My conclusion is that scientific law is where logical necessity meets physical causation. I haven't seen an argument to dissuade me of that original idea, although I keep an open mind. — Wayfarer
I like a truly simplistic explanation: When embedded in spacetime logical necessity becomes physical causation. :nerd: — jgill
My conclusion is that scientific law is where logical necessity meets physical causation. I haven't seen an argument to dissuade me of that original idea, although I keep an open mind. — Wayfarer
This despite being shown in both the Anscombe article and Del Santo's work that physical causation is not a necessary relation; — Banno
My conclusion is that scientific law is where logical necessity meets physical causation. — Wayfarer
"Logical necessity" in this context implies that for the laws to be different would be a logical contradiction. — Janus
Is it logically necessary that spacetime must be always the same? — Janus
Again, physical causation is not a necessary relation; and logical necessity sets out the way things might be spoken about, not the way things are. — Banno
You desire to see something mysterious — Banno
5.133 All inference takes place a priori.
5.134 From an elementary proposition no other can be inferred.
5.135 In no way can an inference be made from the existence of one state of affairs to the existence of another entirely different from it.
5.136 There is no causal nexus which justifies such an inference.
5.1361 The events of the future cannot be inferred from those of the present.
Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus.
what I think it means, is simply that you can make reasoned predictions and draw conclusions based on both observation and inference. Something very close to Kant's synthetic a priori. — 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.