If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
My speedometer would be graduated in "C", and I could do 180 easy.
- apophenia
- IN DAMNATIO MEMORIAE
- Posts: 3373
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
- About me: A bird without a feather, a gull without a sea, a flock without a shore.
- Location: Farther. Always farther.
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.

- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
I thought the concept of causality had been comprehensively destroyed at least by the time David Hume had pulled it to pieces.apophenia wrote:Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74174
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
So he caused the destruction of the said concept, I take it...Seraph wrote:I thought the concept of causality had been comprehensively destroyed at least by the time David Hume had pulled it to pieces.apophenia wrote:Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
Lol. Good one.JimC wrote:So he caused the destruction of the said concept, I take it...Seraph wrote:I thought the concept of causality had been comprehensively destroyed at least by the time David Hume had pulled it to pieces.apophenia wrote:Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.

1. He wasn't the first person to recognise the problem with induction and causation.
2. Most people still accept the concept of causality.
3. If most people didn't, the best you can say is that there is a correlation between Hume's writing on the topic and popular rejection of that concept.
So, that's a triple no.

As an afterthought, I'm not sure if "the law of causality" can even be rightfully regarded as a law of nature.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74174
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
I rather think causality is a little like free-will - both are very difficult to defend on a philosophical basis, but both are quite handy as pragmatic guides to everyday life...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
Yes, they are indeed, but neither are necessary on pragmatic grounds. In science (and everyday life for that matter) correlation does the same job, and in social terms behaviourism does everything (except explain what "good" and "evil" is) the notion of free will is used for.JimC wrote:I rather think causality is a little like free-will - both are very difficult to defend on a philosophical basis, but both are quite handy as pragmatic guides to everyday life...
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- apophenia
- IN DAMNATIO MEMORIAE
- Posts: 3373
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
- About me: A bird without a feather, a gull without a sea, a flock without a shore.
- Location: Farther. Always farther.
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
Hume was a strict empiricist and as such couldn't derive causality from experience alone. It's unclear whether he would or would not have accepted causality on, say, Kantian grounds. Hume was also wont to argue the acceptance of certain things on the ground of mental habit or custom, even if they couldn't be strictly derived. Of course, this is somewhat beside the point, as the concept of causality and causality itself are not the same, and it's unclear that the concept is a requisite.

- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?
You don't say!apophenia wrote:Hume was a strict empiricist...

What else is there? Knowledge through pure reason and logic? intuition? Metaphysical insights? LSD? Flagellation? Dreams? Revelation? Transcendental meditation? Tarot card readings? Holy texts? A potpourri thereof?
Serious question. Do tell.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests