The universe is not caused.

It can exist in our minds. So we may say that it doesnt exists in the world, but does in our minds.

I can create a story. It will exist in my mind, not in the world.

Personally I think it should be reserved for "everything that exists", but we cant really decide what a word will mean...

Not a global decision, at least. Not how the world is today.

Well, I see causality as an interpretation of "the facts." But anyway, I like Turing, at least what I know about him, so I don't want to start our conversation w/ any sort of unpleasant argument.

I think causality is quite justified pragmatically, but not so much in a strictly logical sense. I haven't heard a good counter to Hume yet.
Why should the future resemble the past? Because it always has? But that would be a circular argument....

LAW is what justifies without being justified !


...The Ultimate Cause is not caused, once it is the true reason of all there is...

---------- Post added 03-20-2010 at 05:19 PM ----------

Yes, for practical purposes, I agree. But I view philosophy as something that moves beyond the merely practical.

Our minds are in the world. So what exists in our minds also exists in the world. But, of course, since there is a difference between the idea or the concept of a unicorn, it does not follow that because the concept or the idea of a unicorn exists, that unicorns exist. That would be like saying that because I am searching for the Fountain of Youth, that the Fountain of Youth exists.

The claim that there are physical necessities solves many problems in philosophy, and that is why it is a superior view than it` s competition. I never say anything about being practical.

Physical necessities = theology in disguise. Regularity is the superior view.

Read this article: Laws of Nature [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Read this book: "The Concept of Physical Law", by Norman Swartz

How is it a superior view? In the first article, the author says Necessitarians will say that an electron has a certain charge and that this is a law of nature.

Would a Regularist say that this isn't a law... it's only observed?

Although there are problems aplenty in Tarski's theory of truth (i.e. the semantic theory of truth, also called the "correspondence theory of truth"), it is the best theory we have. Its core concept is that statements (or propositions) are true if they describe the world the way it is, and they are false otherwise. Put metaphorically, we can say that truth flows to propositions from the way the world is. Propositions 'take their truth' from the world; they do not impose their truth on the world. If two days before an election, Tom says "Sylvia will win", and two days after the election, Marcus says, "Sylvia won", then whether these statements are true or false depends on whether or not Sylvia is elected. If she is, both statements are true; if she is not, then both statements are false. But the truth or falsity of those statements does not bring about her winning (or losing), or cause her to win (or lose), the election. Whether she wins or loses is up to the voters, not to certain statements.

Necessitarians - unwittingly perhaps - turn the semantic theory of truth on its head. Instead of having propositions taking their truth from the way the world is, they argue that certain propositions - namely the laws of nature - impose truth on the world.

No, we both agree it's a law of nature. The disagreement is over what that entails.

The key section in that entire article is this:

If you think laws of nature control the universe, impose themselves on it so that it conforms to the truth of the laws, you have a fairly theological view of laws. They are like decrees of order handed down from a deity.

If you think laws of nature control the universe, impose themselves on it so that it conforms to the truth of the laws, you have a fairly theological view of laws. They are like decrees of order handed down from a deity.

That icon's head is made of rubber. It doesn't hurt when he bangs it against the wall.

The only point I was making is that it's a really wise and helpful physics teacher who draws a student's attention to the nature of the model that is inherent in any law. Notice: Ohm's Law and Poiseuille's Law. They're very similar for a reason: they originate in the same model that analyzes an event into three parts: potential, kinetic, and resistive.

Observed information didn't passively flow into the mind that generated these laws. The model came first in the same way the model for the railroad inspired the creation of universal telephone service.

The reason this is helpful to the student is that it prepares him or her to identify incorrect usage of a law. It also helps the student be more open to change in our understanding of the world. If the student thought the laws originated in observation, he or she might make the fatal mistake of imagining the model must be correct because experimentation proves its predictive ability. Experimentation does not verify the basic premises of the model. It only shows that the model works practically. Knowing this, the student won't be astounded to find out that Einstein's model for gravity is allows more accurate predictions of gravity's effects than Newton's.

That icon's head is made of rubber. It doesn't hurt when he bangs it against the wall.

The only point I was making is that it's a really wise and helpful physics teacher who draws a student's attention to the nature of the model that is inherent in any law. Notice: Ohm's Law and Poiseuille's Law. They're very similar for a reason: they originate in the same model that analyzes an event into three parts: potential, kinetic, and resistive.

Observed information didn't passively flow into the mind that generated these laws. The model came first in the same way the model for the railroad inspired the creation of universal telephone service.

The reason this is helpful to the student is that it prepares him or her to identify incorrect usage of a law. It also helps the student be more open to change in our understanding of the world. If the student thought the laws originated in observation, he or she might make the fatal mistake of imagining the model must be correct because experimentation proves its predictive ability. Experimentation does not verify the basic premises of the model. It only shows that the model works practically. Knowing this, the student won't be astounded to find out that Einstein's model for gravity is allows more accurate predictions of gravity's effects than Newton's.

I'm taking the statement "all electrons have identical charges" as true. It's true now and always will be. I don't doubt that, at least, I'm not here to argue about the truth of that statement. Let's just take it, or any other law-like statement, as true for the sake of argument.

The difference between necessity and regularity is that, given the truth of such a statement, Necessitarians claim that such statements are true therefore the universe behaves the way it does. The universe follows the law.

On the other hand, Regularists claim that such statements are true because the universe behaves the way it does. The law follows the universe.

Right. I understand. Regularists are strongly opposed to any form of theism. .

You seem to see philosophy through only one prism. Can't one believe that the laws of nature are not laws created by God? The word, "law" is ambiguous as between prescriptive and descriptive laws. There is no good reason a regularist need be an atheist, or even an agnostic, since a non-regularist need not be a theist. This supposed connection never even occurred to me before your post.

I'm no expert on regularism. It looks to me like it's essentially abhorrence of theism. They rightly notice that basic physics contains perspectives that evolved from older theistic ones. If that problem needs to be solved, you can't do it by suddenly saying "no more speaking of things being caused, only say things happen."

Well, I don't really like changing the meaning of words. I think there's a lot of baggage on the word "cause" and re-appropriating it for our purposes will lead to some misunderstanding. However, some people agree with you and there is a definition of causation that fits with regularity. It was made famous by David Hume.

A causes B if B regularly follows A spatio-temporally.

Since the light coming on regularly follows my flipping the light switch then my flipping the light switch "caused" the light to come on.

On this view, causation is nothing more than regularity, hence the name.