You really do not think that mail in the letter box is good evidence that a mailman was there to put the letters into the letter box?

There's no mention of causation. So, what's the relevance?

If you're asking "do letters in a mailbox correlate to the appearance of a mailman" then the answer is "yes". If you're asking about causes then I see no causes. I've seen a mailman put letters in a mailbox but I've never seen a mailman or anyone else cause anything.

The mailman caused the letters to be placed into the mailbox. And you saw him do exactly that. And, when you don't see him do that because he comes before you come home, you know that presence of the letters in the mailbox was caused by the mailman's putting them into the mailbox. You observe the correlation; you infer the cause. (Are you saying there are no causes at all?) Even Hume did not say that.

I see no causes. There might be causes but I have no evidence of them and neither do you. At least, none that you seem willing to offer.

There is evidence of correlation

I see no causes. There might be causes but I have no evidence of them and neither do you. At least, none that you seem willing to offer.

What precisely do you mean by 'cause'?

The thing I don't understand has to do with an idea of the world as being a series of random occurrences, one moment's happenings being entirely unrelated to the next except in chronological sequence. How could anyone believe this idea?

You think that if you don't "see causes" there is no evidence of them? You don't see electrons. You don't think there is any evidence of them either?

Anyway, what would you expect to see if you saw causes? Little strings between events? What is it you do not see when you don't see causes?

A relationship between two events whereby the second event occurs as a necessary consequence of the first event. I see no necessary relationship between mailmen and mailboxes or anything else.



Randomness doesn't rule about regularities. If you flip a coin an infinite number of times you will hit upon a series of an infinite number of heads.



Let's not play word games. If the word "see" bothers you then replace it with "observe". We can observe electrons. It's not that hard.



I don't see any necessary relationships. I see flame applied to metal. I see glowing metal. I don't see any necessary relationship between the two.

There is a physically necessary connection between two kinds of event if, and only if, it would be inconsistent with the laws of nature for the cause to occur, and the effect not to occur.

If the laws of nature describe whatever occurs, how could anything happen that was inconsistent with them? It would be a tautology that nothing could happen that violated the laws since whatever happens determines the laws.

If copper conducts electricity then there's a law of nature that says copper conducts electricity. If it doesn't then there's a law of nature that says it doesn't. How could anything ever be violated?

I don't see evidence that anything at all is "physically necessary" and I'm not sure how you do either.

If the laws of nature describe whatever occurs, how could anything happen that was inconsistent with them?

If copper conducts electricity then there's a law of nature that says copper conducts electricity.

The laws of nature do not only describe what occurs; they also predict what will occur. Usually successfully. How can that be so, if past regularities give no reason to believe in future ones?



But how is it that we are able to generalise that "copper conducts electricity"? Why would you be unwilling to touch a piece of copper connected to a powerful electric circuit?

"Randomness doesn't rule out regularities. If you flip a coin an infinite number of times you will hit upon a series of an infinite number of heads."

hmm, I disagree.

I am asking why do you personally believe that when you put your foot on the brake pedal of your car, your car will stop as per usual.

For example, it would be logically possible for an object to move faster than the speed of light, since there is no contradiction in that supposition, but it would be physically impossible for an object to move faster than the speed of light, for that would be inconsistent with natural law.

The laws of nature do not only describe what occurs; they also predict what will occur. Usually successfully. How can that be so, if past regularities give no reason to believe in future ones?

But how is it that we are able to generalise that "copper conducts electricity"? Why would you be unwilling to touch a piece of copper connected to a powerful electric circuit?

Can anyone demonstrate that a cause is more than a mere correlation without engaging in this fallacy?

Well, you're wrong.



It's useful to believe that things that worked in the past will work in the future. I've had success with stopping by applying brakes so I will continue to do so until it stops working.




How, exactly, do you know that it's physically impossible for anything to travel faster than light? How do you know anything is impossible?

"I doubt that 'trying and failing' will do the trick. After all, many times we try to do something, fail at it, and yet - for whatever reasons - do not conclude "I can't do it." (It happened to me recently. I was trying to install a new pump on a dishwasher and was having no success, indeed I was failing miserably. I stopped for a while, tried again, and succeeded.) I am absolutely convinced that there is no phenomenological, introspective, felt (call it what you will) difference whatsoever between failing to do something which is possible (e.g. installing a dishwasher pump) and failing to do something which necessitarians call 'nomically impossible', e.g. flapping my arms and flying.

What do I feel when I find that I repeatedly fail to do something? Disappointment, remorse, anger, sadness, annoyance, irritability, fury, etc. Do I experience (physical or nomological) impossibility? Not that I can tell. I would not know how to recognize it if I did. I can experience that I have not done what I wanted; that I have tried especially hard; etc. But I do not see that I have experienced that I cannot do it. I may say, "I can't do it." But I have not experienced anything more than failure." -Norman Swartz



That's an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine how something could happen without X doesn't mean X is necessary.



All copper tested so far conducts electricity. While I may be skeptical that copper necessarily conducts electricity. I have no doubts that it's been known to. It's therefore pragmatically useful to assume that there is danger. Better safe than sorry, in other words. This, of course, proves little about causality and more about practical lives of mortal finite beings.

I know some things are physically impossible (not impossible) because of what I have read about science. I am, of course depending on the body of scientific knowledge.

Well, then you shouldn't have any trouble showing me a scientific article from a journal or textbook that actually asserts something is physically impossible and also explains how to determine if something is physically impossible or not.

One way you can know it is to try to do those things, and ask others to do those things.