66 ideas
| 22611 | Metaphysics can criticise interpretations of science theories, and give good feedback [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Metaphysics is capable of critical scrutiny of the way the empirical sciences make sense of their own theories, and can provide them with very useful feedback. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1.9) | |
| A reaction: I agree with this, but I don't think it is the main job of metaphysics, which has its own agenda, using science as some of its raw material. |
| 15945 | Second-order set theory just adds a version of Replacement that quantifies over functions [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Second-order set theory is just like first-order set-theory, except that we use the version of Replacement with a universal second-order quantifier over functions from set to sets. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VII.4) |
| 15914 | An 'upper bound' is the greatest member of a subset; there may be several of these, so there is a 'least' one [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: A member m of M is an 'upper bound' of a subset N of M if m is not less than any member of N. A member m of M is a 'least upper bound' of N if m is an upper bound of N such that if l is any other upper bound of N, then m is less than l. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.4) | |
| A reaction: [if you don't follow that, you'll have to keep rereading it till you do] |
| 15921 | Collections of things can't be too big, but collections by a rule seem unlimited in size [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Since combinatorial collections are enumerated, some multiplicities may be too large to be gathered into combinatorial collections. But the size of a multiplicity seems quite irrelevant to whether it forms a logical connection. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], IV.2) |
| 15937 | Those who reject infinite collections also want to reject the Axiom of Choice [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Many of those who are skeptical about the existence of infinite combinatorial collections would want to doubt or deny the Axiom of Choice. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VI.2) |
| 15936 | The Power Set is just the collection of functions from one collection to another [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The Power Set is just he codification of the fact that the collection of functions from a mathematical collection to a mathematical collection is itself a mathematical collection that can serve as a domain of mathematical study. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VI.1) |
| 15899 | Replacement was immediately accepted, despite having very few implications [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Replacement (of Skolem and Fraenkel) was remarkable for its universal acceptance, though it seemed to have no consequences except for the properties of the higher reaches of the Cantorian infinite. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], I) |
| 15930 | Foundation says descending chains are of finite length, blocking circularity, or ungrounded sets [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Foundation (Zermelo 1930) says 'Every (descending) chain in which each element is a member of the previous one is of finite length'. ..This forbids circles of membership, or ungrounded sets. ..The iterative conception gives this centre stage. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.4) |
| 15920 | Pure collections of things obey Choice, but collections defined by a rule may not [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Combinatorial collections (defined just by the members) obviously obey the Axiom of Choice, while it is at best dubious whether logical connections (defined by a rule) do. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], IV.2) |
| 15898 | The controversy was not about the Axiom of Choice, but about functions as arbitrary, or given by rules [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The controversy was not about Choice per se, but about the correct notion of function - between advocates of taking mathematics to be about arbitrary functions and advocates of taking it to be about functions given by rules. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], I) |
| 15919 | The 'logical' notion of class has some kind of definition or rule to characterise the class [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The Peano-Russell notion of class is the 'logical' notion, where each collection is associated with some kind of definition or rule that characterises the members of the collection. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], IV.1) |
| 15900 | The iterative conception of set wasn't suggested until 1947 [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The iterative conception of set was not so much as suggested, let alone advocated by anyone, until 1947. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], I) |
| 15931 | The iterative conception needs the Axiom of Infinity, to show how far we can iterate [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The iterative conception of sets does not tell us how far to iterate, and so we must start with an Axiom of Infinity. It also presupposes the notion of 'transfinite iteration'. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.5) |
| 15932 | The iterative conception doesn't unify the axioms, and has had little impact on mathematical proofs [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The iterative conception does not provide a conception that unifies the axioms of set theory, ...and it has had very little impact on what theorems can be proved. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.5) | |
| A reaction: He says he would like to reject the iterative conception, but it may turn out that Foundation enables new proofs in mathematics (though it hasn't so far). |
| 15933 | Limitation of Size: if it's the same size as a set, it's a set; it uses Replacement [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Limitation of Size has it that if a collection is the same size as a set, then it is a set. The Axiom of Replacement is characteristic of limitation of size. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.5) |
| 15913 | A collection is 'well-ordered' if there is a least element, and all of its successors can be identified [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: A collection M is 'well-ordered' by a relation < if < linearly orders M with a least element, and every subset of M that has an upper bound not in it has an immediate successor. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.4) |
| 22609 | Philosophers accepted first-order logic, because they took science to be descriptive, not explanatory [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: First-order predicate logic was accepted so easily by the philosophical community …because philosophy was already geared toward a neo-Humean view of both science and philosophy as primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1.8) | |
| A reaction: The point, I think, is that explanatory thinking needs second-order logic, where the properties (or powers) are players in the game, and not just adjuncts of the catalogue of objects. I find this idea mind-expanding. (That's a good thing). |
| 15926 | Second-order logic presupposes a set of relations already fixed by the first-order domain [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The distinctive feature of second-order logic is that it presupposes that, given a domain, there is a fact of the matter about what the relations on it are, so that the range of the second-order quantifiers is fixed as soon as the domain is fixed. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.3) | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a rather large assumption, which is open to challenge. I am not sure whether it was the basis of Quine's challenge to second-order logic. He seems to have disliked its vagueness, because it didn't stick with 'objects'. |
| 15934 | Mathematical proof by contradiction needs the law of excluded middle [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The Law of Excluded Middle is (part of) the foundation of the mathematical practice of employing proofs by contradiction. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VI.1) | |
| A reaction: This applies in a lot of logic, as well as in mathematics. Come to think of it, it applies in Sudoku. |
| 15907 | Mathematics is nowadays (thanks to set theory) regarded as the study of structure, not of quantity [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Mathematics is today thought of as the study of abstract structure, not the study of quantity. That point of view arose directly out of the development of the set-theoretic notion of abstract structure. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.2) | |
| A reaction: It sounds as if Structuralism, which is a controversial view in philosophy, is a fait accompli among mathematicians. |
| 15942 | Every rational number, unlike every natural number, is divisible by some other number [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: One reason to introduce the rational numbers is that it simplifes the theory of division, since every rational number is divisible by every nonzero rational number, while the analogous statement is false for the natural numbers. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VI.3) | |
| A reaction: That is, with rations every division operation has an answer. |
| 15922 | For the real numbers to form a set, we need the Continuum Hypothesis to be true [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The chief importance of the Continuum Hypothesis for Cantor (I believe) was that it would show that the real numbers form a set, and hence that they were encompassed by his theory. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], IV.2) |
| 18250 | Cauchy gave a necessary condition for the convergence of a sequence [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The Cauchy convergence criterion for a sequence: the sequence S0,S1,... has a limit if |S(n+r) - S(n)| is less than any given quantity for every value of r and sufficiently large values of n. He proved this necessary, but not sufficient. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], 2.5) |
| 15904 | The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Roughly speaking, the upper and lower parts of the Dedekind cut correspond to the commensurable ratios greater than and less than a given incommensurable ratio. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], II.6) | |
| A reaction: Thus there is the problem of whether the contents of the gap are one unique thing, or many. |
| 15912 | Counting results in well-ordering, and well-ordering makes counting possible [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Counting a set produces a well-ordering of it. Conversely, if one has a well-ordering of a set, one can count it by following the well-ordering. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.4) | |
| A reaction: Cantor didn't mean that you could literally count the set, only in principle. |
| 15949 | The theory of infinity must rest on our inability to distinguish between very large sizes [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The indiscernibility of indefinitely large sizes will be a critical part of the theory of indefinitely large sizes. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VIII.2) |
| 15947 | The infinite is extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: My proposal is that the concept of the infinite began with an extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VIII.2) | |
| A reaction: I think it might be better to talk of an 'abstraction' than an 'extrapolition', since the latter is just more of the same, which doesn't get you to concept. Lavine spends 100 pages working out his proposal. |
| 15940 | The intuitionist endorses only the potential infinite [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The intuitionist endorse the actual finite, but only the potential infinite. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VI.2) |
| 15909 | 'Aleph-0' is cardinality of the naturals, 'aleph-1' the next cardinal, 'aleph-ω' the ω-th cardinal [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The symbol 'aleph-nought' denotes the cardinal number of the set of natural numbers. The symbol 'aleph-one' denotes the next larger cardinal number. 'Aleph-omega' denotes the omega-th cardinal number. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.3) |
| 15915 | Ordinals are basic to Cantor's transfinite, to count the sets [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The ordinals are basic because the transfinite sets are those that can be counted, or (equivalently for Cantor), those that can be numbered by an ordinal or are well-ordered. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.4) | |
| A reaction: Lavine observes (p.55) that for Cantor 'countable' meant 'countable by God'! |
| 15917 | Paradox: the class of all ordinals is well-ordered, so must have an ordinal as type - giving a bigger ordinal [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The paradox of the largest ordinal (the 'Burali-Forti') is that the class of all ordinal numbers is apparently well-ordered, and so it has an ordinal number as order type, which must be the largest ordinal - but all ordinals can be increased by one. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.5) |
| 15918 | Paradox: there is no largest cardinal, but the class of everything seems to be the largest [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: The paradox of the largest cardinal ('Cantor's Paradox') says the diagonal argument shows there is no largest cardinal, but the class of all individuals (including the classes) must be the largest cardinal number. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], III.5) |
| 15929 | Set theory will found all of mathematics - except for the notion of proof [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Every theorem of mathematics has a counterpart with set theory - ...but that theory cannot serve as a basis for the notion of proof. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.3) |
| 15935 | Modern mathematics works up to isomorphism, and doesn't care what things 'really are' [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: In modern mathematics virtually all work is only up to isomorphism and no one cares what the numbers or points and lines 'really are'. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], VI.1) | |
| A reaction: At least that leaves the field open for philosophers, because we do care what things really are. So should everybody else, but there is no persuading some people. |
| 15928 | Intuitionism rejects set-theory to found mathematics [Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Intuitionism in philosophy of mathematics rejects set-theoretic foundations. | |
| From: Shaughan Lavine (Understanding the Infinite [1994], V.3 n33) |
| 22629 | Basic processes are said to be either physical, or organic, or psychological [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Process philosophy is considered to include ideas of process as basically physical (Whitehead 1929), as basically organic (Bergson 1910), and as basically psychological (James 1890). | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 7.4) | |
| A reaction: I take Whitehead to be the only serious contender here. |
| 22633 | Indirect realists are cautious about the manifest image, and prefer the scientific image [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: The indirect realist regards the manifest image with scepticism and contrasts it to the scientific image. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 8.13) | |
| A reaction: This is why indirect realism is the best view for a realist who largely accepts the authority of science, Philosophers can wallow in the manifest image all they like (and most of them seem to love it), but truth is in the scientific image. |
| 22606 | Neo-Humeans say there are no substantial connections between anything [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Neo-Humean metaphysics holds the view that there are no substantial connections between anything in this world. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1) | |
| A reaction: A very illuminating comment. This exactly fits Lewis's great 'mosaic' of facts. The challenge is to say what 'substantial' relations there might be, but I'm quite happy to have a go at that. |
| 22631 | Properties are said to be categorical qualities or non-qualitative dispositions [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: It is said that that properties divide into two mutually exclusive types—non-dispositional qualities (sometimes called 'categorical properties’) vs. non-qualitative dispositions—of which the qualities are more fundamental than dispositions. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 8) | |
| A reaction: It is standardly understood that the qualitative categorical properties are more fundamental. Fans of powers (such as Ingthorsson and myself) either favour the dispositional properties, or reject the distinction. |
| 22632 | Physics understands the charge of an electron as a power, not as a quality [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Is the negative charge of an electron a quality or power? It is clear that physics describes the nature of charge only in terms of what its bearer can do. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 8.06) | |
| A reaction: The point is that an electron has properties, even though it has no observable qualities. Ingthorsson says the scientific concept of qualities is entirely about what something can do, and ot how it is perceived. |
| 22627 | Compound objects are processes, insofar as change is essential to them [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Compound objects are to be considered processes, if by ‘process’ we mean any entity for which change is essential for its continued existence. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 7) | |
| A reaction: This doesn't seem to matter much, except to challenge those who say that reality consists of processes, and therefore not of substances. |
| 22613 | Most materialist views postulate smallest indivisible components which are permanent [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Most materialist ontologies of the past postulate that the world ultimately consists of smallest indivisible component parts that persist because they must; they are permanent. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: Van Inwagen is notable for this view. Ingthorsson says the theory is to explain medium-sized change, while denying that anything comes to be out of nothing. Theology may lurk in the background. Simple persistance won't explain compound persistance. |
| 22612 | Endurance and perdurance just show the consequences of A or B series time [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Endurance and perdurance are not explanations, but are merely characterisations of persistance with the constraints imposed by either an A or a B view of time. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: This is 3-D asnd 4-D objects. A simple and illuminating observation. I love reading broad brush books that make all these simple connections between what seem isolated theories in philosophy. These links are the heart of the subject. |
| 22625 | Science suggests causal aspects of the constitution and persistance of objects [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: There are very obvious causal aspects to the constitution and continued existence of compound entities, especially in light of the scientific image of the world. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 6) | |
| A reaction: I like this a lot. He aims to explain constitution and persistance, rather than just describing or characterising them, and causal binding seems the obvious thought. There are still intermittent and distributed objects, like a dismantled clock. |
| 22620 | If causation involves production, that needs persisting objects [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: If causation involves production, then things must endure rather than perdure, because perdurance is incompatible with production, if creation ex nihilo is ruled out. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 4.10) | |
| A reaction: That is, objects must persist over time. Cannot an account of production be given in terms of time-sliceS (or whatever)? 3-D perdurantists obviously have an account of change. He says it also needs the A-series view of time. |
| 22636 | Every philosophical theory must be true in some possible world, so the ontology is hopeless [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Possible worlds ontology appears to be plentiful enough to allow every philosophical theory to be true in some world or other, and that is why I cannot consider it an ontologically serious theory. It admits everything and forbids nothing | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 9.6) | |
| A reaction: Nice. Be careful what you wish for. The theory would have to be consistent (unless we also accept impossible worlds). |
| 22638 | Worlds may differ in various respects, but no overall similarity of worlds is implied [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Even if possible worlds could differ in many different respects, there is no useful way to combine these different respects into one measure of overall comparative similarity. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 9.7) | |
| A reaction: [idea of Michael Moreau 2010] This is an objection to the use of 'close' possible worlds in causation theories. The idea is true in general of the concept of similarity. It makes sense of specific 'respects', but not really of two whole objects. |
| 7903 | The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna] |
| Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom. | |
| From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88) | |
| A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate'). |
| 22605 | Humeans describe the surface of causation, while powers accounts aim at deeper explanations [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Humeans attempt to describe causation without any deeper ontological commitments, while powers based accounts attempt to explain why causation occurs in the way it is described. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1) | |
| A reaction: Exactly the view I have reached. The Humean view is correct but superficial. A perfect example of my allegiance to Explanatory Empiricism. |
| 22607 | Time and space are not causal, but they determine natural phenomena [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Time and space are significant determinants of natural phenomena, and yet are not (typically) regarded as causal determinants | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: I like the word 'determinants'. Metaphysics largely concerns what determines what. I'm struggling to think of examples of this (which he does not give). Decay takes time, but isn't determined by time. Is a light cone a determinant? |
| 22608 | Casuation is the transmission of conserved quantities between causal processes [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Causal process theories state that causation needs to be understood in terms of causal processes and their interactions, in which conserved quantities are transmitted between causal processes. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Sounds a bit circular, but the idea of transmission of something is obviously the main point. I like this idea a lot (because it is so naturalistic), but rarely find it taken seriously. Energy is usually the quantity picked out. |
| 22621 | Causation as transfer only works for asymmetric interactions [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: The transference model of causation only works for asymmetric interactions. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 4.11) | |
| A reaction: This is usually the transfer of energy. I liked the theory until I read this. |
| 22614 | Interventionist causal theory says it gets a reliable result whenever you manipulate it [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: The core of agency and interventionist theories of causation is that c counts as the cause of e iff E reliably appears and disappears when you manipulate C. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: [C is the type of c; E is the type of e] James Woodward champions this view. Ingthorsson objects that the theory offers no explanation of the appearances and disappearances. You can't manipulate black holes… |
| 22639 | Causal events are always reciprocal, and there is no distinction of action and reaction [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: I accept the reciprocity of interactions, and abandon the Agent vs.Patient distinction, so we can no longer talk of the contribution of each as ontologically different types of cause. In interactions, neither action nor reaction can be separated. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 10.3) | |
| A reaction: His point is that we are misled by real world happenings, where one component is usually more powerful than the other (such as ball dropped onto a pillow). Modern science endorses his view. Mumford and Anjum seem to agree, and so do I. |
| 22615 | One effect cannot act on a second effect in causation, because the second doesn't yet exist [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Hobbes implies that a Kim-style event e1 existing at t1 cannot possibly act on an effect e2 at t2, because that effect does not exist until the Agent has worked its effect on the Patient to provoke a change, thus bringing the effect into existence. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 3.08) | |
| A reaction: [Hobbes Elements of Phil 1656 II.IX.1] Ingthorsson says that the Hobbes view is the traditional 'standard' view, that objects (and not events) are the causal relata. A strong objection to events as the causal relata. Realists need objects. |
| 22616 | Empiricists preferred events to objects as the relata, because they have observable motions [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: It is the empiricists' refusal to deal with anything other than observable events that motivated the shift in conception of efficient causation …to influence by an event on another event (one motion on another) rather than by an object on an object. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 3.10) | |
| A reaction: I suppose events supply the necessary activity, whereas objects seem to be too passive for the job - because that's how they look. Ingthorsson persuades that objects are the correct causal relata, for those of us who believe in powers. |
| 22617 | Science now says all actions are reciprocal, not unidirectional [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: It is now accepted as a fact of modern science that unidirectional actions do not exist, and that all interactions are instead thoroughly reciprocal. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 3.10) | |
| A reaction: Ingthorsson says this undermines the standard traditional view (Hobbes etc) of Agent and Patient, with A having active powers and P having passive powers. All influences are mutual, it seems. Passive powers are active structures? |
| 22619 | Causes are not agents; the whole interaction is the cause, and the changed compound is the effect [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: By abandoning the standard view that causes are ‘extrinsic motive Agents’, an idea from pre-Newtonian physics, we are free to conceive of the interaction as a whole as the cause, and the change in the compound whole of interacting things as the effect. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 4.06) | |
| A reaction: Ingthorsson persuasively presents this as the correct account, as understood by modern science. It is not cause-then-effect. It is kerfuffle, then aftermath. |
| 22635 | People only accept the counterfactual when they know the underlying cause [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: I doubt that anyone will accept any counterfactual as true unless they believe they know the underlying causality. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 9.3) | |
| A reaction: Correct. Almost any example will support it. Compare coincidences and true causes. |
| 22634 | Counterfactuals don't explain causation, but causation can explain counterfactuals [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: I cannot identify any prima facie reason to think that causation can be explained in counterfactual terms, but plenty to think that causation can explain counterfactuals. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 9.1) | |
| A reaction: Love it. Treating causation as counterfactual dependency is hopelessly superficial. What is the reality that is involved? He cites the second law of motion. |
| 22637 | Counterfactual theories are false in possible worlds where causation is actual [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: if there are worlds where there are causal powers and/or lawful connections, then they are worlds in which the counterfactual theory of causation is false, because there causes produce the effects, regardless of any possible world. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 9.6) | |
| A reaction: A nice modern instance of turning the tables. Come to think of it, possible worlds theories are just asking for that. Are there possible worlds in which there are no other possible worlds? Or the possible worlds are inaccessible? |
| 22624 | A cause can fail to produce its normal effect, by prevention, pre-emption, finks or antidotes [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Counterexamples involving prevention and/or interference have come to be roughly divided into four main categories: (i) prevention, (ii) pre-emption, (iii) finks and (iv) antidotes. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: These are the reasons why necessity is denied in causation. i) is in the initial circumstances, ii) is another cause getting there first, iii) is a defusing action in the agent, iv) is a defusing action in the patient. No necessity if one is possible. |
| 22622 | Any process can go backwards or forwards in time without violating the basic laws of physics [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Because it makes no difference to exchange the time variable t with its contrary -t, in the fundamental laws of physics, any process can be described as going either backwards or forwards in time, without violating those laws. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 4.13) | |
| A reaction: A few philosophers read a lot into this, but I don't. The inverse scenario may not breach the laws of physics, but it does involve time going backwards, which I think we can skip for now. Entropy would be interesting. Can information flow backwards? |
| 22618 | In modern physics the first and second laws of motion (unlike the third) fail at extremes [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: While the first and second laws of motion are known to fail in the domain of very fast-moving and massive objects (i.e. where relativity deviates from classical mechanics) as well as in the quantum realm, the third law is still assumed to hold good. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 4.04) | |
| A reaction: This implies a universal status for the third law (equal and opposite reactions), which the other two lack. Ingthorsson sees this as crucial for our understanding of causation. |
| 22630 | If particles have decay rates, they can't really be elementary, in the sense of indivisible [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: We may wonder whether the fact that physics has calculated (and for some, confirmed) the decay rate of elementary particles can be a reason to think that they cannot really be ‘elementary’ in the philosophical sense of ‘indivisible’. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 7.6) | |
| A reaction: I don't think anything can ever conclusively be labelled as 'elementary', but this idea offers a reason for doubting whether a candidate particle is so basic. Does decay imply having parts? |
| 22610 | It is difficult to handle presentism in first-order logic [Ingthorsson] |
| Full Idea: Contemporary philosophers are not comfortable with presentism, because it is difficult to deal with presentism in the language of first-order predicate logic. | |
| From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1.8) | |
| A reaction: Presumable that logic relies on objects which endure through time, or at least have a past. Second-order logic is better able to deal with processes, which only exist in the present, but nevertheless have an integral past and future. ? |