Are you asking for a scientific explanation? I'm sure someone here can present to you a detailed scientific syllogism regarding the necessity of water freezing. But I'm not so sure that is what you desire, is it?

All this describes what happens perfectly fine but I don't understand why any of these things happen rather than say, exploding into a mist of confetti.

There's no logical system that is going to deduce why a tomato doesn't turn into an onion or why my glass of water doesn't turn into a glass of wine. Unless you wanted to make one up, of course, but then you'd just be creating your own "why".

Science can only make sense of what happens, not what our minds can conjure could happen. Causes are what science deals with, not reasons. Reasons, the "whys", are for humans to quibble over.

Well, most people seem to use the words interchangably. Aren't causes reasons? What's the difference?

You're right, they are often used interchangably. However, the distinction I wish to make is that between the "how" and "why". Causes deal with the "how", syllogisms, A and B follow C. Science deals with the how, how water freezes, how plants give off oxygen, how the human pancreas functions, etc. "Why", in the context I'm referring, is outside the realm of science. Science cannot tell you why things are the way they are. Science cannot apply judgment to a given situation like we can, nor can any logical system. We are the ones that apply semantic value, and that should not be mistaken.

Now think of the common phrase, "Everything happens for a reason". Do you think people when stating this are speaking about a cause and effect sequence? Of course not, they are speaking of a why, a pseudo-mystical reason for something to have occurred. Stealing from Joseph Campbell, they're using a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. Logic cannot ever answer the "why", so we make it up, and I think it gives many of us comfort to confide in a "why", a reason.

Well, the question is simply asking to explain what was claimed earlier viz. that some regularities (like water freezing) are logical consequences of other more fundamental regularities. What regularity makes it logically impossible for water not to freeze?

If I understand post #302 correctly, the claim is that macro-level regularities such as water freezing can be (at least in principle) deduced by syllogism from the fundamental regularities.

Well, most people seem to use the words interchangably. Aren't causes reasons? What's the difference?

All this describes what happens perfectly fine but I don't understand why any of these things happen rather than say, exploding into a mist of confetti.

Satan,

The point is, to give you an answer to this:



I suggest mysticism or a belief system of some sort. You're not going to find the why through pure rational thought.

That's because it is not a pure rational question. Why would such a thing happen? It is as if I were suddenly to ask you, why you are not a Serbian farmer. What sort of question would that be? Just because an event is contingent doesn't mean that there is any real possibility of its happening. There is a difference between possibility and real possibility.

Yes, good point, it is not a pure rational question.

And to answer the question, "Why would such a thing happen (or not happen)?", requires some sort of belief which seems irrational. For instance, I could say I'm a Serbian farmer (had I been) because this is "God's will", or something to that effect. This answers the "why", and I guess this sort of thing comforts some people. Not me, though.

My point was that the question, why is something true (or not true) requires a background against which it makes sense to ask it. If you ask about a room, why is there no chair in this room, that makes sense, since chairs are often found in rooms. But to ask, why is there no tiger in this room, makes no sense (unless you concoct a background for why one would expect there to be a tiger in the room).

What I was saying before is that if one takes enough observations of regularity at the level of fundamental particles as axioms, it seems that the interactions of objects composed of these constituent particles logically follows from these regularities. This is illustrated to some degree in physics engines all the time.

Also, science does indeed look for truth, but the truth is purely descriptive. Since the truth is descriptive, the natural tendency is to find something totally general that manifests itself in the specific. If we can describe phenomena at a fundamental level, the specifics of occurrence will simply stem directly out of the regularities present at the fundamental level. This is due to the fact that we are seeking to find fundamental similarity, such as; that all matter is constituent of fundamental particles, these fundamental particles are really the same but are charged with different amounts of energy (like in string theory) and that matter and energy are fundamentally linked. If these along with a few more regularities hold, then everything would then simply differ in organization and size. Since every macro level phenomena would be describable in terms of their constituent particles interacting, it all breaks down to the regularities of these fundamental particles which are, of course, determined inductively.

I'm not too versed in quantum physics, but if I recall correctly, the regularities of constituent particles do not logically follow from the more general objects (the objects we can actually interact with and see).

I think Zetetic11235 was suggesting the opposite, i.e. that the regularities of 'ordinary' objects logically follow from those of their constituent particles, but that the latter do not logically follow from anything.

There is a difference between possibility and real possibility.

What exactly do you mean and what is your evidence for this belief?

In classical modal logic, anything that isn't necessarily false is possible. I know of nothing that is necessarily false other than contradictions and those are only logical necessities, not physical necessities. I don't know what the difference is between possible and "really" possible.

Maybe you mean that somethings are more predictable than others? What do you think that proves? It only proves that somethings don't happen often. It doesn't prove that somethings never happen.

I'm out of town at the moment so I can't post frequently but I'm still at my original position regarding causality, necessity and explanations and have been unmoved by anything said thus far.