In other words, I can't prove God doesn't exist.

Right but if you think my position requires that then you don't understand my position. My position is that such beliefs (God, physical necessity, whatever) are untestable and superfluous. You're right that I don't know that such things aren't the case but I don't need to be certain something isn't the case to disbelieve it.

The regularities I'm talking about are universal such as:

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
2. No two electrons ever occupy the same quantum state.

If these things exist, randomly, then induction will help me find them, if they don't exist then induction is just as good as random guessing.

I've already explained this several times. If regularities exist then induction is the best method. If they don't exist then I can't do any worse with induction than I could with random guessing. Therefore in all cases, induction is the best choice.

I've already explained this several times. If regularities exist then induction is the best method. If they don't exist then I can't do any worse with induction than I could with random guessing. Therefore in all cases, induction is the best choice.



I think that any statement of the form "X is physically impossible" or "X is physically necessary" is false.

I asked you about the statement that X causes Y. As contrasted with the statement that X is regularly follows Y. Do you want to say that all statements of the form X cause Y are false, although some statements of the form, X is regularly followed by Y may be true? By the way, what is supposed to be mysterious about causes? That they cannot be perceived? Does that make neutrinos mysterious too?

Direct detection from induced beta decay

In 1942 Kan-Chang Wang first proposed the use of beta-capture to experimentally detect neutrinos.[4] In 1956 Clyde Cowan, Frederick Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire detected the neutrino through this process,[5] a result that was rewarded with the 1995 Nobel Prize. In this experiment, now known as the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment, neutrinos created in a nuclear reactor by beta decay were shot into protons producing neutrons and positrons both of which could be detected. It is now known that both the proposed and the observed particles were antineutrinos.

Do you want to say that all statements of the form X cause Y are false, although some statements of the form, X is regularly followed by Y may be true?

By the way, what is supposed to be mysterious about causes? That they cannot be perceived? Does that make neutrinos mysterious too?

I'll also say that.



Neutrinos can be detected in neutrino detectors. Causes cannot be detected at all.

Well, in that sense, I suppose we can detect unobservables. But that does not make them any the less unobservables. "Detect" there, I suppose means, "determine that they exist". But not, "observe them".

When we ask for cause, like when I kick a rock and it flies through the air, we can detect and observe the thing we're calling the cause.

Isn't the bigger picture though, that when I ask for cause, there's something psychological happening? I'm backing up and seeing the flying rock as causally related to the kicking. It's in that link between two events that cause lies. I can observe both events. The link is in my mind. I observe my thoughts. So far we don't have a way to detect ideas with any kind of photographic film or idea-meter.

All it takes is one error in assessment of cause to open a can of worms. Simple mistakes in perception can account for a lot of mental error. What about error in regard to cause? What do you think?

The regularities I'm talking about are universal such as:

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
2. No two electrons ever occupy the same quantum state.

If these things exist, randomly, then induction will help me find them, if they don't exist then induction is just as good as random guessing.

Suppose I said that the rotation of the Earth on its axis causes the succession of day and night. Why would you say that is false?

But causes can be detected as the best explanation for correlation, just as neutrinos can be detected as the best explanation for what happens with neutrino detectors.

Suppose I said that the rotation of the Earth on its axis causes the succession of day and night. Why would you say that is false?

Because there's no evidence for that. There is only evidence that the rotation of the Earth on its axis regularly correlates with the succession of day and night.



But it's not the best explanation. It's not any better than my explanation which is that it is contingent.

But causes are contingent. Causal relations are not necessary relations. Hume has already shown that. But it does not follow from that, that regularities are accidental either. Causation is the middle ground between necessary connection, and accidental regularity.

But causes are contingent. Causal relations are not necessary relations.

There is no way to test for this magical middle ground. There is no way to test between a physically necessary regularity and an accidental regularity. All we can test for are regularities and there is no detectable difference.

But that is false. What about controlled experiments, that I keep mentioning, and you keep ignoring? To use an example I have already used, why do physicians think that aspirins can inhibit heart attacks? Not just because they do, but because they do and placebos do not. And also because they can now actually watch how aspirin affects platelets. The causal connection is now well-established. Your mantra that the causal connection is not detectable is simply false. It is.

I've covered this several times. Controlled experiments don't do anything other than test the robustness of a regularity.

Now, what does that mean? That's a new one, I have to say.

It shows that a regularity is present only in the case of the controlled variable and not when it the controlled variable is absent. In contrast a regularity that isn't robust would show up even when the controlled variable was absent or wouldn't show up when it was present.

Now that is exactly what scientists say, except that they use the term "cause" rather than "regularity". Apparently, you are now offering a new notation.'Whenever scientists use the term, "cause" use the term, "regularity"'. What a let down! Another case of bait-and-switch. "Come one and all, I will teach you that there is only regularity, and not causation." And then, in a small voice, ' "All you have to do is to use the term, 'regularity" whenever you used to use the term, "cause" '.