Sure ain't bedtime reading. But notice this declaration in the second-last paragraph:

I do not think that there is sufficiently good reason for maintaining the “naturalist” hypothesis about human behaviour and thought.

So Anscombe is not, in criticizing Lewis, defending naturalism. She is questioning the grounds on which he criticizes it, even though she agrees that there is not a sufficiently good reason for maintaining it.

However with respect to the argument itself, I don't know if Anscombe really grasps what Lewis means by 'irrational' (a word which he subsequently changes to non-rational in response to her criticism) causes. She says:

What sorts of thing would one normally call “irrational causes” for human thoughts? If one is asked this, one immediately thinks of such things as passion, self-interest, wishing only to see the agreeable or disagreeable, obstinate and prejudicial adherence to the views of a party or school with which one is connected, and so on.

But I don't think that is what Lewis has in mind. I think he has in mind causes such as: the pattern of the exchange of ions across membranes (which is a neurological account); perhaps Darwinian accounts, such as valid reasoning being an instrument of natural selection, such that it is counted as valid because it leads to successfully navigating one's environment.

She says further down:

Given the scientific explanation of human thought and action which the naturalist hypothesis asserts to be possible, we could, if we had the data that the explanation required, predict what any man was going to say, and what conclusions he was going to form.

That is a very big 'if'. And it's also in conflict with much of what she says in the other essay we're discussing, Causality and Determination - specifically, the very last paragraph. Furthermore any 'scientific explanation' must itself draw on the rules of inference, and not simply appeal to observations of data, because all such observations are subject to interpretation - what does the data mean?

In short, not swayed by Anscombe's objections. Overall, I think Victor Reppert's chapter on the subject is superior.

The dark matter can be black holes — Haglund

That's been ruled out. There's not nearly enough mass in the calculated total number of black hole material to account for it. But don't ask me for the references and let's not go down that rabbit-hole, better to ask such questions on physicsforum.com.

nature seems to follow mathematically describable laws — Agent Smith

This has already been referred to but it's always worth another mention, https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

In my humble opinion, that's a matter of taste. Does the thrown stone follow the parabola or the parabola the stone? What comes first, the parabola or the trajectory? — Haglund

In what sense does a parabola follow a stone?

Try it the other way round: A stone traces a parabola. It makes complete sense.

This has already been referred to but it's always worth another mention, https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html — Wayfarer

:up:

Can you parse Haglund's claim that a parabola "follows" a stone?

That's been ruled out — Wayfarer

It hasn't. It's gaining popularity, in fact. The search for primordial black holes is on. In fact, LIGO measurements support the idea.

"A new study theorizes that primordial black holes formed after the Big Bang (the far left panel) constitute all dark matter in the universe. At early epochs they cluster and seed the formation of early galaxies and then eventually grow by feeding off gas and merging with other black holes to create the supermassive black holes seen at the center of galaxies like our own Milky Way today. (Credit: Yale and ESA)"

See here

that's a matter of taste. — Haglund

Yep, math is/should be subjective!

In what sense does a parabola follow a stone — Agent Smith

The parabola form is traced out by the stone. It's not there before.

The parabola form is traced out by the stone. It's not there before. — Haglund

Time, I believe, is not relevant to the issue. We're describing, loosely speaking, behavior of matter & energy and that, for all intents and purposes, is mathematically defined/constrained. A stone, given the laws of physics, must trace a parabolic path through the air.

So Anscombe is not, in criticizing Lewis, defending naturalism. — Wayfarer

AsI understand it, she was a long time critic of naturalism. For the rest, I think reason-explanations are causal-explanations when I read Davidson, but not otherwise. But this is distracting me from other reading, so interesting though it is, it must wait. Although I will say that Anscombe's account of a reason, as seen in Intentionality, is particularly masterly, a classic.

A stone, given the laws of physics, must trace a parabolic path through the air. — Agent Smith

Well, through air, the path is not a parabola actually. But it looks like one. The very concept of a parabola follows from math. There are no parabolas in nature. The water rays shot from fountains resemble parabolas but before we invented them, it was nowhere to be seen. They are imaginaries. Of course some natural phenomena have mathematical shapes, but do they have them because they have to follow it?

It hasn't. It's gaining popularity, in fact. — Haglund

Fair enough, I stand corrected. But I don't expect it to be resolved in my lifetime.

this is distracting me from other reading, so interesting though it is, it must wait. — Banno

Shame, it's the real substance of the thread.

But I don't expect it to be resolved in my lifetime. — Wayfarer

You'll live another 10 years... :smile:

Can you parse Haglund's claim that a parabola "follows" a stone? — Agent Smith

I don't think that's correct. But scientists and philosophers both have long noticed the uncanny relationship between maths and the world, going back to the Pythagoreans (and probably before.) I've read a couple of books on it, Mario Livio - Is God a Mathematician? being one.

My view is that in some fundamental sense, number is real. Not that there aren't imaginary numbers and imaginary mathematical systems, as there surely are - but that in grasping mathematical truths, you're grasping something real, not subjective, not a product of the mind. Loosely speaking that is called mathematical platonism and it's a favourite subject of mine, although not being highly proficient at maths is a handicap.

You'll live another 10 years. — Haglund

I would be vastly surprised if the dark matter-energy conundrum is solved in the next 10 years, or 10 decades.

Like I said, dark matter is black hole, dark energy is negatively curved 4d space, pushing apart matter on two 3d universes. So what to do now we know that and the basic structure of matter? What is there still to be found at the fundaments? An existential void kicks in...

DE and DM have nothing in common. Apart from being dark.

I don't think that's correct. But scientists and philosophers both have long noticed the uncanny relationship between maths and the world, going back to the Pythagoreans (and probably before.) I've read a couple of books on it, Mario Livio - Is God a Mathematician? being one.

My view is that in some fundamental sense, number is real. Not that there aren't imaginary numbers and imaginary mathematical systems, as there surely are - but that in grasping mathematical truths, you're grasping something real, not subjective, not a product of the mind. Loosely speaking that is called mathematical platonism and it's a favourite subject of mine, although not being highly proficient at maths is a handicap. — Wayfarer

All I can say, based on my own analysis, for what it's worth, is that maths is a part of reality. Math, unlike a unicorn, the classic example of something unreal, describes how real-world objects like stones, rockets, planets, stars, and galaxies behave. That, in my book, qualifies as real enough!

Intriguingly, consciousness doesn't seem to matter to math. Throw me off the balcony of a 4^th floor apartment and I'll follow the laws of gravity just as a stone would if chucked from the same height. My consciousness isn't part of the equation that describes my fall, as if it didn't exist at all! I find that quite disheartening, don't you?

If God were a mathematician, His mathematical laws don't distinguish humans from lumps of rock or from anything else for that matter. Odd that! It makes me wonder about ethics!

Well, through air, the path is not a parabola actually. But it looks like one. The very concept of a parabola follows from math. There are no parabolas in nature. The water rays shot from fountains resemble parabolas but before we invented them, it was nowhere to be seen. They are imaginaries. Of course some natural phenomena have mathematical shapes, but do they have them because they have to follow it? — Haglund

To me, the structure of nature is perfect (mathematical) and that, to my reckoning, is (true) beauty.

What we believe is beauty though is, on that view, imperfection.

(W)hol(l)y shit!

(W)hol(l)y shit! — Janus

:lol:

Say that again! Goddamned! I mean... eeehh... what do I mean?

To me, the structure of nature is perfect (mathematical) and that, to my reckoning, is (true) beauty.

What we believe is beauty though is, on that view, imperfection — Agent Smith

Had to think about that one! What is the structure of nature? Most structures in nature don't have a counterpart in math. What's the mathematical structure of a face? A facoid? What's the mathematical expression for that facoid?

For me, sheer interest. Nothing more or less. Simply put.....how do I know stuff. What explains how I know stuff. What is the knowing of stuff? Any fool can learn practically anything, given enough time, which I was already pretty good at, but....what happens between my ears that explains how that happens to me? — Mww

Reached any conclusions about that?

That is where it all comes back to defining a reciprocal relation between bounding extremes. — apokrisis

This is where you are wrong, because you are not distinguishing between the ideal and the real. I explained this already. You said a thing is flat to the degree that it's not curved, and a thing is curved to the degree that it's not flat. Clearly this is incorrect, because "flat" accepts no degrees of curvature. You said so yourself, it is zero curvature. And all degrees predicated in this subject are degrees of curvature. There is no such thing as degrees of flatness. There is no reciprocal relation between zero and many.

Therefore this is not a matter of a "reciprocal relation between bounding extremes", it is a categorical separation between two distinct types of things. A two dimensional flat plane is categorically different from a three dimensional curved surface, and it is incorrect to represent the two dimensional as a bounding limit to the three dimensional, or the three dimensional as a bounding limit to the two dimensional. We can see this difference between all levels of dimension, between zero and one, one and two, two and three, as well as between three and four. Each dimension adds a new feature, a new kind of property, that's what a "dimension" is. To describe one dimension as the "bounding extreme" of another dimension, is simply incorrect.

In simpler terms, we can represent a real spatial object, at a supposed moment in time, with three dimensions, but we cannot represent a real spatial object with two dimensions. So the two dimensional figure clearly represents nothing real in the world, there is nothing in the world which occupies space in a two dimensional way. Therefore there is a very substantial difference between what can be done with a two dimensional representation and what can be done with a three dimensional representation. The limitations of the two dimensional figure are completely different from the limitations of the three dimensional figure. They are not bounding restrictions of each other.

So quit digging and start climbing. The view is better. — apokrisis

Sorry, but when one's goal is to dispel illusion, digging down is much more productive than climbing higher. I'd rather be digging in the hole of truth, pointing at the extremely unstable grounding of your ladder, than to be at the top of that ladder which is about to fall, enjoying the excellent illusion.

Yeah, pitifully....for my knowledge, I have no choice but to trust an intrinsically circular explanatory system, the very one that tells me to never trust circular explanatory systems.

Yeah, pitifully....for my knowledge, I have no choice but to trust an intrinsically circular explanatory system, the very one that tells me to never trust circular explanatory systems. — Mww

Do you forget that and rediscover it over and over? Or are you always aware of it?

I have to be aware with respect to what I learn, but I can relax with respect to what I already know. And that from exactly this......

when one's goal is to dispel illusion, digging down is much more productive than climbing higher. — Metaphysician Undercover

....insofar as if one way to dispel illusion is to regulate.....technically, to legislate..... circularity, then logical reductionism to analytic truths.....technically, laws.....serves as ground for trusting the system from which my knowledge is given. The complexities are merely speculative, of course, and themselves circular if over-reduced, re: MU’s digging down too deep, but it does work.

Which gets you your answer: if what I claim as knowledge is predicated on analytic truths, my rational circularity is abated. Conversely, if what I claim as knowledge depends on empirical conditions, for which analytic truths are impossible, such knowledge is always derived from potential circularity, hence, potentially unsupported.

The solution? That which stands in stead of analytic truths, such that potential circularity from empirical conditions can be abated with as great a certainty as analytic truths, in order that I might trust my epistemological system regarding the world in general as much as I trust my own thinking.

You know its name.

ok

But if logical necessity is separable from physical causation, then this claim can't be maintained. A logical inference is, in very simple terms, "that if this is the case, then that must be so". And here the 'must' is that of logical necessity. — Wayfarer

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps on point.

A physicist writing about Quantum Theory, clarified her use of the word "information" : "First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives." (Bateson : "the difference that makes a difference", a meaningful distinction in a mind) Her illustration is an if-then proposition, similar to your own. So, the implication is that fundamentally, Information (meaning) is a function of mental Logic, not of material Physics.

Hence, to restate your question : is Logical Necessity caused by some physical force or entity? Or is it a fundamental principle of Reality? Is it a law of Physics, or a law of Meta-Physics? Are natural Laws (physical regularities) necessary (absolute) or contingent (fortuitous)? If they could be otherwise, what was the prior Cause (the "must") of their necessity for the emergence & evolution of the physical world? Are natural laws a logical prerequisite for any functioning physical cosmic machine? Or merely for our local 'verse? Oh, yeah! Who says? :joke:


What is the difference between logical necessity and physical necessity? :
Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives. The basic unit of information is the bit, the amount of information you gain if you have no idea of the answer to a yes-or-no question and then you learn the answer.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-steampunk/

Sorry, but when one's goal is to dispel illusion, — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol:

A physicist writing about Quantum Theory, clarified her use of the word "information" : — Gnomon

In deep humbleness I dare to give a definition: information is matter being in formation. A gas has no particles in formation. The information content, the entropy, is maximal. If the particles form a rigid solid, they are in tight formation. The information content, the entropy, is minimal. The interesting in formation is in between.

So:
Gas----> 0 in formation ----> max entropy-information
Solid--> max in formation ----> 0 entropy-information

Intermedium state ---->
Interesting, medium in formation---->
Medium entropy-information

It's the intermediate state for which entropy-information equals interesting, medium in formation

From the think big article:

"Quantum steampunk is a blend of quantum information and thermodynamics. It promises to revolutionize our understanding of machines and the future of technology. As a bonus, it may provide new insights into some of the hardest questions in physics, such as the arrow of time, or why we can’t remember the future. Below is a summary of our conversation."

Revolutionizing our understanding of machines and the future of technology? Is this Nietzsche's understanding of the übermensch? Scary!
And then"hardest questions in physics, such as the arrow of time, or why we can’t remember the future." Mind you, but what kind of problem is that? Why we can't remember the future? Because time flows forward. Could have been backwards though. Then our memories would disappear from our minds. So why it doesn't flow backwards then? The present universe could have begun at infinity... But it didn't. Why not?