An interesting OP. :up: — Agent Smith

thank you.

Mill's 5 methods (to establish causality). — Agent Smith

if one denies causality, that doesn’t mean that one also denies necessity, and this is because the category of necessity can exist independently of the category of causality. that is to say that if ‘x is necessary for y’ that it doesn’t necessarily follow that ‘x causes y’ (e.g. glass is necessary for glass jars, but glass doesn’t cause glass jars), but that if ‘x causes y,’ and only x can cause y, then the existence of c is necessary for the existence of y (so causality implies necessity).

An astute observation. What, if I may be so bold as to ask, exactly are you driving at here? As far as I can tell, we have on our hands an intertwined tangled ball of cognate concepts and our task seems to be obvious.

so you guys have chased all the philosophers away, and now there’s only sophists left here? it’s a barren wasteland on this forum, a body without a soul, it seems.

I'm a philosopher.

I'm a philosopher. — Bartricks

not until you have a soul.

Philosophers vs. Sophists? A topic for another discussion mon ami.

Picking up where we left off, I'd say that you're on the right track but I sense multiple obstacles up ahead and I'm too old and exhausted to be of any help.

right.

you ask me to define my terms. you then disagree with the definitions. and then we spend the whole time talking about definitions and not of what those definitions mean, and then we talk in circles all day getting nowhere, and this, by definition, is where the sophist wins his battles, on the battlefield of definitions, and of our supposed inability to define things and relations with absolute certainty. It’s not like I want to go down this road either, as it only ends in disagreement.

I do have a soul. And I'm a philosopher.

As far as I can tell we're not doing anything that other ("great") philosophers haven't done!

To return to what you seem to be interested in, temporal precedence is implied in necessity; however, it may not be so for all.

To return to what you seem to be interested in, temporal precedence is implied in necessity; however, it may not be so for all. — Agent Smith

What on earth are you talking about?

What on earth are you talking about? — Bartricks

I'm scoutin'!

What do you mean by 'necessity' then? Why do you think it implies 'exists before anything else'?

What do you mean by 'necessity' then? Why do you think it implies 'exists before anything else'? — Bartricks

you cannot have an atom without a nucleus, so the existence of atoms is contingent upon the prior existence of nuclei, so to deny that logical necessity does not imply temporal precedence, you would have to prove that something can come into existence after the things which are necessary for its existence, and you would thus have to prove, for example, that an atom can exist without a nuclei. In other words, you would have to prove the logically impossible to be possible.

it may not be so for all. — Agent Smith

for all? how can it be true for some and not for all? do you have any examples of things that can come into being independently of the things which are necessary for their existence?

That one thing depends on another does not entail that the former existed before the latter. As I keep explaining.

That one thing depends on another does not entail that the former existed before the latter. As I keep explaining. — Bartricks

I understand that you’re claiming this, without proof. I’m just asking for your proof that something which is logically necessary for something else, can come into existence after that thing (in terms of the first possible occurrence of that thing).

bones are necessary for human bodies, so all you have to do is prove that human bodies can exist independently of bones (in terms of the first possible occurrence), and you will have proven me wrong and you right.

If you wish to call yourself a philosopher, here is your chance to prove yourself.

If entity A is necessary for the existence of entity B (and B is not necessary for A), then does it necessarily follow that that entity A is also logically prior to entity B, and if entity A is logically prior to entity B, does that not also mean that it is temporally prior to entity B as well (in terms of the first possible occurrence of entity B), or does logical necessity not necessarily also imply temporal priority? — TheGreatArcanum

The answer I am inclined to give is that causation, logical linking, and necessary existence for something else all require temporal precedence. However, this is not true in Quantum Mechanics.

Some philosophers came up with the idea that our LOGIC systems were developed by getting shaped by environmental observations of mankind. All human observation has been shaped, influenced and without fail, by events observed that all followed the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the laws of syllogisms. The reason our logic is so tightly wound around beliefs that they are always true, is that our evolving minds had no need to think any other way.

Then came quantum mechanics, quantum physics.

Its logic has spit in the face of intuition based on human logic.

The best the theoretical philosophers could do to doctor this situation was to call human-intuitive logic Logic 1 and counter-human-intuitive-logic, Logic 2.

------------------------------

bones are necessary for human bodies, so all you have to do is prove that human bodies can exist independently of bones (in terms of the first possible occurrence), and you will have proven me wrong and you right.

If you wish to call yourself a philosopher, here is your chance to prove yourself. — TheGreatArcanum

You are only half right in this demand.

Popper's theorem of what constitutes scientific findings is the key here, I think. An a priori proof has not been found to prove Hume wrong, inasmuch as events are in a causational flow or in a constant random sequence, where by coincidence -- for lack of a better word -- the illusion is generated of causation.

And you ask us to find that a priori proof, and present it to you, in order to be worthy of calling ourselves philosophers.

The bar is too high.

You did change the raw quesiton; you made a question whereby the cause is or prior event is necessary for the ensuing event. But that does not change the postion of the reclining beauty (a Hungarian expression -- pardon me). In other words, you are still setting up a theorem that -- in my opinion -- nobody can prove.

Why can't anybody prove it? Because. (And that's my best and final answer.) In other words, the theory of causality and the theory of coincidentality are perfectly flawless and acceptable, even though they are different. And they are not mutually exclusive.

Its logic has spit in the face of human intuition based on logic. — god must be atheist

I think that the logic of quantum mechanics is ultimately derived from classical logic. this is because quantum logical pertains to spatial categories, and space is not eternal.

You did change the raw quesiton; you made a question whereby the cause is or prior event is necessary for the ensuing event. — god must be atheist

I’m not evening talking about causation here, but about the relationship between logical necessity and temporal precedence.

Okay, I stand corrected.

This question can be decided two ways: analytically, and experientially.

First I make a question from your wondering:

Can an event A which is logically necessary to precipitate another event B NOT precede B in chronological starting time of existence?

I am too small to decide it analytically. I put it to you that no human being can get close to the solution that way. I can supply no proof for that. And asking any philosopher to give you a definitive answer is asking too much.

Experientially it is easy to prove that the answer to my question's yes, and hard to prove that the answer is no. To show that the answer is yes, the philosopher has to find an example for it. No examples (real world events) exist in that way. So it is easy to prove, but the proof has not happened yet.

To show that the answer is no experimentally, you need to obsrve all events, examine the events in which such precipitation occurs, and see that they all follow the rule of intuition. If they ALL follow, including all events ever in the future, then you proved experientially that the answer is no, it can't.

I think that the logic of quantum mechanics is ultimately derived from classical logic. this is because quantum logical pertains to spatial categories, and space is not eternal. — TheGreatArcanum

I agree with the first sentence. the second sentence is an opinion, and I think it is irrelevant.

On the other hand, while developing qm behavour's math models, the logic has shifted to observing calculated events that are logically impossible with an explanation using only classical logic.

While the math is all classical logic, the interpretation yields real events that are not logical by our intutition and by our logic.

If entity A is necessary for the existence of entity B (and B is not necessary for A), then does it necessarily follow that that entity A is also logically prior to entity B, and if entity A is logically prior to entity B, does that not also mean that it is temporally prior to entity B as well (in terms of the first possible occurrence of entity B), or does logical necessity not necessarily also imply temporal priority? — TheGreatArcanum

If mathematics are not illusory, and if the occurrence of geometric points is necessary for the occurrence of geometric figures, then this would be one example of logical necessity devoid of temporal priority: the geometric figure logically necessitates geometric points thought both are fully concurrent.

I believe other examples of conceivable relations wherein temporal priority is not implied in the given logical necessity are possible, but nowhere as easy to articulate. Backward causation is one such (and it presumes a block universe). Even more complexly would be “top-down” and “bottom-up” constraints (as they’ve been often enough termed on this forum). Were Aristotle's causes to be viewed as metaphysically occurring rather than as merely being "explanations to why questions", the same could be argued to apply to some such, like material causes.

Out of curiosity, if this happens to make a difference: Are you addressing this issue in regard to what does or can ontically occur or, else, in regard to our human capacity to conceptualize various forms of logical necessity (whether or not our conceptions be illusory)?

I agree with the first sentence. the second sentence is an opinion, and I think it is irrelevant. — god must be atheist

what is an opinion to you may be an analytic a priori truth for me (which is proven elsewhere).

To show that the answer is no experimentally, you need to obsrve all events, examine the events in which such precipitation occurs, and see that they all follow the rule of intuition. If they ALL follow, including all events ever in the future, then you proved experientially that the answer is no, it can't. — god must be atheist

even if it were to be shown to be false, empirically, it wouldn't negate the analytic necessity of the a priori truth; it would simply mean that time has a bi-conditional arrow, that there are two different directions in which logical necessity can flow (which is always in the direction in which time is flowing, I presume).

On the other hand, while developing qm behavour's math models, the logic has shifted to observing calculated events that are logically impossible with an explanation using only classical logic. — god must be atheist

I do believe that we must use non-classical logic to understand QM, but not that classical logic is derived from non-classical logic. according to my understanding, if classical logic is necessary for non-classical logic, then classical logically is at the very least logically prior, and at the very most both logically and temporally prior to the categories of non-classical logic.

if the occurrence of geometric points is necessary for the occurrence of geometric figures, then this would be one example of logical necessity devoid of temporal priority: the geometric figure logically necessitates geometric points thought both are fully concurrent. — javra

one can speak of the relationship between precedence and geometry without invoking temporal relations, but one cannot speak of the relationship between knowledge and geometry without invoking temporal relations.

Out of curiosity, if this happens to make a difference: Are you addressing this issue in regard to what does or can ontically occur or, else, in regard to our human capacity to conceptualize various forms of logical necessity (whether or not our conceptions be illusory)? — javra

I am looking to use the a priori analytic truth: "If A is necessary for B (and B is not necessary for A), then A is necessarily either logically prior or both logically and temporally prior to B in time (in terms of the absolute first possible occurrence of B), as a foundation for a new modal method which is based, not in the concepts of necessity and possibility (as antitheses), but the concepts of necessity and contingency (antitheses).

of course, I have already created this new method and philosophy, and am ready to publish it. Using this fundamental a priori axiom as a foundation for my methodology, I have determined the precedence relationships between the natural categories of physics (e.g. space, time, mass, velocity, volume, etc) and the natural categories of the mind (e.g. memory, understanding, and intentionality, etc), and have shown, undeniably (I believe) that the categories of the mind are logically necessary for the categories of physics.

According to my understanding, the only possible way to disprove my philosophy is to disprove the truth "If A necessitates B , then B is logically prior to A," hence the reason why I am posting it here.

Of course, as expected, I was gracefully met by those who deny the possibility of logical necessity while (unknowingly) using thoughts that necessitate the category of logical necessity. But would this even be a philosophy forum if I were not greeted by sophists first?

Got it. Thanks for the background info. I think I agree with the case you've just made, because ...

I am looking to use the a priori analytic truth: "If A is necessary for B (and B is not necessary for A), then A is necessarily either logically prior or both logically and temporally prior to B in time (in terms of the absolute first possible occurrence of B), as a foundation for a new modal method which is based, not in the concepts of necessity and possibility (as antitheses), but the concepts of necessity and contingency (antitheses). — TheGreatArcanum

Since you use "or both" I so far don't find any problems in this a priori analytic truth as expressed.

Good luck to you.

If entity A is necessary for the existence of entity B (and B is not necessary for A), then does it necessarily follow that that entity A is also logically prior to entity B, and if entity A is logically prior to entity B, does that not also mean that it is temporally prior to entity B as well (in terms of the first possible occurrence of entity B), or does logical necessity not necessarily also imply temporal priority?
Does Necessity Imply Temporal Priority? — TheGreatArcanum

I am looking to use the a priori analytic truth: "If A is necessary for B (and B is not necessary for A), then A is necessarily either logically prior or both logically and temporally prior to B in time (in terms of the absolute first possible occurrence of B), as a foundation .. etc.. — TheGreatArcanum

I am not a very careful reader. but I sense that in the first quote you ask us to prove the proposition, or rather, to make a judgement on it (which implies it can be decided by voting) and then in the second quote you refer to the proposition as a put down fact. (Correct by an a priori consideration.)

So which is it? Do you want us to prove your proposition, or else to accept it as truth unconditionally, since an a priory proof exists?

Now I am confused. Please enlighten me. Why are we asked to prove something when it's true in an a priori way?

sorry, I do not mean to say that it is in need of proof, either a priori or a posteriori; but rather its truth is self-evident and therefore not in need of any proof, and this is because one cannot deny it without presupposing that it is true (i.e. because it pertains to the structure of thought itself, which cannot possibly be organized differently).

Thanks. Then why the poll, and the entire thread? I know you want to find out the answer to:

as a foundation for a new modal method which is based, not in the concepts of necessity and possibility (as antitheses), but the concepts of necessity and contingency (antitheses). — TheGreatArcanum

... but this question was not put in the OP. One can find out the need for the post only by getting to this line... which forms the kernel of the inquiry.... would be nicer, and more conducive to your cause, if you included this dilemma in the op.

No big deal, I am okay with this, it's only a small mistake in composition. But now it seems you are moving the goalposts, nevertheless.

No big deal, I am okay with this, it's only a small mistake in composition. But now it seems you are moving the goalposts, nevertheless. — god must be atheist

I have edited the original post. I have removed the poll and posted that I intend to use it as a fundamental axiom for an entire system of philosophy.

I am actually ready to publish and am looking to hire editors, but I cannot seem to find any competent ones, and this is because I've probably been looking in the wrong places.

No, you really don't understand at all.

You have a thesis that is false, but you're so convinced it is true no argument will sway you, as any argument that contradicts your confused thesis is, as you see it, faulty for that very reason.

You think that existing eternally and existing of necessity are the same. That is already profoundly confused. They're not the same. Something that exists of necessity will always exist - so it will exist eternally - but it does not follow that if something exists eternally it will exist of necessity.

Now, I showed you this. Anything that exists contingently right now, can - in principle - exist at every moment in time. And then it would exist eternally. But it wouldn't thereby exist of necessity - it remains a contingent existence.

If you can understand that, then you will also be able to see how there is nothing in the notion of necessity that requires a necessary existent to exist 'before' a contingent one. They can exist concurrently.