>>81475324
oh, you're a different anon, and you're seething so hard that you aren't tracking argumentation properly and think i'm op
lmaoooooooo

>>81475298
you just said "you can measure what causes the first" but not the second, as if probabilistic events can't have causes. again you literally don't understand what probabilistic causation is, and you're treating probability like its magic instead of a model for incomplete knowledge

>"these are different ideas i'm referring to"
and no, this doesnt save you. youre using technical terms wrong and pretending its fine because you personally mean something else. absolute pseud behaviour. try reading ONE paper in your life