you sound as if you've been inhaling nitrous oxide. — Wayfarer
What if the effect of cause is unpredictable? Can we still call it a cause? Or the effect the effect? I think for cause and effect to exist, there has to be a logical relation between them. — Haglund
I'm interested in the fact that Kant acknowledges 'pure physics'. — Wayfarer
So I understand the idea of 'pure maths' but I'm finding the idea of 'pure physics' pretty hard to get my head around..... — Wayfarer
.....as it seems to me physics is always a combination of the analytic with the experiential. — Wayfarer
recently posted a thread on Stack Exchange on the relation between physical and logical causation. — Wayfarer
So a world is always a construction. — frank
What if the effect of cause is unpredictable? Can we still call it a cause? Or the effect the effect? I think for cause and effect to exist, there has to be a logical relation between them. — Haglund
In asserting that an effect is unpredictable given some cause, are we talking about causation or our knowledge of some causal event? "Random" events only seem random when you don't have all the information about the causes that preceded some effect.Good observation, but the whole question of whether such relations can be described as 'logical' is what is at issue in this thread. — Wayfarer
Yes. “World” is an object in general, comprised of and representing a multiplicity of other objects subsumed under it. All objects in general are objects of reason therefore constructed a priori by it in accordance with rules, which.....for better or worse....it also constructs. — Mww
Good observation, but the whole question of whether such relations can be described as 'logical' is what is at issue in this thread. — Wayfarer
How is Kant not doing the thing he says can't be done? — frank
But what's the setting for this mind that constructs worlds? — frank
would Kant say that when we talk about mind-independence in science, we're talking about non-human causation? — frank
I’m not sure I understand the question. What have I said he’s done, that he himself said couldn't be done? — Mww
Talking about mind-independence in science? Not sure what that means. Isn’t all causation non-human? — Mww
If two natural events always turn up together they have a causal relation or a common cause. — Haglund
“Pure” physics as a self-contained science is a misnomer, I think, at least without reference to a specific text. — Mww
But it happens fortunately, that though we cannot assume metaphysics to be an actual science, we can say with confidence that certain pure a priori synthetical cognitions, pure Mathematics and pure Physics are actual and given; for both contain propositions, which are thoroughly recognized as apodictically certain, partly by mere reason, partly by general consent arising from experience, and yet as independent of experience. We have therefore some at least uncontested synthetical knowledge a priori, and need not ask whether it be possible, for it is actual, but how it is possible, in order that we may deduce from the principle which makes the given cognitions possible the possibility of all the rest.. — Prolegomena, Section 4
Are you asking if logic is innate? — frank
As ↪Wayfarer might concur, the objects as such in a world we can either think or experience, but a world as such we can only think. — Mww
The question is about the connection between logical necessity and physical causation. It's trickier than it looks! — Wayfarer
In other words, there's no logical reason why someone drinking from said well may not suffer any consequences even though previously others have. There's more to it than meets the eye. — Wayfarer
Wouldn't he say it's wrong to think in terms of a noumenal world? — frank
Human causes, or acts of will would be distinct from natural causes. — frank
So the mind is phenomenal. It's a product of itself. — frank
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.