"The events of the future cannot be inferred from those of the present." — Wittgenstein
"Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus." — Wittgenstein
Confusing "out of this world" and "empty", as often is the case. I really wonder what people see in this highly depressive guy ...A Wittgensteinian answer to this question ... — Wayfarer
Here's my guy! As I often say myself, "My reality is mainly based on experience and logic."Hume recognized that there are two categories of knowledge: empirical and mathematical/logical — Wayfarer
Here, I would like to clear out something: By "physical causation", I assume you mean cause and effect in the physical universe, i.e. on a material basis. However, the subject of "cause and effect" is much wider than that: it includes non-physical things as well. And since these two "worlds" are different, we can't speak for both of them as one thing. Both "logical necessity" and causality are much more specific and obvious in the physical world than in the non-physical one.I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer
Not clear to me, although I am an IT person. Among other things, what are these "two - microprocessors" and what do microprocessors have to do in this discussion? Most probably you refer to electric circuits and more specifically to "logical circuits" ... If this is the case, we have here only rudimental logical principles, quite restricted in scope. So, I wouldn't involve machine logic in the current subject, even if it produced by human thinking.It seems to me computer science relies on the connection between the two - microprocessors basically comprise chains of logic gates to effect physical outputs. — Wayfarer
True. But does this resolve the problem of "logical necessity" in general?And more broadly, the link between logical necessity and physical causation seems fundamental to science generally, and even to navigating everyday life. — Wayfarer
If I misunderstood what you meant, and went off on a useless tangent....let me know so I can adjust accordingly. — Mww
So we end up with two meanings for "world". — frank
I'm not sure what logical causation is then — T Clark
First, I would state Hume was unable to prove this separation [between deductive and inductive] — Philosophim
The empirical derivation, however, which both of these philosophers attributed to these conceptions, cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we do possess scientific a priori cognitions, namely, those of pure mathematics and general physics. — Mww
Kant’s view of the mind arose from his general philosophical project in CPR the following way. Kant aimed among other things to,
* Justify our conviction that physics, like mathematics, is a body of necessary and universal truth.
THAT, is Hume’s problem: the conception of A cause, or THE cause, is impossible if the human intellect didn’t already possess the pure conception of “causality” as a natural precursor. We would never understand that a thing is possible, if we didn’t already possess “possibility”. And this thesis continues with ten more pure conceptions of the understanding, which are called the categories. — Mww
You will see that it does not contain any assertions of fact - only normative and evaluative statements. That is because metaphysics is not about the way the world is. It's about how we choose to live our lives and to think about the world. — Cuthbert
The role of the modern logician is thus akin to the role of a tennis umpire, who adjudicates and documents the conduct of interacting actors, whilst remaining agnostic with respect to the outcome of the game. — sime
So let's grant what Kant argued, that causality is something through which we interpret the world. Fine. Makes good sense. Hume said something similar but called it an "animal instinct", this is the reason why we believe in causality. — Manuel
However, the subject of "cause and effect" is much wider than that: it includes non-physical things as well. — Alkis Piskas
There's a world of difference between habituated responses, which any creatures exhibit, and reasoned inference, which are the sole prerogative of h. sapiens. — Wayfarer
The term is 'logical necessity' and the question is the relationship (if any) between logical necessity and physical causation. My (tentative) argument is that scientific laws are where these are united in some sense - that scientific laws are where material causation converges with logical necessity. But I know I'm skating on thin ice. — Wayfarer
Kant thought that Berkeley and Hume identified at least part of the mind’s a priori contribution to experience with the list of claims that they said were unsubstantiated on empirical grounds: “Every event must have a cause,” “There are mind-independent objects that persist over time,” and “Identical subjects persist over time.” The empiricist project must be incomplete since these claims are necessarily presupposed in our judgments, a point Berkeley and Hume failed to see. So, Kant argues that a philosophical investigation into the nature of the external world must be as much an inquiry into the features and activity of the mind that knows it. — Kant, Metaphysics, IEP
it remains that the answer to the OP is that physical causation is not logical necessity. — Banno
You could say that it was Kant who pointed out that the empiricist's ideas of the 'blank slate' were fallacious. — Wayfarer
What about the claim that scientific law is where logical necessity and physical causation meet? That this is what accounts for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences? — Wayfarer
unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.