more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

Single Idea 19670

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / b. Scientific necessity ]

Full Idea

We must ask how we are to explain the manifest stability of physical laws, given that we take these to be contingent?

Gist of Idea

Why are contingent laws of nature stable?

Source

Quentin Meillassoux (After Finitude; the necessity of contingency [2006], 4)

Book Ref

Meillassoux: 'After Finitude: the necessity of contingency', ed/tr. Brassier,R [Bloomsbury 2008], p.91

A Reaction

Meissalloux offers a very deep and subtle answer to this question... It is based on the possibilities of chaos being an uncountable infinity... It is a very nice question, which physicists might be able to answer, without help from philosophy.

Related Idea

Idea 19672 Kant fails to prove the necessity of laws, because his reasoning about chance is over-ambitious [Meillassoux on Kant]

The 25 ideas from 'After Finitude; the necessity of contingency'

19648 Since Kant we think we can only access 'correlations' between thinking and being [Meillassoux]
19649 Since Kant, objectivity is defined not by the object, but by the statement's potential universality [Meillassoux]
19651 Unlike speculative idealism, transcendental idealism assumes the mind is embodied [Meillassoux]
19647 The aspects of objects that can be mathematical allow it to have objective properties [Meillassoux]
19652 How can we mathematically describe a world that lacks humans? [Meillassoux]
19650 The transcendental subject is not an entity, but a set of conditions making science possible [Meillassoux]
19654 We must give up the modern criterion of existence, which is a correlation between thought and being [Meillassoux]
19653 The ontological proof of a necessary God ensures a reality external to the mind [Meillassoux]
19658 Now that the absolute is unthinkable, even atheism is just another religious belief (though nihilist) [Meillassoux]
19656 Non-contradiction is unjustified, so it only reveals a fact about thinking, not about reality? [Meillassoux]
19657 In Kant the thing-in-itself is unknowable, but for us it has become unthinkable [Meillassoux]
19663 We can allow contradictions in thought, but not inconsistency [Meillassoux]
19664 Paraconsistent logics are to prevent computers crashing when data conflicts [Meillassoux]
19665 Paraconsistent logic is about statements, not about contradictions in reality [Meillassoux]
19659 The absolute is the impossibility of there being a necessary existent [Meillassoux]
19662 It is necessarily contingent that there is one thing rather than another - so something must exist [Meillassoux]
19660 Possible non-being which must be realised is 'precariousness'; absolute contingency might never not-be [Meillassoux]
19671 The idea of chance relies on unalterable physical laws [Meillassoux]
19667 If the laws of nature are contingent, shouldn't we already have noticed it? [Meillassoux]
19670 Why are contingent laws of nature stable? [Meillassoux]
19666 If we insist on Sufficient Reason the world will always be a mystery to us [Meillassoux]
19668 Hume's question is whether experimental science will still be valid tomorrow [Meillassoux]
19677 What is mathematically conceivable is absolutely possible [Meillassoux]
19675 Since Kant, philosophers have claimed to understand science better than scientists do [Meillassoux]
19674 The Copernican Revolution decentres the Earth, but also decentres thinking from reality [Meillassoux]