StephenLawrence - 26 October 2011 11:20 PM

Write4U - 26 October 2011 03:15 PM

Is Causality a “brute fact”?

On the regularist view the answer appears to be yes.

The regularist is saying causes don’t necessitate their effects it’s just the case that under certain conditions the effects follow the causes every single time. (or most of the time in the case of probabilistic causation)
This presents the same problem of induction, how is it that epistemic probability of this continuing into the future is raised?

Stephen

I agree with your analysis, I think.

However I have a problem with a causality which is not causal to a resulting effect. A causality earns it’s name by being causal. Else, it is merely a non-causal result.

Write4U - 27 October 2011 12:17 AM

StephenLawrence - 26 October 2011 11:20 PM

Write4U - 26 October 2011 03:15 PM

Is Causality a “brute fact”?

On the regularist view the answer appears to be yes.

The regularist is saying causes don’t necessitate their effects it’s just the case that under certain conditions the effects follow the causes every single time. (or most of the time in the case of probabilistic causation)
This presents the same problem of induction, how is it that epistemic probability of this continuing into the future is raised?

Stephen

I agree with your analysis, I think.

However I have a problem with a causality which is not causal to a resulting effect. A causality earns it’s name by being causal. Else, it is merely a non-causal result.

I know, you’re an intuitive necessitarian, like me.

I’m discussing the implications of the regularist approach.

Mind you the regularist response is that nomic necessity doesn’t help solve the problem of induction but I’m leaving that to one side for now.

MO all laws of nature are inevitably acquired by a spacetime structure within a 4 dimensional geometric boundary.
Einstein’s example of the “man in the accelerating box”. It demonstrated an artificially created gravitational spacetime warp while proving that within the box a light beam can travel a curved (longer) path and still arrive at the other wall at the same time as a straight line light beam.

I just cannot imagine any kind of form or fundamental structure without acquiring properties which are subject to and restricted by their potentials.
IMO Natural Laws are the fundamental laws by which our universe can and does express itself. They “exist” only in the abstract until a universal condition tests the limits of this structure and discovers the universal limitations on how the limits maybe tested and what actions are allowed.
The term Brute fact is confusing.  To me it smacks of deism. I would reduce the term to Potential, which is a latent ability of universal being.

Write4U - 27 October 2011 03:38 AM

The term Brute fact is confusing.

It’s not confusing to think something is the case for no reason, it just is.

To me it smacks of deism.

No, in that case God would be the reason.

I would reduce the term to Potential, which is a latent ability of universal being.

Ok does gravity have the potential to change tomorrow?

And if so why won’t it?

Stephen

GdB - 26 October 2011 11:08 PM

No. Laws of nature cannot be ‘brute facts’, because they are not caused. So they cannot be ‘brute facts’ or ‘explained facts’ in the sense above.

A fact that is not caused and has no other reason for being the case is a brute fact.

I don’t understand what you’re saying at all here.

Then there is no point to go on.

Ok re-read it your making the same point as before.

Nature is not contingent, it’s not necessary, it just is.

You’re adding a third option.

As I’ve pointed out this doesn’t help at all because what we are concerned with is epistemic probability.

The implications of the view that nature just is, are identical to the implications of nature being contingent (the usual regularist view).

So two theories.

1) Nature is a place in which gravity remains the same.

2) Nature is place in which gravity changes on the 29th October 2011.

Epistemic probability without any reason to move it one way or another 50/50.

Falsification doesn’t work because neither theory is falsified.

Induction doesn’t work because results from the past would be the same which ever theory is true.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 27 October 2011 10:13 PM

Write4U - 27 October 2011 03:38 AM

The term Brute fact is confusing.

It’s not confusing to think something is the case for no reason, it just is.

To me it smacks of deism.

No, in that case God would be the reason.

I would reduce the term to Potential, which is a latent ability of universal being.

Ok does gravity have the potential to change tomorrow?

And if so why won’t it?

Stephen

No, on the grounds that Potential is the inherent latent energetic properties of a thing. As long as a thing remains what it is, its potential is an aspect (result) of its properties.
So it is with gravity, gravity is a potential of the spacetime fabric. It is a latent aspect of geometric spacetime which manifests itself (becomes apparent)  in reality by the seemingly ‘attractive’ behavior of two massive bodies in motion and the fabric of spacetime is disturbed by the interference of the relative masspeeds of those objects and the type (there are 4) of potential gravities they produce by their relative masspeed.
I submit that latent energetic potential cannot be seperated from an objective abstract concept of the universe itself. Gravity is an expression of potential. Force is an expression of potential. Attraction is an expression of potential. Unless you remove Potential, all three phenomena are protected by the amount of potential present in spacetime.
In a binary universe there would have to be a universal (mega) simultaneous state of quantum suspension, in between physical realities.
I submit that the potential for a continuing ordinary spacetime in this universe, creates a probability of continuation that is short of infinitely greater than the probability that it would suddenly end in a single universal quantum collapse. What Potential force would be great enought to instantaneously alter the functional Universal laws as we can observe them?

Write4U - 27 October 2011 11:50 PM

I submit that the potential for a continuing ordinary spacetime in this universe, creates a probability of continuation that is short of infinitely greater than the probability that it would suddenly end in a single universal quantum collapse. What Potential force would be great enought to instantaneously alter the functional Universal laws as we can observe them?

Ok, what I believe you are saying is this.

The probability of gravity changing tomorrow is neglegible.

This probability has nothing to do with our certainty or uncertainty (epistemic probability)

This probability is objective, would be the case even if there were no beings with degrees of knowledge.

As probability is graded possibility it follows that you think the universe is contingent.

So your solution to the problem of induction is that:

The objective probability of gravity changing tomorrow is neglegible.

We have a way of knowing that.

That is the reason that induction has worked in this case and how we get from induction to knowledge of the future of gravity.

Stephen

  a perfect example of “too big to fail”..........

1) The epistemic probability of gravity remaining the same tomorrow is above 70%

2) There are only two ways that can be the case. ( 1) Nomic necessity 2) Nomic probability, a high probability independent of our knowledge )

Therefore the universe is either contingent or necessary, there is no third option.

Stephen

That’s a straw man.
The epistemic probability of gravity remaining essentially the same tomorrow is above 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

I am disregarding entropy, which is a gradual process, but which does assure the existence of gravity tomorrow.

And IMO there is a third option…inevitability…“once it has begun, it is that way”..

Write4U - 28 October 2011 01:40 AM

That’s a straw man.
The epistemic probability of gravity remaining essentially the same tomorrow is above 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

I am disregarding entropy, which is a gradual process, but which does assure the existence of gravity tomorrow.

And IMO there is a third option…inevitability…“once it has begun, it is that way”..

My last post was just thoughts on the idea that the universe is neither contingent or necessary but instead just is. That is what GdB thinks.

You are making it clear that you think either gravity cannot change = Nomic necessity = inevitability, or the reason that the epistemic probability is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is because the objective probability= nomic porobability is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% and we know that with 99.999999999999999999999999999% certainty.

So we are in agreement.

Edit: Gdb on the other hand thinks the epistemic probability of the universe changing tomorrow is very low just because it hasn’t in the past. Put another way, the theories that gravity would change yesterday and the day before yesterday etc etc have been falsified and that’s all we need to raise the epistemic probability of gravity remaining the same tomorrow.

Stephen