I'm not quite sure what we're trying to get at here. How are we to claim that constituent particles do not logically follow from anything? Are we speaking of a certain constituent particle, or only of the constituent particles we're now aware of? Later on, we could find that the constituent particles we're now aware of could logically follow from other things (perhaps other particles), couldn't we?

But most importantly, I don't understand our topic of discussion - could you please clarify?

So taking a cue from that, "possibility" would be just logical possibility. But "real possibility" would be physical possibility.

WI, together with Ultracrepidarian (see e.g. posts #201 and 205), found this highly implausible, because of the vast number of regularities in the universe that would have to be accounted for by pure chance. There was also the problem that the pragmatic belief in the future validity of induction could not be justified.

We know some things are logically impossible i.e. contradictions but what things are physically impossible? How do you tell the difference between something that never happens and something that is physically impossible? How do you even know there is a difference?

If we limit ourselves to observation and don't simply go based on gut feelings then we should admit that it's impossible to observe that something is impossible. That's because impossible things also look exactly like things that simply never happen.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------



I've already countered this successfully so I'm not sure why it's still being discussed.

You cannot establish that something is physically implausible a priori. You can only say "based on what I've observed so far, I predict that I will observe/not observe X". Please go back to my examples with the coin tosses. There's absolutely no rational reason to eschew "chance" as implausible. Every electron in the universe has the exact same charge, that would be one of those fundamental regularities and that's an extremely large coincidence.

There is no detectable difference between things that happen contingently (pure chance) or things that happen necessarily.

You can only say "based on what I've observed so far, I predict that I will observe/not observe X".

Every electron in the universe has the exact same charge, that would be one of those fundamental regularities and that's an extremely large coincidence.

I know that some events that never happen are inconsistent with natural law, and, therefore, can't happen.

But how are past observations relevant in predicting the future? If everything is (or might be) due to chance, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that what has "worked" up to now will continue to do so.

How do you know that every electron has the same charge, when only a tiny proportion of them have been observed? What justifies such a generalisation, if there is no logical necessity for it? If someone tossed a coin 1,000 times, and you knew only that (a) the tosses were fair, and (b) the first 100 had all come up heads, would you assume that the other 900 had also come up heads? That is the analogy.

How do you know this? Why do you refuse to explain yourself? If you're going to just keep stating your convictions without any kind of defense of them then we aren't going to make much headway.

---------- Post added 07-02-2009 at 07:19 PM ----------



We've already covered this. There's no rational reason to believe that. I was simply stating that even under the irrational assumption that the future will resemble the past, we can't claim that somethings are impossible. Just because somethings never happen doesn't mean they can't happen. Sure, we have never seen a block of ice turn into a giraffe and may never see that but that doesn't give us justification for saying that such things can't happen. How could it?



All electrons, that we've observed, have the exact same charge. That's still an extremely large coincidence. I thought the part in bold was implied but I will be more explicit in the future.

How could all money be counterfeit? How could all events be coincidences?

But then he (and you) go overboard and deny that there is any connection between cause and effect.

Satan - Can you please clarify your views about prediction. If there is no way of distinguishing likely from unlikely future events (as that would require induction), is it insane to predict anything?

How could all humans be mortal?



I deny that there is any evidence of physical necessity. Do you have some? No, you don't.

---------- Post added 07-04-2009 at 12:20 AM ----------



Insane? As in psychopathic? No, just not based on rationality but rather convention.

What's the difference between causation and correlation?

What is it that there is not?

Do I have evidence of physical necessity?

When an event is subsumed under a law of nature, that is evidence of physical necessity.

Clearly, you know exactly what I'm talking about.



No it's not. Why would it be?

You deny there is physical necessity, but the only kind of necessity you seem to recognize is logical necessity. So, what is it you are denying exists?

No, I really do not know what you are talking about. You deny there is physical necessity, but the only kind of necessity you seem to recognize is logical necessity. So, what is it you are denying exists?

If I refuse to carry any coins in my pocket except pennies, then if all the coins in my pocket are pennies, there is an explanation for why that is so. But if it just turns out that all the coins in my pocket are pennies, then that there is a correlation between a coin being in my pocket, and its being a penny, is accidental. In the first case, we know why all the coins in my pocket are pennies; in the second we do not. But you don't recognize this distinction. So, is there any difference between the two cases as far as you are concerned?

Certainty, I suppose. He is equating physical necessity with certainty.

A relationship between two events whereby the second event occurs as a necessary consequence of the first event

Thank you but I can speak for myself. I'm waiting for him to ask an intelligible question before I venture any further. He already knows what I'm denying, physical necessity. He already knows what physical necessity is since he's claiming it does exist and I've defined it myself as well.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what you mean by, "necessary consequence", since all you recognize is logical necessity.

What does it matter what I "recognize"?

You've asserted that physical necessity exists. I claim it does not. The end.

Don't suddenly feign ignorance over the topic.

I am not feigning ignorance. Why do you deny there is a difference between my "penny" examples? In one we know why all the coins in my pocket are pennies. In the second there is no cause. It is just coincidence. There is a difference, how do you explain the difference. Do we not know the cause in both?