An interesting OP. :up: — Agent Smith
Mill's 5 methods (to establish causality). — Agent Smith
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 do you mean by 'necessity' then? Why do you think it implies 'exists before anything else'? — Bartricks
it may not be so for all. — Agent Smith
That one thing depends on another does not entail that the former existed before the latter. As I keep explaining. — Bartricks
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
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
Its logic has spit in the face of human intuition based on logic. — god must be atheist
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 agree with the first sentence. the second sentence is an opinion, and I think it is irrelevant.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
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
I agree with the first sentence. the second sentence is an opinion, and I think it is irrelevant. — god must be atheist
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
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
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
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). — TheGreatArcanum
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
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
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
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.