultNamesake83

The fault lies with the Thote folding the 5thspace by using dimensional sleight of hand, i.e; by distracting driver B's Eitelator to increase the Phentapor Telact.

Obviously.

a reply to: chr0naut

I thought it was the Melange?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: chr0naut

I thought it was the Melange?

Nah, they haven't had a hit since the sixties.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I doubt A or B had the potential nor dedication to become a Navigator.
Besides, a Navigator would never have allowed the collision to occur, much less a pair of them.

a reply to: DefaultNamesake83

Your example is incorrect, I fear.

Neither X1 or X2 is a sufficient cause of Y.

a reply to: DefaultNamesake83

I blame timing because had drivers A and B (either/or/both) altered their timing, then 'Y' would not exist between them that is, however, down the line, another 'Y' might be experienced, or not. So the timing of motion is the cause of probability/chance, or no 'Y' or an alternate 'Y'.

a reply to: DefaultNamesake83

Driver a does not cause driver b to enter the intersection thus driver a does not cause the collision y. The causation is totally the fault of driver b and his not paying attention. I'm guessing you are driver b.

originally posted by: DefaultNamesake83
This is a thought I've tossed around other forums, but would like to pose here.

Indeterminism: A doctrine that holds events are not wholly the result of antecedental cause.

Sufficient causation.

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. (However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.)

Then I thought of a car accident.

Driver A enters a 4 way intersection on green. "X1"

Distracted Driver B runs red light. "X2"

Collision in intersection "Y" for both.

Did anything Driver A do cause Y apart from entering an intersection on green?

Same for Driver B.

My question is this an example (from Driver A's perspective) of "Z" causing "Y"?

Does it all come down to a police like establishment of fault?

Yes. If you have three cars A, B and C at an interestion, where B is at the line of a give way sign, C is travelling on a straight line on the other road from the right, and A wants to overtake B. Then both drivers A and C will have different blind spots caused by B.

If A drives past the left of B, with the intention of going straight across, then C won't see A until the last minute. Similarly A won't see C until the minute, and so there is a side on collision.

At the court case, it will be C saying that A "came out of nowhere right into the middle of my path". A will say that "C should have seen me overtaking B and slowed down".

The blame will go on A for trying to overtake at a junction when his vision is obscured.

If there is a belief in the big bang then it was the big bang that caused everything to be the way it is.
There is always the assumption that one particular thing causes something to happen - but it is not true. Nothing is causing anything to happen - or everything is causing everything to happen.
But blame and guilt would vanish if this was understood to be the truth.

Everything is in freefall.

a reply to: DefaultNamesake83

I have absolutely no clue what you are saying.

Yes, cause and effect exist. In the above situation, the lack of self-regulation i.e. relational presence, in person B, is the cause of the accident, and, if a camera catches the event, will be evidence used in court.