>>81475367

I don't know why people keep trying to make the point that I think that "having no cause" means I think that when someone says this plane has an 80% chance of not taking off due to an engine failure that I don't think the engine is real. It just means there is missing information or it'd be 100% or 0% chance. I don't think the plane is flying on magic. You don't think I think that either, if you tell me I think that you're lying. Obviously when I say probabilities have no cause (and this is the FOURTH time I am clarifying this HEY HELLO LOOK HERE->
>>81474809
>It's to fill in a literal lack of measurable phenomenon
>>81475095
>said measurable phenomenon, not just cause.
>>81475298
>when probably is invoked the cause isn't being measured is what I mean.)

I mean you aren't measuring whatever the cause is in the probabilistic equation.