Timeline for Was logic invented or discovered?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17 at 0:14 | vote | accept | user80226 | ||
| Oct 3 at 1:39 | comment | added | Dcleve | @user80226 - Implication is a logical necessity relation that is solely based on language rules and assumed logic system. Causation is a logical necessity relation that is based on a logic relation that has become embedded in the physical world. | |
| Oct 1 at 23:15 | comment | added | user80226 | @JD Related as well: If physics can be reduced to mathematics (and thus to logic), does this mean that (physical) causation is ultimately reducible to implication? | |
| Oct 1 at 23:05 | comment | added | J D | @user80226 Indeed. Logical implication and causality are generally held as distinct. | |
| Oct 1 at 22:43 | comment | added | user80226 | @JD and Dcleve, this question is very much related to what you are discussing: What is the difference between implication and causality? | |
| Oct 1 at 21:10 | comment | added | Dcleve | @JD Read the paragraph on page xv of your reference, starting with "Ten years ago...." Pearl is describing causation as a logic, and "the fundamental building blocks of both physical reality and our human understanding of that reality". And rejects his prior "abbreviating intricate patterns of probabilistic relationships" correlation views. Also even his prior "correlation" views held that the probabilistic relationships were in the world, not in our minds. I think you are misreading Pearl. | |
| Oct 1 at 20:16 | comment | added | J D | I didn't downvote, but I think the modern presumption is that causality is essentially a special case of correlation. Pearl has the definitive work on formal methods to determine causality (AFAIK): Causality, 2nd Ed.. Thus, it's seen at least partially as a construct of the mind. | |
| Oct 1 at 20:15 | comment | added | J D | In normal speech, logical consequence and cause and effect are used interchangeably, but it might be blurring the distinction between logical consequence and causation. The former is expression of reason and logic, and the latter contains putative assertions about reality. It's in this broader sense that metaphysics is normally interrelated to ontology and epistemology but broadened to include the "the basic structure of reality" | |
| Oct 1 at 20:07 | comment | added | Dcleve | @JD Hmm. I thought it was obviously a logical coupling between events. The logic coupling is what makes something a "cause" rather than a "correlation". Metaphysics, meanwhile, I consider to be epistemology plus ontology. | |
| Oct 1 at 19:22 | comment | added | J D | Why is it you don't hold that causation is a metaphysical relation? | |
| Oct 1 at 18:23 | history | answered | Dcleve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |