more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
An 'event' (in a statement of the 'law of causation') is intended to be something that is likely to recur, since otherwise the law becomes trivial. It follows that an 'event' is not some particular, but a universal of which there may be many instances.
Gist of Idea
In causal laws, 'events' must recur, so they have to be universals, not particulars
Source
Bertrand Russell (On the Notion of Cause [1912], p.179)
Book Ref
Russell,Bertrand: 'Mysticism and Logic' [Unwin 1989], p.179
A Reaction
I am very struck by this. It may be a key insight into understanding what a law of nature actually is. It doesn't follow that we must be realists about universals, but the process of abstraction from particulars is at the heart of generalisation.
8379 | In causal laws, 'events' must recur, so they have to be universals, not particulars [Russell] |
16246 | Rather than take necessitation between universals as primitive, just make laws primitive [Maudlin on Armstrong] |
9480 | Armstrong has an unclear notion of contingent necessitation, which can't necessitate anything [Bird on Armstrong] |
17681 | The laws of nature link properties with properties [Armstrong] |
15876 | Maybe laws of nature are just relations between properties? [Harré] |
15093 | We might say laws are necessary by combining causal properties with Armstrong-Dretske-Tooley laws [Shoemaker] |
15237 | Originally Humeans based lawlike statements on pure qualities, without particulars [Harré/Madden] |
14639 | Individuals enter into laws only through their general qualities and relations [McMichael] |
9432 | Laws of nature are necessary relations between universal properties, rather than about particulars [Mumford] |
9433 | If laws can be uninstantiated, this favours the view of them as connecting universals [Mumford] |
9473 | Laws cannot offer unified explanations if they don't involve universals [Bird] |
9484 | If the universals for laws must be instantiated, a vanishing particular could destroy a law [Bird] |
19039 | The view that laws are grounded in substance plus external necessity doesn't suit dispositionalism [Vetter] |