Why is causation so complicated?

Because there is no law in the hierarchy of time, for example, the object in your field of vision is fluid, but in the eyes of others it is nothing.

From a logical point of view, it is quite normal for many conditions to come together and come to a conclusion, but as long as the time factor is added and these conditions are put into reality, it is very easy to distinguish that "multiple causes" are in fact only one cause, and other superfluous factors are regarded as conditions. In fact, this is the same as the series switch and parallel switch on the circuit, one reason, multiple conditions.

The cause and effect relationship is very complex, the result is not complicated but the process is complex, and it is also very long, but we must learn to look at it correctly instead of worrying about it.

Although the theory of cause and effect is relatively easy to understand, the manifestation of cause and effect is complex, and it is not easy to see the relationship clearly, because it takes time to mature, that is, the karma, and the karma is sufficient.

The complexity of cause and effect is the complexity of the philosophical book, and when it comes to real life, complex problems are not so complicated if you look at them dialectically and simply. The so-called complexity is only the psychological realm of the individual.

Because Britain is related to yin and yang, their relationship will be very complicated, even if there is a little mistake, it is very difficult to learn there.

In general, I think that if the cause and effect relationship is so complicated, you can directly proceed from three aspects, which is very convenient.

Complex causality is usually not a single condition, for example, the cause of my study does not necessarily have to be the first result of the exam. It has a lot to do with individual differences, efficiency, and the learning environment.

Given that there are a lot of people asking in the comments, I summarize what I mean by the example: I use horses as an example to convey that it is difficult for us to have limited research. Here is the original answer --- here.

Causation is the effect of an event, process, state, or object (cause) that contributes to another event, process, state, or object (outcome).

The cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes, and these reasons are also known as its causal factors, all in its past. An outcome, in turn, can be the cause or causal factor of many other influences that are in its future.

Some writers believe that causality is a metaphysical concept that precedes time and space.

Causality is an abstraction that shows how the world develops, a concept so basic that it is more appropriate as an explanation of other concepts of development than by something other, more fundamental. The concept is like the concept of ** and efficacy. For this reason, it may take a leap of intuition to master it.

Thus, causality is implicit in the logic and structure of everyday language.

In the English study of Aristotelian philosophy, the word "cause" is used as a specialized technical term, a translation of Aristotle's terminology, which means "to explain" or "to answer the question of 'why'". Aristotle categorized the four types of answers as material, formal, valid, and ultimate "causes."

In this case, the "cause" is the explanatory term of the explanatory term, and the failure to recognize that the different kinds of "causes" being considered may lead to futile debates. Of Aristotle's four modes of interpretation, the one closest to the focus of this article is the "effective" model.

As part of his opposition to rationalism, David Hume argued that reason alone could not prove the truth of valid causality. Instead, he resorted to custom and mental habits, observing that all human knowledge comes entirely from experience.

The topic of causality remains a staple of contemporary philosophy.

ScienceFor the scientific study of effective causality, it is best to understand causality as a process that is short-lived.

Within the conceptual framework of the scientific method, the researchers set up several different and contrasting temporal transient material processes with experimental structures and recorded candidate substance reactions, often with the aim of determining causality in the physical world.

For example, one may wonder if a high intake of carrots can cause bubonic plague in humans. Carrot intake is a process that varies from occasion to occasion. Subsequent or no bubonic plague was recorded.

In order to establish a causal relationship, an experiment must meet certain criteria, and only one example is mentioned here. For example, an instance of a hypothetical cause must be set to assume that the impact is relatively unlikely to occur without a hypothetical cause; This possibility will be determined by empirical evidence. Observing correlation alone is not enough to establish causality.

In almost all cases, the establishment of causality relies on repeated experiments and probabilistic reasoning. Hardly there is a more firmly established causal relationship than a more or less probable causal relationship. Causality is most convenient if the opposing states of matter are precisely matched, except that there is only one variable factor, perhaps measured in real numbers.

Causality. The complexity of dialectical materialism.

It is believed that the diversity of connections between objective things determines the complexity of causal connections. The forms of causation in criminal law include the following:

1) One cause and one effect: This is the simplest form of causality. A harmful act directly or indirectly causes a harmful outcome. In judicial practice, this form of causal relationship is relatively easy to determine.

2) One cause and multiple effectsOne cause and multiple effects refers to the situation in which one harmful act can cause multiple effects at the same time. Among the multiple outcomes caused by one act, it is necessary to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes, direct and indirect outcomes, which is meaningful for conviction and sentencing.

3) Multi-causation, one-effect, multi-causation refers to the fact that a harmful result is caused by multiple harmful behaviors. There are two situations in which it is most obvious: one is a liability accident; The second is joint crime.

4) Multi-causation, multi-causation, multi-causality refers to multiple harmful behaviors that cause multiple harmful results at the same time or successively. The typical manifestation of this is found in organized crime.

Causality is an intrinsic and inevitable connection between various natural and social phenomena.

Causation is the relationship between one event (i.e., "cause") and a second event (i.e., "effect"), where the latter event is considered to be the result of the previous event. In general, cause and effect can also refer to the relationship between a series of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (effects).

Conditions of causation

The causal relationship in different legal relationships is different, and there is a causal relationship between the two in life, but it is not in a specific legal relationship, especially in criminal causation.

The cause of a certain result depends on whether the cause can independently or 100% cause the occurrence of the result, if not, it is a combination of multiple causes and one effect, resulting in the combination of causal forces; There are different kinds of causality, and the conditions under which each type of causality arises are different.

Causation is the relationship between one event (i.e., "cause") and a second event (i.e., "effect"), where the latter event is considered to be the result of the previous event.

Plant melons and get melons, plant beans and get beans. "You have to pay a certain price to get the desired ending. This is the case with cause and effect, and there are many connections between cause and effect.

Buddhism believes that everything can be a cause or an effect, and that there is no absolute cause and no absolute effect.

Characteristics of causality

In the process of the development of causality, when a certain harmful act causes or is causing a certain harmful result, another cause is intervened, and if the intervening cause severes the original causal relationship, the actor is only responsible for the actual situation before the other intervention, and the final result caused by the intervening cause has no causal relationship with the antecedent causal act.

Generally speaking, four factors need to be considered in determining whether the cause of intervention severes the original causal relationship: first, the degree of danger of the actor's harmful behavior leading to the occurrence of the result; second, the abnormality of the intervening factors; third, the effect of the intervening factors on the occurrence of the outcome; Fourth, whether the intervening factor is within the scope of the actor's jurisdiction.

"Cause and effect".

Docking this point, you can link many points, the fruit is the future and dreams, a person's success is accidental or inevitable, it depends on what efforts you have made to get this fruit, clearly know what you want, what you want to bear, no action to pay will not be successful, when others go, you have to follow, especially to follow the master, follow the master, absorb and transform your own things, everything can have a docking, everything can have a link, everything can have output and transformation, Let yourself go to that height, the platform and opportunities given to everyone by Habo are equal, if you can't develop steadily, then you might as well stop and ask yourself, or compare what changes have you had in the past? Harvest the bits and pieces of growth, the people and things you have experienced, wake up and be vigilant, and then pretend to set off, accumulate precipitation, continue to act for the fruit, and bear the growth of the current you, just because you have challenged again and again, and all the efforts you have made, will surely blossom and bear fruit.

Hehe, cause is the antecedent effect, and the effect is the aftercause.

As the old saying goes, "What you sow, you reap." "It's the same in real life.

If you want your child to become a useful talent in the future, you should plant a seed when your child is young - good behavior habits, good study habits, good attitude, good interpersonal skills and the ability to adapt to the environment, etc., how to patiently cultivate children in this way, and finally you can cultivate children into talents.

For example, if a child steals when he is a child, but the adult turns a blind eye, and if he continues like this, the person may continue to steal and commit crimes in the future!

Therefore, your success today is the seed you once planted that sprouted and blossomed!

The so-called cause and effect is the relationship between the front and the back.

Causation in criminal law refers to the relationship between the harmful act and the harmful result.

Harmful behavior refers to behavior that creates a danger to legal interests. The harmful result refers to the actual harmful result, which refers to the result that actually occurs, and does not discuss the hypothetical result. The actual harm of the discussion of causality is the result of meeting the purpose of normative protection.

Each crime protects a legal interest, and this is the purpose of the protection of the crime and its criminal norms. Acts that exceed the protective purpose of the norm and cannot be attributed to the constitutive elements of the actor.

Conditional relationships are often examined.

1 Hypothetical causal relationship The antecedent condition has no causal relationship with the outcome, and the post-condition has a causal relationship with the outcome.

2 Overlapping causality Both conditions have a causal relationship with the outcome.

3. Twofold causality Both conditions and consequences have a causal relationship.

4 Causality of Inaction If there is a, then there is no b, and no a is the cause of b.

5. Obligatory conduct This refers to the fact that the actor has not complied with an obligation, and a harmful result has occurred, but it is ascertained that the result will still occur even if the obligation is complied with, that is, there is no possibility that the result will be avoided.

6. Blocking rescue behavior.

7. The Victim Has a Special Constitution In the case of the victim having a special constitution, the perpetrator's previous conduct has a causal relationship with the victim's death.

The existence of a causal link does not equate to criminal responsibility. The determination of causation only solves the question of the objective elements of the crime, and whether the perpetrator bears criminal responsibility also depends on whether the subjective elements are met, that is, whether the perpetrator subjectively has intention or negligence.

For cases where there are intervening factors, even if there is a conditional relationship, the result may not be attributed to or attributed to the act, and it needs to be judged by the equivalent causation theory.

In other words, the "intervening factor criterion" is used to judge the causal relationship between the previous behavior and the outcome: the danger created by the previous act, the danger created by the intervening factor, and the actual harmful result.

1. The extent to which the previous behavior played a role in the occurrence of the outcome.

2. The size of the abnormality of the intervening factors.

3. The extent to which the intervening factor itself plays a role in the occurrence of the outcome.

When judging the three criteria of intervening factors, it is necessary to look at whether the situation explained by the stem is a general situation or a specific situation. Specific circumstances need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Factors 1, natural events 2, victims' own acts 3, and acts of third parties.

Attention premise: the issue of fact ascertainment (in the case where the facts of the case cannot be ascertained, the principle of favoring the defendant in case of doubt can only be applied, that is, the causal relationship between the act and the result cannot be determined).