I confess to not having read the long version, and only read part of the short introduction (skipping down to the parts that seemed most relevant), but how can one establish that the regularity theory is true? It seems to my rather slipshod reading of it that it is merely omitting the word "can" (and synonyms) and leaving us with "is" only. So it appears to be claiming that it is a myth that people cannot fly without the aid of any devices. What is true, according to the theory, is that people simply do not fly without the aid of any devices. But it seems to leave no answer to the question, why do people not fly without the aid of any devices? Or am I misunderstanding the theory?

All explanations must come to an end. You can ask "why?" forever and at some point you have to say "that's just the way it is". These are called brute facts and I've never seen a convincing argument that doesn't appeal to them at some point. The only question is, which view is more empirical i.e. scientific, that the universe is controlled by magical laws that come from nowhere (or God if you're a theist) or that the universe isn't controlled at all? It's completely contingent.

That sounds like a mistake.

According to your logic, if this pattern had no exceptions until "the end of time" then that would be evidence that it was necessary. You don't believe it would be though. Then why do you believe things are necessary with equally shaky evidence? There's nothing different in principle between the evidence for the death of presidents and the fission of uranium spheres except that, with the former, the pattern was broken and therefore less regular.

how can one establish that the regularity theory is true?

Or do you simply take it as true as an act of faith?

That sounds like a mistake.

According to your logic, if this pattern had no exceptions until "the end of time" then that would be evidence that it was necessary. You don't believe it would be though. Then why do you believe things are necessary with equally shaky evidence? There's nothing different in principle between the evidence for the death of presidents and the fission of uranium spheres except that, with the former, the pattern was broken and therefore less regular.

I happen to think that generalization was accidental.

No, you are misreading kennethamy, as he did not say that everything that is regular is necessarily regular. If you are going to argue against a position, it is good if you do not argue against straw men.

According to your logic, if this pattern had no exceptions until "the end of time" then that would be evidence that it was necessary. You don't believe it would be though.

No, you are misreading kennethamy, as he did not say that everything that is regular is necessarily regular. If you are going to argue against a position, it is good if you do not argue against straw men.

In principle there cannot [emphasis added] be any evidence that confirms regularity vs. necessity. In the same way, I cannot confirm that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago. The reason I believe that it wasn't is because it's the simplest belief. It would be an even more amazing act of faith to believe otherwise. So yes, you're right that it's an act of faith, just like I have faith that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago.

I think you might have heard of this principle before: Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't you mean that there simply isn't any evidence, rather than that there cannot be any evidence?

Really? That's all you have to say? Not going to say anything about your faith claim? I guess I rebutted it then.

Physical necessity isn't testable. There's no experiment that could be performed that could verify the existence of physical necessity.

You don't seem to be consistent in your claims. The fact (if it is a fact) that there is no test does not prove that there cannot be a test, according to what you have said before. Yet you are now claiming that there cannot be an experiment, when your supposed evidence is that there is no such experiment.

I'm only arguing against physical impossibility (and necessity). When I say that, in principle, something can't happen I am not implying that it's physically impossible. Therefore there's nothing inconsistent in what I'm saying.

What, precisely, are you saying then? What kind of possibility is it supposed to be such that it is impossible for there to be an experiment to verify the existence of physical necessity?

That's all you have to say? Not going to say anything about your faith claim? I guess I rebutted it then.

Physical necessity isn't testable. There's no experiment that could be performed that could verify the existence of physical necessity.

I confess to not having read the long version, and only read part of the short introduction (skipping down to the parts that seemed most relevant), but how can one establish that the regularity theory is true? It seems to my rather slipshod reading of it that it is merely omitting the word "can" (and synonyms) and leaving us with "is" only. So it appears to be claiming that it is a myth that people cannot fly without the aid of any devices. What is true, according to the theory, is that people simply do not fly without the aid of any devices. But it seems to leave no answer to the question, why do people not fly without the aid of any devices? Or am I misunderstanding the theory?

note 15

That's all you have to say? Not going to say anything about your faith claim? I guess I rebutted it then.

Physical necessity isn't testable. There's no experiment that could be performed that could verify the existence of physical necessity.

That it would not convince a regularity theorist doesn't (I think) show it begs the question. Maybe it should convince a regularity theorist, in which case it doesn't beg the question. Do you think there isn't a difference between the gold and the uranium cases? Or do you think that the difference is not to be explain by the difference between an accidental generalization and a nomic generalization? And, if you think it is the second, what is your explanation of the difference. I don't understand why you would not think there is a difference between the two cases.

If it isn't testable, then what are controlled experiments for? Aren't they performed to rule out accidental correlation? I thought so? What do you think they are for?

Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I confess to not having read the long version, and only read part of the short introduction (skipping down to the parts that seemed most relevant), but how can one establish that the regularity theory is true? It seems to my rather slipshod reading of it that it is merely omitting the word "can" (and synonyms) and leaving us with "is" only. So it appears to be claiming that it is a myth that people cannot fly without the aid of any devices. What is true, according to the theory, is that people simply do not fly without the aid of any devices. But it seems to leave no answer to the question, why do people not fly without the aid of any devices? Or am I misunderstanding the theory?

Why do you think experiments test for necessity? If I predict that X will happen contingently and you predict that X will happen necessarily, how do you test for that? Either way X happens and that's all we can observe.

But we also observe that in the case of some controlled experiments, there is a statistically significant relation between two kinds of events, and in the case of some controlled experiments, there is no statistically significant relation between those two kinds of events. And, as a result, we infer a causal connection in the first case, and no causal connection in the second case. We are then observing a necessary relation.

What do you think we should observe to observe a necessary physical connection? A wire?