I said that scientific laws (or principles) are where 'logical necessity meets physical causation'. — Wayfarer
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
exactly what Kant proved, in several tens of thousands of words. — Wayfarer
An inference can be derived from observation alone — Janus
An inference can be derived from observation alone — Janus
Not if “.....intuitions without concepts are blind....” is true. — Mww
We might say that some kind of inferred causation is logically necessary — Janus
I’d go so far as to say....objects must relate to one or more categories, cause is a category, therefore inferred causation is logically necessary for human empirical cognitions. — Mww
Cause and effect are categories of events, but I would say they are not "primary" categories. — Janus
I agree that causality is, like freedom or truth, irreducible, insofar as it cannot be explained in terms of anything else. But It is not logically necessary. There is no logical contradiction involved in thinking that events might simply happen without cause or reason — Janus
it (cause) is not an obvious attribute of objects. — Janus
form is a category of objects — Janus
a stone is not in itself a cause, — Janus
Then our method for determining the truth about the past, is designated as invalid (by your proposition), and such claims about truth are unjustifiable. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is good to divide out cause in this way, insofar as attribute implies identity of an existence while cause implies the relation of an existence. In this regard, I would agree cause is not a primary category for what an object is to be known as, but would add...neither is existence. — Mww
Trivial sidebar: existence has to do with representation of each object in general in a time, cause has to do with representation of objects in general in successive times. — Mww
.....but rather, time is. And we already know this, because time is already stated in the transcendental method as the form of all phenomena, to which every single category subsequently applies. — Mww
But can it be said with equal certainty, that a stone is not an effect? If it cannot be said, or it is said but contradicts empirical conditions, therein lay the validity for those categories with complementary, what Kant calls “dynamical”, nature. As opposed to “mathematical”, which do not have complementary conceptions belonging to them. — Mww
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that understanding events in terms of (some kind of) causation is somehow "invalid"; in fact it is the only way we can understand events. Any explanation of the connections between events must posit some hidden forces or powers; whether those are gods, animating spirits or mechanical causes — Janus
I agree that causality is, like freedom or truth, irreducible, insofar as it cannot be explained in terms of anything else. But It is not logically necessary. There is no logical contradiction involved in thinking that events might simply happen without cause or reason. — Janus
But there is no strictly logical contradiction involved in thinking that a stone could have randomly popped into existence for no reason and caused by nothing — Janus
Then how do you justify your other statement, that causation is not logically necessary? — Metaphysician Undercover
What constitutes "understanding" to you? — Metaphysician Undercover
Neither of these will work for stones, though, or any possible experience of ours. We know stones, so we are restrained by the logic of physical causality because of that knowledge. If we deny logical necessity for that which we claim to know, we jeopardize the very conception of entailment for empirical knowledge itself. — Mww
For something to be psychologically necessary is not always for something to be logically necessary.Thinking in terms of causation may be necessary for our rational understanding of things; our rationalizations so to speak, but this is not the same as to say that thinking in terms of causation is logically necessary. — Janus
The fact, if it is one, that we can only understand events by thinking causally does not entail that the events must be causal. Also, I haven't said that events can happen without cause. I have said there is no logical contradiction involved in thinking that they could happen without cause. — Janus
Can we agree that what might be thought to be logically necessary for our rational thinking (what is psychologically necessary) can be distinguished from what is logically necessary per se? — Janus
Logically necessary per se. In my mind, that translates to....what is logically necessary because it is logically necessary. What is logically necessary just because it is. I honestly don’t know what to do with that. — Mww
I'm interested in the fact that Kant acknowledges 'pure physics'.
— Wayfarer
He does? I don’t recall. Doesn’t seem quite right.
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
“Pure” physics as a self-contained science is a misnomer, I think, at least without reference to a specific text. — Mww
Galileo counters the Aristotelian approach not by performing experiments, but by showing that it [e.g. the mathematical fabric of space-time] must be so and not otherwise. In this sense, physics is made to be an a priori discipline of necessary truths. Koyré sums it up as follows: ‘The Galilean revolution can be boiled down … to the discovery of the fact that mathematics is the grammar of science. It is this discovery of the rational structure of Nature which gave the a priori foundations to the modern experimental science and made its constitution possible.
Maybe you should try and get one. Might upgrade your input. :wink: — Wayfarer
ah, so the difference between empirical and a priori in physics is echoed by the difference between the theorists and the experimentalists (which is always a pretty major division in 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.....
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.