skakos wrote:
But if there is a correlation why are they... unrelated?
Even after all these years of "progress", the best way to "see" something is still just to... choose to see it.
Without any reason. Or maybe there is a reason? Let me check the imports of Norwegian oil...
What really makes us see correlations somewhere and not somewhere else, EVEN THOUGH the data say so?
Our beliefs seem to drive our knowledge...
Skakos,
First, you have to understand that there is a deep difference between simple data, and information.
Next, correlation is nearer to the coincidence than to the relation.
The term relation is in priority something defined in relational algebra. By example, if a library want to loan books to people, they must know that the relation tells that there is potentially several books for a person, but also several people for a book, and in this case, there is a priori no possible correspondance, as we have "several for several". We have to insert a new entity, simply called "Loans", what will solve the problem when well filled with right attributes...
This illustrate the fact that relation are in priority of an understandability of (a logic of) first degree (I don't tell about second order predicates about which I don't know a lot); so relations are about to speak directly to the humain, and this is the interest.
There could be some hidden dimensions... but to see only correlation on arbitrary long period of time, is not sufficient to establish a law...
I said one time to a women moderator, somewhere else, that for a believer, the belief on one side, and God on the other, did not mean at all the the believer was faithful in God (I invoked Karl Barth and the alterity of God to help me)... at this title, some religions have not the same concept of the Soul Salvation as christians...
This is the illustration that the simultaneity is not enough to make relations.