The argument that since we cannot observe causation it does not exist is simply naive, and belongs in 18th century empiricism.

Stop beating up that poor strawman and pick on a real opponent. I never made that claim. It seems more likely that you have no response to the real opponent so instead chose to shadow box.

You are right about Hume. Hume would not admit into his ontology whatever is is impossible directly to perceive. Thus, he demanded that causality be directly perceived for it to exist. But causality is a kind of theoretical entity, like neutron, or an electron. Hume would not admitted the (real) existence of electrons or neutrons either. Just as unobservables like electrons and neutrons are posited entities to explain what is observable, so unobservable causation is posited to explain observable correlation. As Quine wrote, "to posit is not to patronize". What, I wonder, would it even be to observe a causal connection. Is it expected that if there were a causal connection between event, we would be able to see a very thin wire between them. What are we not seeing which were it to exist we would see? What we observe are the effects of causation (correlation). The argument that since we cannot observe causation it does not exist is simply naive, and belongs in 18th century empiricism. If Hume were right, there would be a great deal we believe we know that according to him we not only do not know, but we cannot know.

I don't recall accusing you of it. But, come to think of it didn't you argue that since we cannot observe causation, but only correlation, causation does not exist? I suppose I'll have to look over your posts. What a chore!

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed that the simplest belief is that the universe is utterly contingent. It doesn't have to be the way it is, it just is. As amazing as that seems, the alternative is even more amazing.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed that the simplest belief is that the universe is utterly contingent. It doesn't have to be the way it is, it just is. As amazing as that seems, the alternative is even more amazing.

In my University of Lust of Wisdom we are more subtle. We use degrees of causality, like (un)conditial and consider the Free will of subject and object.

Pepijn Sweep
Magister Ox:bigsmile:

please define the phrase "utterly contingent". Because it would seem to me to entail correlation/causation.

For something to be contingent it must be dependent upon something, no? Dependence would seem to imply, at minimum, a correlation between 2 things

I don't know what "the universe is utterly contingent" is supposed to mean. It usually means that the universe might not have existed. Is that what you mean? And no, it does not have to be the way it is. Who says differently? But what has that to do with the issue?

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 03:33 PM ----------

Will is LAW... Reflection of BEING... What is already !

It means that the universe doesn't physically have to be the way that it is. For example, there's nothing physically impossible about things accelerating faster than the speed of light, it just doesn't happen.

Do you understand that?

It means that the universe doesn't physically have to be the way that it is. For example, there's nothing physically impossible about things accelerating faster than the speed of light, it just doesn't happen.

Do you understand that?

Ok. What do you call this:

So I grew out of a sunflower seed. The plant has already bloomed... even though I haven't budded yet. I'm only following a path in time. The whole life of the entity exists. Only the testimony breaks it into pieces because there is no other way to say it. I am this testament.

The song couldn't go unsung. That's my only purpose.

The voice of defiance says: yes... but root of me is the same as the root of the plant. The root is not an object of my will. It would be silly to say that. Nevertheless... it would also be silly to fail to recognize the gift.

I am a reflection. I have all the same things as that which I reflect. I have will. Maybe nothing I create with it is other than what's already there. It's not a lie, though. There is will. And it's mine.:knight:

It means that the universe doesn't physically have to be the way that it is. For example, there's nothing physically impossible about things accelerating faster than the speed of light, it just doesn't happen.

Do you understand that?

If Einstein's equation is correct it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so and since we know(or I guess to appease I should say since we have good reason for thinking so(aka not thinking so is more implausible based on experimentation) ) there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, it follows that it is physically impossible based on the laws that govern our universe in combination with the amount of energy present combined with the most accurate information we have to go by.

We have more than sufficient reason for thinking that Einstein's equation is correct or at minimum closer to being correct than incorrect.

Therefore there is more to it and just not happening....it physically can't....contingent upon the universe we find ourselves in.

yeah. At this point I think or I'd like to be able to say that we can all agree it's more plausible that there really are physical laws of nature which govern this world.

Now as for why the laws are what they are or how they got there this seems to be a different problem to tackle.

I'm assuming your position Fil. is that the laws are what they are out of necessity. The laws, along with everything else that is, was, or is to come is born out of a necessary state. Or that they cannot not be the way they are. What is, is what necessarily must be.

It means that the universe doesn't physically have to be the way that it is. For example, there's nothing physically impossible about things accelerating faster than the speed of light, it just doesn't happen.

Do you understand that?

What makes you believe that it never happens that things go faster than the speed of light?

The pragmatic approach to the problem of induction associated with Hans Reichenbach and Herbert Feigl, that tries to show not that inductively based conclusions will be true, nor even that they will probably be true, but instead that there can be no other better strategy for predicting the future, or generalizing from evidence: induction will do well if anything at all will. An analogy is being stranded on a desert island with the opportunity to float off a bottle with a note requesting rescue: it may not be knowable how probable it is that this action will be successful, but it may be known that it will be successful if anything is, and hence the strategy is rational.

Yes a Necessary state = a True state

...such is indestructible !